2
   

Fear of a Black President

 
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 Jul, 2008 04:44 pm
Oh, now I understand: it's god's words that disallows taxation to the rich.
Now, that's rich!
0 Replies
 
hamburger
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 Jul, 2008 05:12 pm
ican wrote (in reverse order) :


Quote:
The wealthy get pulled down when they suffer a reduction in profits. If that reduction continues long enough, the wealthy suffer loses. If the losses continue long enough, the wealthy become bankrupt. If the wealthy suffer all this, so do their employees and investors: reduction of incomes; loss of incomes; loss of jobs. If the wealthy suffer all this, there are fewer products for me to buy. If the wealthy suffer this, less is invested by them in making life better. If all that happens, I am more easily victimized by a growing perpetual power seeking government.


so i expect there to be FEWER wealthy people now ("The wealthy get pulled down when they suffer ..." )

Quote:
By the way, I was ecstatic when I learned that in less than the last 50 years, the total number of billionaires increased from 13 to 500.


as fred willard says : "what happen ? "
billionaires got pulled DOWN from 13 to 500 ?
i better study the NEW MATH !
Laughing
hbg

i don't see anything wrong with ALL KINDS OF PEOPLE make oodles of money !
we are quite happy with what we have - we are not looking for anything more .
i do have difficulty understanding when we cannot look after the most vulnerable of the people when other people have more than they can ever use .
(the answer for those most vulnerable is all too often : " they can rely on charity - there are soup-kitchens - shelters - free clinics ... ... ! " .
i do see a lot wrong with that !)
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 Jul, 2008 05:27 pm
Me too, hbg. I mean, I see a lot of wrong in assuming people can rely on soup kitchens for their food - especially the children.
0 Replies
 
hamburger
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 Jul, 2008 05:33 pm
c. i. :
i hope you studied the new math !
remember : going downhill from 13 to 500 ! :wink:
things are desparate for the billionaire class , really desparate !
before we know it , there won't be any left ! Shocked
hbg
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 Jul, 2008 05:55 pm
They need more tax cuts! Never mind that those children who aren't even working will be paying on "our" debt. Yeah, we can't "steal" from the rich; let's let our children pay for all of today's overspending by our government.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 Jul, 2008 06:12 pm
cicerone imposter wrote:
Oh, now I understand: it's god's words that disallows taxation to the rich.
Now, that's rich!

Laughing
Gee<> I thought taxing each dollar of the rich's income at a greater rate than taxing each dollar of the non-rich's income is stealing from the rich. God said: thou shall not steal. But then what the hell does God know Question
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 Jul, 2008 06:18 pm
hamburger wrote:
c. i. :
i hope you studied the new math !
remember : going downhill from 13 to 500 ! :wink:
things are desparate for the billionaire class , really desparate !
before we know it , there won't be any left ! Shocked
hbg

Laughing
Well hamburger, at least you're good for a laugh.

I still am ecstatic that in less than 50 years, the total number of USA billionaires increased from 13 to 500.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 Jul, 2008 06:26 pm
cicerone imposter wrote:
They need more tax cuts! Never mind that those children who aren't even working will be paying on "our" debt. Yeah, we can't "steal" from the rich; let's let our children pay for all of today's overspending by our government.


I've got a fantastic idea. Let's get our government to cut out the rest of its todays and all of its tomorrows overspending.

Then charity can be strictly private and far more effective in helping people become self-reliant than all those charities run by power seeking government bureaucrats. All the government charities manage to do besides buy votes is increase the number of their clientele who are not self-reliant.
0 Replies
 
hamburger
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 Jul, 2008 06:40 pm
ican wrote :

Quote:
Then charity can be strictly private and far more effective than all those charities run by power seeking government bureaucrats. All the government charities manage to do besides buy votes is increase the number of their clientele.


i could NEVER understand the need for charity of any kind that involves money (and i'm too old now to change my mind) .
every citizen should have the right to a job or sufficient money for LIVING EXPENSES (accomodation , food , medical needs) .

if people can work , give them a job with a living wage , if they cannot work for whatever reason , give them an income that will take care of their living expenses .

why we would ask anyone to live on charity/handouts , simply eacapes me !

in ontario we even have casinos called CHARITY CASINOS ! Evil or Very Mad Rolling Eyes
hbg
0 Replies
 
hamburger
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 Jul, 2008 06:50 pm
let me repeat for ican's amusement :

Quote:
ican wrote (in reverse order) :


Quote:
Quote:
The wealthy get pulled down when they suffer a reduction in profits. If that reduction continues long enough, the wealthy suffer loses. If the losses continue long enough, the wealthy become bankrupt. If the wealthy suffer all this, so do their employees and investors: reduction of incomes; loss of incomes; loss of jobs. If the wealthy suffer all this, there are fewer products for me to buy. If the wealthy suffer this, less is invested by them in making life better. If all that happens, I am more easily victimized by a growing perpetual power seeking government.



hbg added : so i expect there to be FEWER wealthy people now ("The wealthy get pulled down when they suffer ..." )
Quote:

Quote:
By the way, I was ecstatic when I learned that in less than the last 50 years, the total number of billionaires increased from 13 to 500.



as fred willard says : "what happen ? "
billionaires got pulled DOWN from 13 to 500 ? i better study the NEW MATH !


ican :
i do enjoy these exchanges with you , though i don't always agree with you !
you always make your point and i find that you are NEVER condescending or mean : I APPRECIATE THAT !
let's continue on that basis !
hbg
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 Jul, 2008 06:51 pm
hamburger wrote:
ican wrote :

Quote:
Then charity can be strictly private and far more effective than all those charities run by power seeking government bureaucrats. All the government charities manage to do besides buy votes is increase the number of their clientele.


i could NEVER understand the need for charity of any kind that involves money (and i'm too old now to change my mind) .
every citizen should have the right to a job or sufficient money for LIVING EXPENSES (accomodation , food , medical needs) .

if people can work , give them a job with a living wage , if they cannot work for whatever reason , give them an income that will take care of their living expenses .

why we would ask anyone to live on charity/handouts , simply eacapes me !

in ontario we even have casinos called CHARITY CASINOS ! Evil or Very Mad Rolling Eyes
hbg

All the government charities manage to do besides buy votes is increase the number of their clientele who are not self-reliant.

You wrote (emphasis mine):
Quote:
if people can work , give them a job with a living wage , if they cannot work for whatever reason , give them an income that will take care of their living expenses .

That's charity!

The only question is who shall give them?

Shall it be government?

Shall it be profitable private enterprises?

Shall it be non-profitable enterprises voluntarily contributed to by profitable enterprises?
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 Jul, 2008 06:53 pm
ican wrote: I've got a fantastic idea. Let's get our government to cut out the rest of its todays and all of its tomorrows overspending.


I didn't understand until now that you're really a comedian.
0 Replies
 
hamburger
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 Jul, 2008 06:58 pm
ican wrote :

Quote:
You wrote (emphasis mine):
Quote:
Quote:
if people can work , give them a job with a living wage , if they cannot work for whatever reason , give them an income that will take care of their living expenses .


That's charity!


imo that is not charity , but should be the right of every citizen .
(i know that will never happen :wink: )
hbg
0 Replies
 
Advocate
 
  1  
Reply Sat 12 Jul, 2008 08:08 am
Foxfyre wrote:
A government that can confiscate the property of the wealthy for no other reason that 'they don't deserve to be so wealthy' is a government that can and will take whatever it wants from you.


Under the constitution, a person whose property is confiscated is entitled to fair compensation.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Sat 12 Jul, 2008 08:27 am
Advocate wrote:
Foxfyre wrote:
A government that can confiscate the property of the wealthy for no other reason that 'they don't deserve to be so wealthy' is a government that can and will take whatever it wants from you.


Under the constitution, a person whose property is confiscated is entitled to fair compensation.


Not in the world of the liberal in the USA. Most have no problem at all with the government forcibly confiscating wealth from Citizen A who honorably earned it and transferring it to Citizen B who didn't or using it to curry favor with Citizen B. If you scratch deep enough, the rationale is some version of it is not fair that some be wealthy while others are poor.

And in case somebody missed it in Economic 101, that which we earn through the sweat of our labor or which is otherwise honorably acquired is our property. Or it once was considered to be.
0 Replies
 
real life
 
  1  
Reply Sat 12 Jul, 2008 08:27 am
Foxfyre wrote:
A government that can confiscate the property of the wealthy for no other reason that 'they don't deserve to be so wealthy' is a government that can and will take whatever it wants from you.


Very succinctly put, Foxfyre.

The rationale that liberals use to support their confiscation is nothing more than class envy.

The problem is that there is no such thing as 'increasing taxes only the on rich'

In any economy, but especially in ours, all are interdependent players.

Increasing taxes on one is increasing taxes on all, in effect.

If we decide to tax doctors because they are wealthy, where will they get the extra dough to pay the increased load?

Well, they will simply increase their fees, or cut jobs, or both.

How this benefits the poor and middle class is left unexplained by the genius liberals.
0 Replies
 
Advocate
 
  1  
Reply Sat 12 Jul, 2008 09:13 am
We have pretty much always had an ability-to-pay income tax system. That is what graduated rates provide. Since the wealthy have such a wildly-disproportionate share of the income and wealth, provided by the country's economic system, it is only fair that they pay a higher percentage.

I guess you guys would rather continue to borrow and spend, running up the national debt, until our fiat money is totally worthless.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Sat 12 Jul, 2008 09:17 am
Advocate wrote:
We have pretty much always had an ability-to-pay income tax system. That is what graduated rates provide. Since the wealthy have such a wildly-disproportionate share of the income and wealth, provided by the country's economic system, it is only fair that they pay a higher percentage.

I guess you guys would rather continue to borrow and spend, running up the national debt, until our fiat money is totally worthless.


And there you have it. The liberal point of view, non sequitur and all. Thanks for affirming my perception about that.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sat 12 Jul, 2008 09:20 am
Advocate wrote:
We have pretty much always had an ability-to-pay income tax system. That is what graduated rates provide. Since the wealthy have such a wildly-disproportionate share of the income and wealth, provided by the country's economic system, it is only fair that they pay a higher percentage.

I guess you guys would rather continue to borrow and spend, running up the national debt, until our fiat money is totally worthless.


It's on its way to that "worthless" value now; the irony is that the wealthy with all their wealth are losing value just because they are not paying their fair share of taxes to keep our deficit in control. The longer they wait, the more value they lose. That's what happens when greed takes over; there's no way to require that much wealth in one's lifetime.

Warren Buffett is a good example; he gave most of his wealth to the Bill Gate's Trust for charity; at least his heart's in the right place. For those republicans saying it's stealing from A to pay B has no idea about economics, money/finance, or what's good for our country. They spew the conservative mantra with total ignorance.
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Sat 12 Jul, 2008 09:56 am
real life wrote:

Increasing taxes on one is increasing taxes on all, in effect.

If we decide to tax doctors because they are wealthy, where will they get the extra dough to pay the increased load?

Well, they will simply increase their fees, or cut jobs, or both.

How this benefits the poor and middle class is left unexplained by the genius liberals.


Yup, we'd better go to McCain or Bush, those two economic geniuses.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.44 seconds on 10/07/2024 at 11:21:20