Why should rich people pay a greater share of their wealth to taxes?

@joefromchicago,

I think what he did was consult the actuary tables and set an age limit that few at the time could be expected to attain. In other words, a big, humanitarian sounding revenue raiser.

1 Reply

@Thomas,

Thomas wrote:

Think of the Kaiser as a monarchistic companion to Teddy Roosevelt. Do you think the Spanish-American war had anything to do with Roosevelt's trust-busting?

If you knew a little more history, i'd say you should be embarrassed. Theodore Roosevelt, Jr., did not start the Spanish-American War (although he'd have been willing), he participated in it. He didn't even occupy a particularly high office at the time, either. He was the Assistant Secretary of the Navy. Having been to Cuba, though, as President, Roosevelt avoided wars, and, in fact was awarded the Nobel Peace prize for brokering a peace between Russia and Japan.

2 Replies

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

Thomas wrote:
Think of the Kaiser as a monarchistic companion to Teddy Roosevelt. Do you think the Spanish-American war had anything to do with Roosevelt's trust-busting?

If you knew a little more history, i'd say you should be embarrassed. Theodore Roosevelt, Jr., did not start the Spanish-American War (although he'd have been willing), he participated in it. He didn't even occupy a particularly high office at the time, either. He was the Assistant Secretary of the Navy. Having been to Cuba, though, as President, Roosevelt avoided wars, and, in fact was awarded the Nobel Peace prize for brokering a peace between Russia and Japan.

He did want Peurto Rico as a coaling station and did not mind a little war to get it...

1 Reply

@Fido,

Quote:

He didn't even occupy a particularly high office at the time, either. He was the Assistant Secretary of the Navy.

However he did orders the US fleet around as if he was president when the Secretary of the Navy was out of touch for a time.

0 Replies

The democrats could rob the rich of every single dollar they have and
they would be able to pay off roughly 4% of Obama's astronomical dept.

2 Replies

@roger,

roger wrote:

I think what he did was consult the actuary tables and set an age limit that few at the time could be expected to attain. In other words, a big, humanitarian sounding revenue raiser.

Bismarck's first social welfare initiative was a national health insurance scheme for workers. Old age pensions didn't arrive until a few years later, and worker contributions were placed in a separate fund (i.e. a "lockbox"), not in the general fund. No revenue would have accrued to the state.

http://assets.gearlive.com/tvenvy/blogimages/the-more-you-know-nbc.jpg

0 Replies

While it is true that as Acting Secretary in the absence of the Secretary of the Navy, Roosevelt did his damnedest to position American naval vessels for a war in the Carribean, you jokers have some kind of superstitious awe of the man going on. Sure, he wanted war with Spain, but he didn't make Ameican policy, and once the war began he had absolutely no influence on military policy or operational plans. He was a Lt. Colonel, second in command of the First Volunteer Cavalry, which was commanded by Leonard Wood. Roosevelt had absolutely no authority to decide whether nor not Puerto Rico was invaded. Once he resigned from the Navy Department, he became just another mid-level officer with no command auhtority except in the absence of his regimental commander. The two of you jokers just make it up as you go along.

1 Reply

Why shouldn't people be able to keep more of the money they earn?

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

If you knew a little more history, i'd say you should be embarrassed.

Touche about the Spanish-American war. So what about the thing about talking softly and carrying a big stick? Was he out of office when he declared that?

0 Replies

@H2O MAN,

H2O MAN wrote:

The democrats could rob the rich of every single dollar they have and
they would be able to pay off roughly 4% of Obama's astronomical dept.

I really have to wonder sometimes what reality you live in spurt...
The top 400 people have a total fortune of $1.27 TRILLION.
http://www.good.is/post/the-400-richest-americans-are-now-richer-than-the-bottom-50-percent-combined/

The total debt that has been added while Obama has been President - a little less than $4 trillion.
http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/NPGateway

I wonder what you consider rich spurt. Is someone with a net worth of $1 billion rich? Or is only one person in the US rich?

Gates has a net worth of $54 billion
54/1270 which works out to a little more than 4% of the debt added under Obama.

2 Replies

@parados,

I'm not sure if anyone saw my post on the last page or two to the Daily Show video.

In a nutshell it's Jon saying that the bottom 50% of the country owns only 2.5% of the wealth and that if we took ALL of their wealth (i.e. EVERYTHING THEY OWN) it would only contribute 1.4 trillion in TOTAL. Which isn't even 10% of our national debt.

And let's be honest...if we said to over 50% of America that the government is going to take EVERYTHING they own so that the top 10% don't have to pay an extra 4-10% in taxes....they'd all revolt, and I'd join and finance them to the best of my ability.

I wonder what situation would turn out better for the rich....not really.

0 Replies

@parados,

To summerize two numbers in our two posts.

The top 400 people (yes, four hundred) own almost as much wealth as the bottom 125,000,000.

1 Reply

@maporsche,

And depending on the year, the top 400 have more wealth than those bottom 125,000,000.

1 Reply

@H2O MAN,

H2O MAN wrote:

The democrats could rob the rich of every single dollar they have and
they would be able to pay off roughly 4% of Obama's astronomical dept.

So; if we are going through all this misery, really running this country into deep debt to hand the rich money, or prevent their paying fair taxes, and if we despoiled them it would amount to only four percent of the National debt??? I mean, in thirty years we have doubled the amont of personal debt the people carry in relation to the gnp, and if the Government is flat broke too, then what is it all for??? Capitalism has to be a winning game for some one; isn't it??? If we are losing so badly to keep capitalism going, and they are only going to the can on us when ever we get in a million dollar stain then we are fcked for nothing... What do you think????

0 Replies

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

While it is true that as Acting Secretary in the absence of the Secretary of the Navy, Roosevelt did his damnedest to position American naval vessels for a war in the Carribean, you jokers have some kind of superstitious awe of the man going on. Sure, he wanted war with Spain, but he didn't make Ameican policy, and once the war began he had absolutely no influence on military policy or operational plans. He was a Lt. Colonel, second in command of the First Volunteer Cavalry, which was commanded by Leonard Wood. Roosevelt had absolutely no authority to decide whether nor not Puerto Rico was invaded. Once he resigned from the Navy Department, he became just another mid-level officer with no command auhtority except in the absence of his regimental commander. The two of you jokers just make it up as you go along.

I agree with you... What we did in the war we did out of a general spirit of conquest and moral superiority which even the later Roosevelt suffered from... But once Teddy Roosevelt left office, his ability to shape events was small... When it came to taking San Juan Hill, the Rough Riders didn't even have horses... They did have the ability to make history, and by presenting the Bully sort of character of their leader to the world they did far more than take a piece of real estate... Manifest destiny was made international in that war... The Pacifice became what the Mediterranean Sea was to the Greeks before the Peloponnesian War... The Canal, the Gun boat diplomacy were not even so much the expression of Roosevelt as that of a whole country feeling itself coming of age, and ready to graduate from juvenile delinquency to a life of crime.....

0 Replies

@H2O MAN,

H2O MAN wrote:

Why shouldn't people be able to keep more of the money they earn?

Rich people are not people... Just as they are defined by their wealth they think differently from the not so rich people, and according to their wealth, not always acting in their long term interest, but never acting in our interest... No one has ever been able to show how political equality can be maintained in the face of economic inequality... History has more than a few examples of societies destroyed by wealth, or by the wealthy in defense of their privilages... Democracy demand equality, and unequal wealth destroys equality across the board, and though we reject hereditary politial power, hereditary wealth results in hereditary political power being held and invested in a single class of people... The government in a commonwealth to keep the country a commonwealth and for the benefit of the people should pressure wealth... The more wealth is taxed the harder it works... When people know the only way to keep wealthy is to make more wealth they show more industry... What we see now is people exporting wealth and expecting the government of the United States to support itself of the tables of the middle class when the middle class is dwindling in numbers and is losing wealth to the rich and in relation to the rich on the basis of unfair taxation... What the rich insist upon, and what they can get the tea party to agree to out of stupidity is the absolute worse thing for the country and so for them... They must first totally demoralize this nation if they expect to totally rob us and cast us into poverty... To not demoralize us first is to demand revolution which is the last thing they want though they pile up fuel for the coming conflagration...

0 Replies

@parados,

parados wrote:

And depending on the year, the top 400 have more wealth than those bottom 125,000,000.

One big difference is income... If you took all the rich have, they could soon replace it... But what the poor lose is gone for good... The tax system as we have it helps the rich to evade taxes, but it takes from the poor an middle classes the capital of generations, and we will never see it again short of taking the whole commonwealth back from the rich and reminding them of the rules: That the wealth of a nation no matter whether in private or public control must still support the population... What the government allows the rich to own we all hold the title to, and we can tax it at will, and if the rich object, then they have given up the rights Americans are entitled to including the right to life here...

0 Replies

Why doesn't Obama ask "the rich" if they'd like to volunteer a few million, or billion, or whatever he thinks it would take? They are not cold, hard people. Ask them.

We need Michael Jackson to give a fund raiser?

For some reason, I don't think "the rich" would refuse.

4 Replies

@Pemerson,

Lol the Koch brothers for example are indeed are cold SOBs............

0 Replies

@Pemerson,

Pemerson wrote:

Why doesn't Obama ask "the rich" if they'd like to volunteer a few million, or billion, or whatever he thinks it would take? They are not cold, hard people. Ask them.

We need Michael Jackson to give a fund raiser?

For some reason, I don't think "the rich" would refuse.

Why should anyone ask the rich to volunteer what this people has a right to demand... All wealth belongs to the commonwealth, and if this people sees fit to put some of it in private hands in expectation of future benefit then there it must still support the population and government... We the people, and the government which is supposed to stand for us defends their wealth in court and on every imaginable battlefield... Should we say: The poor who have nothing must defend your wealth, and then pay for the privilage??? Get real Pam... If the state has not got the nerve to tax, or the ability to, and the power to collect it is not a state at all... Ultimately, labor and nature create all value, but if that value is not returned to the commonwealth in some fashion then the people and the government become poor to keep the rich rich, and no one can show the value of wealth in one class permanently... Wealth on the move can make a nation rich, but wealth in only one class makes everyone poor, and ultimately destroys the whole people... The state should have the power to reward invention and innovation as essential to progress... But through taxes the rewards of progress are shared, or at least made to work for all... People of value, and of talent and ambition should not expect rewards to be permanent, or for the wealth they gain to become hereditary... We do not want a constipated economy... We want wealth on the move, and set in one place, it should be returned to the commonwealth...

1 Reply

Why should rich people pay a greater share of their wealth to taxes?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know