Raise Taxes on America's Rich, it's the Patriotic thing to do!

[QUOTE="Darthmatt"]

I pay taxes, but I also get a lot of it back because I own a home. The rich are the same way, except they own a lot more things they can deduct and write off because they can pay accountants to manage all their assests to avoid taxes. I have no sympathy for them paying higher taxes, especially if they can still afford their $100K G-Wagen. If anything I would favor a national luxury sales tax instead of an income tax increase. Income is not always taxable if wealth is placed into certain market investments and properties. If they want to spend their hard earned money on expensive things (they could live without) that is their choice, and its going to cost them a little more.

SpartanMSU

Wealth envy much? And I'm sure you have tons of things you could live without. Unless you live like people in 3rd world countries who struggle to survive every day, then you have no room to criticize others of their wealth. Compared to the majority of the population of the world, people living in the U.S. are EXTREMELY wealthy, even if you're considered "poor".

[QUOTE="Sajedene"][QUOTE="Assassin1349"] Well, they can't contribute to society as much as you because they have a dead end job that doesn't pay too well. Someone's gotta do it! But seriously I think there should be some treatment that is UNIVERSAL no matter what your class. It would only be fair. Pixel-Pirate

It's not my problem if someone is crossing the street at the crosswalk and gets run over by a car, but it is my duty to report it.

Terrible example...

[QUOTE="SpartanMSU"]

[QUOTE="Darthmatt"]

I pay taxes, but I also get a lot of it back because I own a home. The rich are the same way, except they own a lot more things they can deduct and write off because they can pay accountants to manage all their assests to avoid taxes. I have no sympathy for them paying higher taxes, especially if they can still afford their $100K G-Wagen. If anything I would favor a national luxury sales tax instead of an income tax increase. Income is not always taxable if wealth is placed into certain market investments and properties. If they want to spend their hard earned money on expensive things (they could live without) that is their choice, and its going to cost them a little more.

Darthmatt

Wealth envy much? And I'm sure you have tons of things you could live without. Unless you live like people in 3rd world countries who struggle to survive every day, then you have no room to criticize others of their wealth. Compared to the majority of the population of the world, people living in the U.S. are EXTREMELY wealthy, even if you're considered "poor".

You're on the internet...which means you have a computer and an internet connection. You're wealthier than the overwhelming majority of the world's population....

It's a fact, so please don't try to argue. You have things you don't need while others are struggling to get the necessities. The truth hurts doesn't it?

sure, why not.

People who do not pay taxes always think that more "entitlements" is a very good thing.

If anything, they should be taxed less. The rich control the economy, and the more money they have to pay to taxes, the more the goods they provide will cost us the consumer.

Taxing the rich to benefit the poor is such a naive "solution" to the problem.

Rich people are too greedy and influential to let that happen any time soon. Sadly.Neon-Tiger

I'll give Bill Gates credit though, he tends to do his part.

But some of these other clowns....

If anything, they should be taxed less. The rich control the economy, and the more money they have to pay to taxes, the more the goods they provide will cost us the consumer.

Taxing the rich to benefit the poor is such a naive "solution" to the problem.

foxhound_fox

Actually, it's a successful method to reduce the wealth gap and increase economic mobility in countries. That is, if you use the money for public education, healthcare etc. But let's just forget about that. See europe for proof.

11Marcel

[QUOTE="11Marcel"]Actually, it's a successful method to reduce the wealth gap and increase economic mobility in countries. That is, if you use the money for public education, healthcare etc. But let's just forget about that. See europe for proof.

foxhound_fox

[QUOTE="foxhound_fox"]

[QUOTE="11Marcel"]Actually, it's a successful method to reduce the wealth gap and increase economic mobility in countries. That is, if you use the money for public education, healthcare etc. But let's just forget about that. See europe for proof.

11Marcel

Theres a lot more to blame than the bankers. Furthermore most anyone who is against increasing taxes would also say the banks should of been allowed to fail. Yet ironicly those that are for tax increases tend to be on the side of the guy that used tax money to save them and the car companys, and the insurance companies, and the credit card companies.

Heres an idea. don't bail big companies out and that way we won't have to raise taxes on the very people were trying to save.

You would figure that leaving things alone kind of makes a balance.

But nope now we have a 1.4 trillion dollar deficit.

Im no fan of Bush but so many people were complaining about him having a 4 billion deficit.

Lower taxes and allow the big companies to fail when they fail.

Problem solved everyones happy but the failures.

[QUOTE="11Marcel"]

[QUOTE="foxhound_fox"]
Europe has a different economical structure than the US. It has already been proven several times in the past when taxes upon the rich were increased... the cost of goods went up because the rich owned all the major businesses that controlled major consumer goods, and since they were being charged more for taxes, they passed that cost to them onto the consumer to make up for the difference in the money they were making.

Taking money from the rich for no reason and then just giving it to the poor isn't going to work in the US... the economy is centred around the rich.

kosmosfreak2

Theres a lot more to blame than the bankers. Furthermore most anyone who is against increasing taxes would also say the banks should of been allowed to fail. Yet ironicly those that are for tax increases tend to be on the side of the guy that used tax money to save them and the car companys, and the insurance companies, and the credit card companies.

Heres an idea. don't bail big companies out and that way we won't have to raise taxes on the very people were trying to save.

You would figure that leaving things alone kind of makes a balance.

But nope now we have a 1.4 trillion dollar deficit.

Im no fan of Bush but so many people were complaining about him having a 4 billion deficit.

Lower taxes and allow the big companies to fail when they fail.

Problem solved everyones happy but the failures.

If anything, they should be taxed less. The rich control the economy, and the more money they have to pay to taxes, the more the goods they provide will cost us the consumer.

Taxing the rich to benefit the poor is such a naive "solution" to the problem.

foxhound_fox

Rich people should be able to keep their money. They earned it, they should keep it. It is their choice whether they want to give to the needy, not the governments.

Who cares? I hope the world blows up.

Assassin1349

Rich people should be able to keep their money. They earned it, they should keep it. It is their choice whether they want to give to the needy, not the governments.

imaps3fanboy

I really never understood this automatic "They earned it!". They have it, who is to say they really earned it? I guess that's everyones personal opinion but I don't think a guy who was born into a rich family and as such inherited millions of dollars and never has to work a day in his life earned that money. He has it but he didn't earn it, he was lucky. If you win 100 million via the lottery did you truly earn and deserve that? No, you were lucky as all hell.

[QUOTE="imaps3fanboy"]

Rich people should be able to keep their money. They earned it, they should keep it. It is their choice whether they want to give to the needy, not the governments.

Pixel-Pirate

I really never understood this automatic "They earned it!". They have it, who is to say they really earned it? I guess that's everyones personal opinion but I don't think a guy who was born into a rich family and as such inherited millions of dollars and never has to work a day in his life earned that money. He has it but he didn't earn it, he was lucky. If you win 100 million via the lottery did you truly earn and deserve that? No, you were lucky as all hell.

[QUOTE="Pixel-Pirate"]

[QUOTE="imaps3fanboy"]

Rich people should be able to keep their money. They earned it, they should keep it. It is their choice whether they want to give to the needy, not the governments.

imaps3fanboy

I really never understood this automatic "They earned it!". They have it, who is to say they really earned it? I guess that's everyones personal opinion but I don't think a guy who was born into a rich family and as such inherited millions of dollars and never has to work a day in his life earned that money. He has it but he didn't earn it, he was lucky. If you win 100 million via the lottery did you truly earn and deserve that? No, you were lucky as all hell.

[QUOTE="imaps3fanboy"][QUOTE="Pixel-Pirate"]

I really never understood this automatic "They earned it!". They have it, who is to say they really earned it? I guess that's everyones personal opinion but I don't think a guy who was born into a rich family and as such inherited millions of dollars and never has to work a day in his life earned that money. He has it but he didn't earn it, he was lucky. If you win 100 million via the lottery did you truly earn and deserve that? No, you were lucky as all hell.

ProudLarry

I think that rich should have to pay for those things.. as long as they pay the same amount the middle class and lower class do.

people dont understand that life isnt fair. The point im trying to make is the that the government shouldnt make the rich give money to the poor, its a moral decision based on the beholder of the money, not a governmentsimaps3fanboy

[QUOTE="imaps3fanboy"] people dont understand that life isnt fair. The point im trying to make is the that the government shouldnt make the rich give money to the poor, its a moral decision based on the beholder of the money, not a governmentsLJS9502_basic

[QUOTE="ProudLarry"][QUOTE="imaps3fanboy"] people dont understand that life isnt fair. The point im trying to make is the that the government shouldnt make the rich give money to the poor, its a moral decision based on the beholder of the money, not a governmentsimaps3fanboy

I think that rich should have to pay for those things.. as long as they pay the same amount the middle class and lower class do.

[QUOTE="danwallacefan"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] The wealthy do get wealthy on the labor of the working cIass however....LJS9502_basic

[QUOTE="imaps3fanboy"] people dont understand that life isnt fair. The point im trying to make is the that the government shouldnt make the rich give money to the poor, its a moral decision based on the beholder of the money, not a governmentsLJS9502_basic

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="danwallacefan"] They mostly get wealthy because of investments they make.

danwallacefan

[QUOTE="Pixel-Pirate"]

[QUOTE="imaps3fanboy"]

Rich people should be able to keep their money. They earned it, they should keep it. It is their choice whether they want to give to the needy, not the governments.

imaps3fanboy

I really never understood this automatic "They earned it!". They have it, who is to say they really earned it? I guess that's everyones personal opinion but I don't think a guy who was born into a rich family and as such inherited millions of dollars and never has to work a day in his life earned that money. He has it but he didn't earn it, he was lucky. If you win 100 million via the lottery did you truly earn and deserve that? No, you were lucky as all hell.

Why shouldnt the government force them too, though? I'm not going to argue for either stance, I just want to know why the government shouldn't? It should be their choice would be the obvious answer but it should also be a choice to serve on a jury, get a license, pay taxes at all etc. And it isn't forcing them to pay for the poor, it's making them take more of a burden because they are able to. Like an analogy earlier in the thread, if you had two men to carry something who would you make carry the bulk? The bodybuilder or the man with the broken leg?

Capitalism promotes indifference, selfishness, and insular elitism. Socialism promotes equality and fairness. How can their be any argument??

Capitalism promotes indifference, selfishness, and insular elitism. Socialism promotes equality and fairness. How can their be any argument??

compost-mentis

Capitalism promotes indifference, selfishness, and insular elitism. Socialism promotes equality and fairness. How can their be any argument??

compost-mentis

"The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries."

~ Winston Churchill

It promotes that a person who does more shouldn't make more, which is nothing more than a selfish belief and even an elitist belief that somehow, the person who doesn't do more is somehow equal to the person that does more. It's like saying an A+ student is somehow equivalent to a F student who doesn't even try.

As for indifferences, there will always be differences, especially genetics (ie athleticism, intelligence, durability).

[QUOTE="compost-mentis"]

Capitalism promotes indifference, selfishness, and insular elitism. Socialism promotes equality and fairness. How can their be any argument??

LJS9502_basic

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="compost-mentis"]

Capitalism promotes indifference, selfishness, and insular elitism. Socialism promotes equality and fairness. How can their be any argument??

-Sun_Tzu-

[QUOTE="imaps3fanboy"] people dont understand that life isnt fair. The point im trying to make is the that the government shouldnt make the rich give money to the poor, its a moral decision based on the beholder of the money, not a governmentsLJS9502_basic

Which they already do....the bottom 47% get more money back from taxes than they pay in. The top 10% account for 71% of the total income tax revenue. The top 1% accounts for 40%.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]

[QUOTE="imaps3fanboy"] people dont understand that life isnt fair. The point im trying to make is the that the government shouldnt make the rich give money to the poor, its a moral decision based on the beholder of the money, not a governmentsSpartanMSU

Which they already do....the bottom 47% get more money back from taxes than they pay in. The top 10% account for 71% of the total income tax revenue. The top 1% accounts for 40%.

[QUOTE="SpartanMSU"]

[QUOTE="Darthmatt"]No, I live comfortably within my means and avoid excessive spending.

Vuurk

You're on the internet...which means you have a computer and an internet connection. You're wealthier than the overwhelming majority of the world's population....

It's a fact, so please don't try to argue. You have things you don't need while others are struggling to get the necessities. The truth hurts doesn't it?

Yes but the point is that he has many things that he could live without and STILL live a better life than the MAJORITY of the world's population. He's the one who said something to the extent of "Do they really need all those cars"? Do you REALLY need that Xbox 360? TV? That model/brand of car? No. The money used to buy the things he doesn't need could have been used to help out the truly poor. But him being greedy, he uses that money on himself while telling others to give up the things they don't need.

Moral of the story? You have no right to decide how much is "too much".

[QUOTE="SpartanMSU"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]It's not about giving money to the poor...it's about the extrememly wealthy paying a bigger share of government expenses than say the middle cIass or the poor.

LJS9502_basic

Which they already do....the bottom 47% get more money back from taxes than they pay in. The top 10% account for 71% of the total income tax revenue. The top 1% accounts for 40%.

So what? It's THEIR money. It's not your's decide how to spend.

Yes but the point is that he has many things that he could live without and STILL live a better life than the MAJORITY of the world's population. He's the one who said something to the extent of "Do they really need all those cars"? Do you REALLY need that Xbox 360? TV? That model/brand of car? No. The money used to buy the things he doesn't need could have been used to help out the truly poor. But him being greedy, he uses that money on himself while telling others to give up the things they don't need.

Moral of the story? You have no right to decide how much is "too much".

SpartanMSU

As I recall you example was the internet and a computer. For all you know....he could be at school, work, or borrowing a computer. Even if he as one...they have become rather necessary in today's world. As has the internet. Having more than one car....no. And while gaming consoles are great...they are but entertainment and not a necessity.

As a society we do indeed have a right to decide how to provide necessary funds.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]

[QUOTE="SpartanMSU"]

Which they already do....the bottom 47% get more money back from taxes than they pay in. The top 10% account for 71% of the total income tax revenue. The top 1% accounts for 40%.

SpartanMSU

So what? It's THEIR money. It's not your's decide how to spend.

So what? They live in a country that requires money to run. They can be required to pay.LJS9502_basic

I don't think the issue is the fact that they have to pay, but that they must pay morebecause they make more money.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]So what? They live in a country that requires money to run. They can be required to pay.LikeHaterade

I don't think the issue is the fact that they have to pay, but that they must pay morebecause they make more money.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"] But in most cases they'd rather have those programs than not have them. -Sun_Tzu-

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]Well now that is your opinion. Nonetheless.....if someone is complaining about the programs they are doing so because they are selfish. Which negates his point. I'm not getting into a philosophical debate here but if one has socialized medicine available and pays private insurance....do you really believe they want that program that ups their taxes? I'd say not since they aren't using it anyway.LJS9502_basic

Now sure, there are people who don't think that there should be a public school system and who think that there shouldn't be progressive taxation and think that there shouldn't be social security, but their existence isn't significant to the point that I'm making. All I'm saying is that most people would rather have these social welfare programs than not have them, especially when it comes to social welfare programs that are not means tested, despite the fact that they have to pay taxes for them. It's really only means tested welfare programs that receive a lot of audible criticism from the public.

But you are assuming that just because they don't benefit from these policies that they are necessarily against them. Just because a parent sends their kid to private school doesn't mean that they are against having a public school system. Just because someone is very wealthy does not mean that they are against progressive taxation. Just because some senior citizens aren't dependent on social security does not mean that they are all against the program and would support its abolishment. And the reason for that is because a lot of these people are able to recognize that a lot of people depend on these programs, and even though they don't, they still believe that these programs and policies should be around.

Now sure, there are people who don't think that there should be a public school system and who think that there shouldn't be progressive taxation and think that there shouldn't be social security, but their existence isn't significant to the point that I'm making. All I'm saying is that most people would rather have these social welfare programs than not have them, especially when it comes to social welfare programs that are not means tested, despite the fact that they have to pay taxes for them. It's really only means tested welfare programs that receive a lot of audible criticism from the public.

-Sun_Tzu-

You are merely pointing out some examples of the opposite. I never stated everyone felt that way. Just said that greed exists in the hearts of humans living within a socialist framework as well.

[QUOTE="SpartanMSU"]

Yes but the point is that he has many things that he could live without and STILL live a better life than the MAJORITY of the world's population. He's the one who said something to the extent of "Do they really need all those cars"? Do you REALLY need that Xbox 360? TV? That model/brand of car? No. The money used to buy the things he doesn't need could have been used to help out the truly poor. But him being greedy, he uses that money on himself while telling others to give up the things they don't need.

Moral of the story? You have no right to decide how much is "too much".

LJS9502_basic

As I recall you example was the internet and a computer. For all you know....he could be at school, work, or borrowing a computer. Even if he as one...they have become rather necessary in today's world. As has the internet. Having more than one car....no. And while gaming consoles are great...they are but entertainment and not a necessity.

As a society we do indeed have a right to decide how to provide necessary funds.

I don't expect low income people to survive without money...I never stated that...And "extremely" wealthy in this country is considered anything over $250k. $250k is not "extremely" wealthy in reality. Trust me, if you're married and have kids with that salary, you're not going to be driving around in a Porsches and taking exotic vacations.

And no, their money doesn't just "sit" in banks. Most rich people invest their money, that's one of the reasons they are rich in the first place and stay rich. You must have never been around wealthy people in your life and have some ridiculous prejudices about their lifestyle.

You're arguing semantics on the last part. The point is, unless he's below the poverty level, he has MANY things he doesn't NEED. The overwhelming majority of the population of the world would be more than thankful to have what he has.

[QUOTE="LikeHaterade"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]So what? They live in a country that requires money to run. They can be required to pay.LJS9502_basic

I don't think the issue is the fact that they have to pay, but that they must pay morebecause they make more money.

HAHAHAH struggling to get by. GIVE ME A BREAK!!! They are wealthier than the majority of the world!!! Go to a crappy country in Africa and then tell me if you think you're struggling to survive. Unbelievable how ignorant you are.