Whats wrong with sharing the wealth?

Yeah I greatly over exaggerated. :P That still doesn't change the fact being able to run the country with only taxing the top 5% is a lie. Just wait and see taxes are going rocket up for all of us. And they won't spend one cent of it to make anything better for us, not one cent.Nerkcon

All the money collected in taxation (with the exception of some, which is lost to corruption, though that's much less of an issue than most people make of it) is put back into society in one way or another. You may not agree with what's done with it, but the vast majority of tax money is indeed spent to make things better for us.

[QUOTE="Dark__Link"]

[QUOTE="lazzordude"]whats wrong with keeping what you make?nippon_gamer

Nothing. A truth most of these people would accept if they actually had any significant wealth to their name.

i have to pay 23,000 dollars to go to school a year. Do you know why? cause my family makes more than 35,000. The fed gov doesn't have enough money to help me pay for my education and i might end up dropping out cause i cant pay for it. Is this my fault? couldn't the rich be taxed more so i can have an opportunity to become educated? or is it my fault for not making enough money.

It's your fault for not getting enough merit scholarships from the school.

And for not making enough money, too, sure.

And what of the charges of welfare and socialism?

[QUOTE="Nerkcon"]Yeah I greatly over exaggerated. :P That still doesn't change the fact being able to run the country with only taxing the top 5% is a lie. Just wait and see taxes are going rocket up for all of us. And they won't spend one cent of it to make anything better for us, not one cent.pianist

All the money collected in taxation (with the exception of some, which is lost to corruption, though that's much less of an issue than most people make of it) is put back into society in one way or another. You may not agree with what's done with it, but the vast majority of tax money is indeed spent to make things better for us.

[QUOTE="nippon_gamer"]

It's a moral responsibility. This country allowed you to make money now you should do ur best to make the country better.

DOS4dinner

If it's moral, why should it be required? Why can't it be "If you want to give your hard-earned money to the needy, go ahead--it's your choice"?

not enough people are morally responsible enough. its a matter of morals to think that marrying your sister is wrong so why can't it be "If you want to marry your sister go ahead-- it's your choice"

Robin Hood's intentions may have been pure, but he was still a lawless thief.Dark__Link

Robin Hood also took from the rich what was rightfully the poor's to begin with. He was just giving them back what was theirs. He did not take from the rich and give to the poor. Even though that is the saying..

[QUOTE="Dark__Link"]

Shh, I'm agitating.

pianist

:lol:

My apologies. I sometimes butt in and ruin things.

i'd delete that post quickly if i were you.

They give us what we need: roads, schools, medicaid, etc. But they pocket the rest. And with the 700 trillion $ dept I wonder if they will put a new 'temporary' tax on us. :|Nerkcon

Only a small amount of the money (comparatively speaking) goes to salaries for politicians. Granted, the government could be a bit smaller... but it wouldn't make that much of a difference, really. The government is far less expensive than the programs it runs. The debt... that's a big problem. And chronic under-taxation is one of the reasons it got to be such a significant problem. Now we have to waste huge amounts of money just servicing the debt. Not paying it down, just servicing it. Now THAT is a huge waste.

[QUOTE="pianist"]

[QUOTE="Nerkcon"]Yeah I greatly over exaggerated. :P That still doesn't change the fact being able to run the country with only taxing the top 5% is a lie. Just wait and see taxes are going rocket up for all of us. And they won't spend one cent of it to make anything better for us, not one cent.Nerkcon

All the money collected in taxation (with the exception of some, which is lost to corruption, though that's much less of an issue than most people make of it) is put back into society in one way or another. You may not agree with what's done with it, but the vast majority of tax money is indeed spent to make things better for us.

pocket the rest? that would be embezzlement and a crime.

not enough people are morally responsible enough. its a matter of morals to think that marrying your sister is wrong so why can't it be "If you want to marry your sister go ahead-- it's your choice"

nippon_gamer

Okay...but who decides what morals are so important that they need to be enforced with laws? The government? The Media? Whoever happens to be in charge? That sound like a good idea.

i'd delete that post quickly if i were you.

Zero5000X

Has it been modded before? I seem to recall seeing it frequently in the YLYL threads. But I'll take your cautionary note to heart. Thanks. :)

[QUOTE="pianist"][QUOTE="Dark__Link"]

Shh, I'm agitating.

Zero5000X

:lol:

My apologies. I sometimes butt in and ruin things.

i'd delete that post quickly if i were you.

Yeah, SolidSnake35's gonna be pissed.

Yeah, SolidSnake35's gonna be pissed.

Dark__Link

:lol:

Well, it's gone now. Apparently I just about stirred up more trouble than I bargained for.

[QUOTE="nippon_gamer"][QUOTE="Dark__Link"]

[QUOTE="lazzordude"]whats wrong with keeping what you make?Dark__Link

Nothing. A truth most of these people would accept if they actually had any significant wealth to their name.

i have to pay 23,000 dollars to go to school a year. Do you know why? cause my family makes more than 35,000. The fed gov doesn't have enough money to help me pay for my education and i might end up dropping out cause i cant pay for it. Is this my fault? couldn't the rich be taxed more so i can have an opportunity to become educated? or is it my fault for not making enough money.

It's your fault for not getting enough merit scholarships from the school.

And for not making enough money, too, sure.

I get the maximum amout from the school which is 8000 dollars which i got. I got no government aid. how did u pay for school?

[QUOTE="nippon_gamer"]

not enough people are morally responsible enough. its a matter of morals to think that marrying your sister is wrong so why can't it be "If you want to marry your sister go ahead-- it's your choice"

DOS4dinner

Okay...but who decides what morals are so important that they need to be enforced with laws? The government? The Media? Whoever happens to be in charge? That sound like a good idea.

[QUOTE="nippon_gamer"]

not enough people are morally responsible enough. its a matter of morals to think that marrying your sister is wrong so why can't it be "If you want to marry your sister go ahead-- it's your choice"

DOS4dinner

Okay...but who decides what morals are so important that they need to be enforced with laws? The government? The Media? Whoever happens to be in charge? That sound like a good idea.

how about "the people" but they can't because the media is corrupt and we're too stupid to see it. thats why the elite need to step up and be less selfish.

[QUOTE="Dark__Link"][QUOTE="nippon_gamer"][QUOTE="Dark__Link"]

[QUOTE="lazzordude"]whats wrong with keeping what you make?nippon_gamer

Nothing. A truth most of these people would accept if they actually had any significant wealth to their name.

i have to pay 23,000 dollars to go to school a year. Do you know why? cause my family makes more than 35,000. The fed gov doesn't have enough money to help me pay for my education and i might end up dropping out cause i cant pay for it. Is this my fault? couldn't the rich be taxed more so i can have an opportunity to become educated? or is it my fault for not making enough money.

It's your fault for not getting enough merit scholarships from the school.

And for not making enough money, too, sure.

I get the maximum amout from the school which is 8000 dollars which i got. I got no government aid. how did u pay for school?

Investments and merit scholarships.

[QUOTE="DOS4dinner"][QUOTE="nippon_gamer"]

not enough people are morally responsible enough. its a matter of morals to think that marrying your sister is wrong so why can't it be "If you want to marry your sister go ahead-- it's your choice"

nippon_gamer

Okay...but who decides what morals are so important that they need to be enforced with laws? The government? The Media? Whoever happens to be in charge? That sound like a good idea.

how about "the people" but they can't because the media is corrupt and we're too stupid to see it. thats why the elite need to step up and be less selfish.

It's not the government's place to FORCE certian people to give their own money to other people. That is absoluet bull**** to be quite honest. The poor people are poor.. and that sucks. But the government can't decide to take money from group A and give it to group B. How do you not see the problem with that? Obama's plan hurts the people who just make the cut of $200,000 hard. The group that just barely makes it over the 200k mark are the largest in the whole group. The Bill Gates superrich people are only a very very very tiny portion of the population. The people who only make 200k a year will get shafted hard. And it's not right..

The money belongs to who it belongs to... not the governmentDivergeUnify

You're right. Money does not belong to the government. IT belongs to the people of a particular society.

[QUOTE="airg6"]Because i'm not sharing my money with other low life's.pianist

You becoming wealthy depends on those 'low lifes.'

I'm glad I'm not the only person who knows this. In order for a pyramid system to work, which is what free market economics is(capitalists). The low income families, the middle class, all support the top tier which consists of few people making deceisions and choices for everybody.

It's a shame really.

It's not natural behavior.

Natural behavior is to assist the community and ensure everyone benefits. This increases the species survival chances if anything drastic should happen.

The biggest fraud in America is that people actualy think they are individuals, when they aren't. But it's a great scam for the corporations.

[QUOTE="nippon_gamer"][QUOTE="DOS4dinner"][QUOTE="nippon_gamer"]

not enough people are morally responsible enough. its a matter of morals to think that marrying your sister is wrong so why can't it be "If you want to marry your sister go ahead-- it's your choice"

The_Mac_Daddy

Okay...but who decides what morals are so important that they need to be enforced with laws? The government? The Media? Whoever happens to be in charge? That sound like a good idea.

how about "the people" but they can't because the media is corrupt and we're too stupid to see it. thats why the elite need to step up and be less selfish.

It's not the government's place to FORCE certian people to give their own money to other people. That is absoluet bull**** to be quite honest. The poor people are poor.. and that sucks. But the government can't decide to take money from group A and give it to group B. How do you not see the problem with that? Obama's plan hurts the people who just make the cut of $200,000 hard. The group that just barely makes it over the 200k mark are the largest in the whole group. The Bill Gates superrich people are only a very very very tiny portion of the population. The people who only make 200k a year will get shafted hard. And it's not right..

200,000 is an insane amount of money to live off of. Ah.. gotta love the delusions of individualism. Where do you think anybody gets money from? They get it from other people, so if group A doesn't exist group B doesn't have any money to begin with.

Imagine people like bill gates, Sam Waltons Family(wal-mart), Exons 14.8 billion dollar profit. Imagine if we took 90% of it and told everybody if they maintain a decent GPA they could go to college for free. They could have top of the line health care. And those people with those insane profits would still have more money than average joe. OH well. I guess John McCain deserves 11 homes.

Since he works so hard.

[QUOTE="nippon_gamer"][QUOTE="DOS4dinner"][QUOTE="nippon_gamer"]

not enough people are morally responsible enough. its a matter of morals to think that marrying your sister is wrong so why can't it be "If you want to marry your sister go ahead-- it's your choice"

The_Mac_Daddy

Okay...but who decides what morals are so important that they need to be enforced with laws? The government? The Media? Whoever happens to be in charge? That sound like a good idea.

how about "the people" but they can't because the media is corrupt and we're too stupid to see it. thats why the elite need to step up and be less selfish.

It's not the government's place to FORCE certian people to give their own money to other people. That is absoluet bull**** to be quite honest. The poor people are poor.. and that sucks. But the government can't decide to take money from group A and give it to group B. How do you not see the problem with that? Obama's plan hurts the people who just make the cut of $200,000 hard. The group that just barely makes it over the 200k mark are the largest in the whole group. The Bill Gates superrich people are only a very very very tiny portion of the population. The people who only make 200k a year will get shafted hard. And it's not right..

Then why is it the government's place to force certain people to not get married cause they are not of a certain gender. The government's responsibility is to create the most efficient tax system possible. taxing the rich more than the poor in my opinion will work out to be better than mccain's idea of making the rich richer and the money will some how come back down to the poor and middle class.

[QUOTE="The_Mac_Daddy"][QUOTE="nippon_gamer"][QUOTE="DOS4dinner"][QUOTE="nippon_gamer"]

not enough people are morally responsible enough. its a matter of morals to think that marrying your sister is wrong so why can't it be "If you want to marry your sister go ahead-- it's your choice"

nippon_gamer

Okay...but who decides what morals are so important that they need to be enforced with laws? The government? The Media? Whoever happens to be in charge? That sound like a good idea.

how about "the people" but they can't because the media is corrupt and we're too stupid to see it. thats why the elite need to step up and be less selfish.

It's not the government's place to FORCE certian people to give their own money to other people. That is absoluet bull**** to be quite honest. The poor people are poor.. and that sucks. But the government can't decide to take money from group A and give it to group B. How do you not see the problem with that? Obama's plan hurts the people who just make the cut of $200,000 hard. The group that just barely makes it over the 200k mark are the largest in the whole group. The Bill Gates superrich people are only a very very very tiny portion of the population. The people who only make 200k a year will get shafted hard. And it's not right..

Then why is it the government's place to force certain people to not get married cause they are not of a certain gender. The government's responsibility is to create the most efficient tax system possible. taxing the rich more than the poor in my opinion will work out to be better than mccain's idea of making the rich richer and the money will some how come back down to the poor and middle class.

McCain is giving tax cuts to the middle class...

[QUOTE="The_Mac_Daddy"][QUOTE="nippon_gamer"][QUOTE="DOS4dinner"][QUOTE="nippon_gamer"]

not enough people are morally responsible enough. its a matter of morals to think that marrying your sister is wrong so why can't it be "If you want to marry your sister go ahead-- it's your choice"

EMOEVOLUTION

Okay...but who decides what morals are so important that they need to be enforced with laws? The government? The Media? Whoever happens to be in charge? That sound like a good idea.

how about "the people" but they can't because the media is corrupt and we're too stupid to see it. thats why the elite need to step up and be less selfish.

It's not the government's place to FORCE certian people to give their own money to other people. That is absoluet bull**** to be quite honest. The poor people are poor.. and that sucks. But the government can't decide to take money from group A and give it to group B. How do you not see the problem with that? Obama's plan hurts the people who just make the cut of $200,000 hard. The group that just barely makes it over the 200k mark are the largest in the whole group. The Bill Gates superrich people are only a very very very tiny portion of the population. The people who only make 200k a year will get shafted hard. And it's not right..

200,000 is an insane amount of money to live off of. Ah.. gotta love the delusions of individualism. Where do you think anybody gets money from? They get it from other people, so if group A doesn't exist group B doesn't have any money to begin with.

Imagine people like bill gates, Sam Waltons Family(wal-mart), Exons 14.8 billion dollar profit. Imagine if we took 90% of it and told everybody if they maintain a decent GPA they could go to college for free. They could have top of the line health care. And those people with those insane profits would still have more money than average joe. OH well. I guess John McCain deserves 11 homes.

Since he works so hard.

200k is a lot for 1 person to live off of. It's not an "insane" amount for a family of 5 to live off of.. especially with Obama's higher taxes on them so that he can dole out their money to people he thinks deserve it more.

[QUOTE="nippon_gamer"][QUOTE="The_Mac_Daddy"][QUOTE="nippon_gamer"][QUOTE="DOS4dinner"][QUOTE="nippon_gamer"]

not enough people are morally responsible enough. its a matter of morals to think that marrying your sister is wrong so why can't it be "If you want to marry your sister go ahead-- it's your choice"

The_Mac_Daddy

Okay...but who decides what morals are so important that they need to be enforced with laws? The government? The Media? Whoever happens to be in charge? That sound like a good idea.

how about "the people" but they can't because the media is corrupt and we're too stupid to see it. thats why the elite need to step up and be less selfish.

It's not the government's place to FORCE certian people to give their own money to other people. That is absoluet bull**** to be quite honest. The poor people are poor.. and that sucks. But the government can't decide to take money from group A and give it to group B. How do you not see the problem with that? Obama's plan hurts the people who just make the cut of $200,000 hard. The group that just barely makes it over the 200k mark are the largest in the whole group. The Bill Gates superrich people are only a very very very tiny portion of the population. The people who only make 200k a year will get shafted hard. And it's not right..

Then why is it the government's place to force certain people to not get married cause they are not of a certain gender. The government's responsibility is to create the most efficient tax system possible. taxing the rich more than the poor in my opinion will work out to be better than mccain's idea of making the rich richer and the money will some how come back down to the poor and middle class.

McCain is giving tax cuts to the middle class...

and the upperclass. what does this equate to? death of social programs.

200k is a lot for 1 person to live off of. It's not an "insane" amount for a family of 5 to live off of.. especially with Obama's higher taxes on them so that he can dole out their money to people he thinks deserve it more.

The_Mac_Daddy

Insane? No. But there are plenty of families of five who do well enough on far less than 200 grand a year. Hell, I come from a family of five, and my parents never made anywhere close to 200 grand a year when we were growing up. At no point did it feel like we were having difficulty making ends meet, because my family was always careful about spending and didn't waste cash on extravagant luxuries, vacations, and so forth.

There's always going to be a line drawn in the sand somewhere when it comes to tax, and the people just above that line will get 'screwed.' But frankly, taxed or not, these people will still end up with more in their bank account than those who are taxed nothing because they earn practically nothing. And like it or not, we need a lot of those people who earn next to nothing. Their cheap labour is what the country (and wealth) is built on.

[QUOTE="The_Mac_Daddy"]

200k is a lot for 1 person to live off of. It's not an "insane" amount for a family of 5 to live off of.. especially with Obama's higher taxes on them so that he can dole out their money to people he thinks deserve it more.

pianist

Insane? No. But there are plenty of families of five who do well enough on far less than 200 grand a year. Hell, I come from a family of five, and my parents never made anywhere close to 200 grand a year when we were growing up. At no point did it feel like we were having difficulty making ends meet, because my family was always careful about spending and didn't waste cash on extravagant luxuries, vacations, and so forth.

There's always going to be a line drawn in the sand somewhere when it comes to tax, and the people just above that line will get 'screwed.' But frankly, taxed or not, these people will still end up with more in their bank account than those who are taxed nothing because they earn practically nothing. And like it or not, we need a lot of those people who earn next to nothing. Their cheap labour is what the country (and wealth) is built on.

Furthermore people are going overboard with a tax increase of around 5% at best... Another thing.. Wasn't his cut off 250k+ and not 200k... So those people would be recieving that cut. To be quite honest people are worrying about taxes too much, perhapes they should worry about the economy collapsing around us? Taxes play a very insigificant role when a economy is getting hit all over which could leave you to getting laid off.. Further more, where in the hell does the word "fair" come into this entire thing.. Life isn't fair, face it. Taxing is not to some how make it fair. Its supposed to be used as an effective way to raise funds. The reason why Obama wants to raise taxes on the rich is because they happen to hold the majority of money in the United States, its the most logical place to raise it.. While he wants to drop it on the middle and lower classes, the actual working classes that are floundering in this economic turmoil and are the base to the United States.. Cut taxes on the peopel strugglign imensely, and give slight tax increases to people who are primarily arn't strugglign.. Infact its getting worse, this economic diseaster will lead to the upper class of having even more money.

To me this idea of fair being thrown around is ignorance at its finest.

[QUOTE="nippon_gamer"][QUOTE="DOS4dinner"][QUOTE="nippon_gamer"]

not enough people are morally responsible enough. its a matter of morals to think that marrying your sister is wrong so why can't it be "If you want to marry your sister go ahead-- it's your choice"

The_Mac_Daddy

Okay...but who decides what morals are so important that they need to be enforced with laws? The government? The Media? Whoever happens to be in charge? That sound like a good idea.

how about "the people" but they can't because the media is corrupt and we're too stupid to see it. thats why the elite need to step up and be less selfish.

It's not the government's place to FORCE certian people to give their own money to other people. That is absoluet bull**** to be quite honest. The poor people are poor.. and that sucks. But the government can't decide to take money from group A and give it to group B. How do you not see the problem with that? Obama's plan hurts the people who just make the cut of $200,000 hard. The group that just barely makes it over the 200k mark are the largest in the whole group. The Bill Gates superrich people are only a very very very tiny portion of the population. The people who only make 200k a year will get shafted hard. And it's not right..

You probably think you are mister independant and the government doesn't do anything to help you out either. The government didn't HAVE to give you paved roads, street lights, fund local buisenesses, or even help get the roof over your head. We live in a world where we should be supporting each other. Everybody is so god damn greedy nowadays, everything is MINE MINE MINE. Well doctors, lawyers, and rich daddy's kids; did you ever think you might be highly overpaid??? We NEED your services and you NEED us. It's a mutual relationship. We're all connected yet everyone only does something in their best interests or whatever profits them exclusively.

These selfish remarks make me want the next wipeout of life to occur sooner than ever.

Plus, the money isn't even YOURS. It's the federal property that you use to trade, you greedy *****

Here's the thing that Republicans forget...George W. Bush already spread the wealth around. In 2002 Bush gave the rich, the top 1% of the country an 8% tax break while the middle class got a 2% tax break...what is that called...it's spreading the wealth around. Now Republicans are upset that it's going to be spread around yet again but just the other way around. I'm sure Exxon Mobile making record profits yet again will have a tough time dealing with the 8% tax hike. jd7-03

YES IT IS

You probably think you are mister independant and the government doesn't do anything to help you out either. The government didn't HAVE to give you paved roads, street lights, fund local buisenesses, or even help get the roof over your head. We live in a world where we should be supporting each other. Everybody is so god damn greedy nowadays, everything is MINE MINE MINE. Well doctors, lawyers, and rich daddy's kids; did you ever think you might be highly overpaid??? We NEED your services and you NEED us. It's a mutual relationship. We're all connected yet everyone only does something in their best interests or whatever profits them exclusively.

These selfish remarks make me want the next wipeout of life to occur sooner than ever.

Plus, the money isn't even YOURS. It's the federal property that you use to trade, you greedy *****

spitfir3blue

why not redistribute?

because people deserve what they earn... why do we punish those who are successful?

i live in a different country but the rich are still punished here... i know plenty of people that grew up in poor houses and had to work their a** off to get to the income status they are at and the only thing that the government is doing to the is punishing them for working hard.

another problem we have in my country is the fact that the government pays teenagers to have babies (its called the DPB) and then sit on their a** and not work... then it gets into a cycle where people keep having children just to get money from the gov and do nothing, and this money is taken from the hard workers in a higher income status.

We are each others keeper. We are all in this together.Rikusaki

I just love the metaphorical meaning of that phrase. It comes from "Am I my brother's keeper?" a quote from the Old Testament. Cain said it to God after God asked where Abel was after Cain murdered him. Have we "murdered" the middle and lower class by investing in the growth of businesses rather than in federal programs? You can argue either way but it really struck me when Obama said that at the convention speech.

why not redistribute?

because people deserve what they earn... why do we punish those who are successful?

i live in a different country but the rich are still punished here... i know plenty of people that grew up in poor houses and had to work their a** off to get to the income status they are at and the only thing that the government is doing to the is punishing them for working hard.

another problem we have in my country is the fact that the government pays teenagers to have babies (its called the DPB) and then sit on their a** and not work... then it gets into a cycle where people keep having children just to get money from the gov and do nothing, and this money is taken from the hard workers in a higher income status.

80bb1t1042

why not redistribute?

because people deserve what they earn... why do we punish those who are successful?

i live in a different country but the rich are still punished here... i know plenty of people that grew up in poor houses and had to work their a** off to get to the income status they are at and the only thing that the government is doing to the is punishing them for working hard.

another problem we have in my country is the fact that the government pays teenagers to have babies (its called the DPB) and then sit on their a** and not work... then it gets into a cycle where people keep having children just to get money from the gov and do nothing, and this money is taken from the hard workers in a higher income status.

80bb1t1042

i don't want to sound like a snob from that comment but the reason i am against redistribution (in my country that is) is because alot of poor people refuse to even entertain the idea of having a job and working... so i don't see why we should suport them if they are unwilling to try at life

[QUOTE="80bb1t1042"]

why not redistribute?

because people deserve what they earn... why do we punish those who are successful?

i live in a different country but the rich are still punished here... i know plenty of people that grew up in poor houses and had to work their a** off to get to the income status they are at and the only thing that the government is doing to the is punishing them for working hard.

another problem we have in my country is the fact that the government pays teenagers to have babies (its called the DPB) and then sit on their a** and not work... then it gets into a cycle where people keep having children just to get money from the gov and do nothing, and this money is taken from the hard workers in a higher income status.

Jacobistheman

no i live in the pacific... New Zealand to be exact. i am not completly sure of the situation in america but for my country i am completley against it

[QUOTE="Jacobistheman"][QUOTE="80bb1t1042"]

why not redistribute?

because people deserve what they earn... why do we punish those who are successful?

i live in a different country but the rich are still punished here... i know plenty of people that grew up in poor houses and had to work their a** off to get to the income status they are at and the only thing that the government is doing to the is punishing them for working hard.

another problem we have in my country is the fact that the government pays teenagers to have babies (its called the DPB) and then sit on their a** and not work... then it gets into a cycle where people keep having children just to get money from the gov and do nothing, and this money is taken from the hard workers in a higher income status.

80bb1t1042

no i live in the pacific... New Zealand to be exact. i am not completly sure of the situation in america but for my country i am completley against it

[QUOTE="80bb1t1042"][QUOTE="Jacobistheman"][QUOTE="80bb1t1042"]

why not redistribute?

because people deserve what they earn... why do we punish those who are successful?

i live in a different country but the rich are still punished here... i know plenty of people that grew up in poor houses and had to work their a** off to get to the income status they are at and the only thing that the government is doing to the is punishing them for working hard.

another problem we have in my country is the fact that the government pays teenagers to have babies (its called the DPB) and then sit on their a** and not work... then it gets into a cycle where people keep having children just to get money from the gov and do nothing, and this money is taken from the hard workers in a higher income status.

Jacobistheman

no i live in the pacific... New Zealand to be exact. i am not completly sure of the situation in america but for my country i am completley against it

New Zealand is VERY socialist. the problem is (for our country atleast) redistribution will ruin incetives for hard work and basically says "you can sit at home, smoking, drinking and not give a damn about anything and we will give you money from hard workers". we may have low unemployment but it doesnt change the fact that alot of people have bad attitudes towards working.

When those who run the corporations get more heavily taxed, they raise the price of their goods and services to make up for the gap, thus inflating the cost of everything and making the lives of the middle and lower cIasses even worse. Taxing the rich is the exact opposite to what you should do... if anything, they should be taxed less so things cost less and inflation doesn't ruin people's lives.

People deserve what they earn and are not entitled to something unless they earn it. If anything, there should be a crackdown on the people who are on welfare and are capable of working but are just too lazy.foxhound_fox

Fox, you and I have our disagreements, but that is one of the most intellegent posts I've read in awhile. Very well said.

[QUOTE="The_Mac_Daddy"][QUOTE="nippon_gamer"][QUOTE="DOS4dinner"][QUOTE="nippon_gamer"]

not enough people are morally responsible enough. its a matter of morals to think that marrying your sister is wrong so why can't it be "If you want to marry your sister go ahead-- it's your choice"

spitfir3blue

Okay...but who decides what morals are so important that they need to be enforced with laws? The government? The Media? Whoever happens to be in charge? That sound like a good idea.

how about "the people" but they can't because the media is corrupt and we're too stupid to see it. thats why the elite need to step up and be less selfish.

It's not the government's place to FORCE certian people to give their own money to other people. That is absoluet bull**** to be quite honest. The poor people are poor.. and that sucks. But the government can't decide to take money from group A and give it to group B. How do you not see the problem with that? Obama's plan hurts the people who just make the cut of $200,000 hard. The group that just barely makes it over the 200k mark are the largest in the whole group. The Bill Gates superrich people are only a very very very tiny portion of the population. The people who only make 200k a year will get shafted hard. And it's not right..

You probably think you are mister independant and the government doesn't do anything to help you out either. The government didn't HAVE to give you paved roads, street lights, fund local buisenesses, or even help get the roof over your head. We live in a world where we should be supporting each other. Everybody is so god damn greedy nowadays, everything is MINE MINE MINE. Well doctors, lawyers, and rich daddy's kids; did you ever think you might be highly overpaid??? We NEED your services and you NEED us. It's a mutual relationship. We're all connected yet everyone only does something in their best interests or whatever profits them exclusively.

These selfish remarks make me want the next wipeout of life to occur sooner than ever.

Plus, the money isn't even YOURS. It's the federal property that you use to trade, you greedy *****

Whoa, calm down buddy. But I do find it ironic that you are talking about greed. It seems pretty greedy to just sit in line waiting for a handout at the expense of other working Americans. 40% of the population doesn't even pay taxes, and they will be gettting a check. Talk about greedy. Demanding what isn't rightfully yours.

Anyway, the government isn't giving us paid roads. We are paying for those paid roads. Mostly the rich people are paying for those paved roads. The government takes our tax money to use towards PUBLIC things such as paved roads, street lights, etc. They should not be taking money from tax payers and paying it out to people who don't even pay taxes in the first place. And that is greedy.

EDIT: That second paragraph may be misunderstood. What I mean is, PUBLIC things such as paved roads and streetlights are what taxes are suppossed to go towards. Things that EVERYBODY uses. Tax money, however, should never ever be taken and split up and given to other citizens for private use.

Fox, you and I have our disagreements, but that is one of the most intellegent posts I've read in awhile. Very well said.LikeHaterade

[QUOTE="LikeHaterade"]Fox, you and I have our disagreements, but that is one of the most intellegent posts I've read in awhile. Very well said.foxhound_fox

I agree. Your manner of getting your message across was very intelligent.

Let us not mince words.

Sharing the wealth means pointing a gun at a man's head, taking what he has earned, and giving it to someone who did not earn it.

If you're all for that, then fine, but don't you even dare try and label it as something else. If you are going to support something as blatantly evil as this so-called "sharing the wealth" policy, that's your choice, but you damn well better man up and admit that you want to see the producer have that which he has earned taken away from him and given to someone else.

Don't hide behind your buzz words and happy language.