Tax Cuts...... For the Wealthy

Whom do you currently support in the upcoming U.S. presidential election?

  • For or leaning toward Bush and I'm a U.S. citizen

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • For or leaning toward bush and I'm not a U.S. citizen

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • For or leaning toward Kerry and I'm a U.S. citizen

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • For or leaning toward Kerry and I'm not a U.S. citizen

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • For or leaning toward another canidate

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • On planet X, we can only vote for shemp.

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    0
  • Poll closed .
But in the process aren't you also creating more jobs for those skilled in technology? This is a good thing. The problem isn't that you're "killing" jobs, rather, it is that the would-be-temporarily unemployed aren't trying to acquire new skills.

Arguable. Not really. We have a company that employs about 30 people. Our company can then put hundreds of people out of a job.

What essentially happens in that part of the money saved by doctors by being able to fire people goes to us and part goes to him.

Now, what Victor is saying is all right. This is the situation though. I think that more wealthy view things the way Victor says, BUT there is a group of "conservatives" the Bushites or whatever, that maybe are just stupid or arrogant or ignorant, or they believe their own propaganda I don't what, but they are screwing this whole things up for everyone.

Who does a progressive tax benefit? Everyone, especially the wealthy. Who does welfare benefit? Everyone, mostly the wealthy. Who does Social Security benefit? Everyone, mostly the wealthy.

You see, all of these things take pressure off of the private system allowing the private system to be less responsible, which in turn allows the wealthy to be more wealthy.

Once you go to a flat tax and take away social programs, then what? then you have masses of unemployed people with no way to take care of themselves rioting and getting angery and stealing, and no one can maintian in that situation. To prevent that then the wealthy would have to start paying more and hiring more people just to give them something to do to keep them busy. The the price of labor would have to go up to keep discrepency down.

Now the Bush crew does not appear to be trying to to these things to favor the middle class or poor, they are trying to favor teh rich, but in doing so they are tearning down the system that sustains the rich for short term gain. So to me this all looks like pure stupidity.

The people that built America up after WWII, those people were not idiots, they were very smart and they built the strongest nation in the world out of that situation. Those people had "liberal" economic policy and it created a stable and solid economy tha benefited evreyone, and thus ultimately the rich.

Some rich, like the Bush and Steve Forbes types seems to be arrogant idiots that don't understand how they got where they got due to being 3rd and 4th generation multi-millionairs. So now they are tearing down teh system that created wealth in order to try and keep more of what they already have.

They are fascists.

Look at all of history. Look at the great civilizations. Egypt, Greece, Rome, the Aztecs, China, Imperial Japan, the British Empire, the Spanish Empire, Ottoman Empire, the USA up to the turn of the century, etc.

None fo these civlizatiosn had equality. They were all built on exploitation. Civilization is built on exploitation. Greece was arguabel the most equal and fair, but even the Greeks had slaves.

Do you think they built the pyramids with unions and fair wages? Hell no. The British Empire enslaved millions of people, the Spanish Empire enslaved even more and robbed trillions of dollars worth of gold and tresures. That is how EVERY civilization became "great", through exploitation of the many to built the greatness of the few.

America is the same. We killed somewhere between 10 million and 100 million natives in North America (no one know for sure how many), stole their land, and had an economy built on slavery up until the 1870s. That's how America achieved economic greatness.

Equality and fairness does not produce a powerful civilization, and that is just a fact.

The fascists acknowledge this and to them the goal of humanity is to build a great civilization. You always hear these people talk about civilization. To them civilization is more importnat than fairness or equality. They know that it requires unfairness to produce wealth and power and great acomplishments and they hold those things more important than humanity.

It is a choice between civilization and humanity, because civilization is the product of inhumanity. That is what WWII was all about.

The Communists wanted to "destroy civilization" and create equality and humanity, the fascists prized civilization above all else and felt that exploitation is justifiable because it benefits civilizatoin and the wealthy elite who they feel are superior and deserve to rule over teh common man.

The Americans in power under FDR and the ones that retained strong influence after the war saught a middle ground. By the end of the 1960s though those people began fading from power and the wealthy American fascists have begun their rise to power.

They are hear to repeat the issues that led up to WWII once again, prizing progress and civilization over humanity. Trying to reconstruct a Roman or Egyptian Empire of power and prestige, that rides on the back of economic inequality.

Do not beleive that they people will do anything that is going to bring us all closer together, no they are here to separate the working classes from the wealthy elite and make them slaves to the wealthy. The brainwashing has already been taking place for 20 years. Look at how people jump to the defense of the wealthy so quickly, they are brainwshed with lies and deception and a lack of economic understanding. The rich are getting richer, they are going to continue gettign richer, the difference between the avearge person and the super wealthy is growing daily and will continue to grow until the average person is powerless economically and politcally.
 
Vic
I didn't accuse you of making an ad hominem attack. I pointed out that you made an ad hominem attack. And you did.

And as you fail to realize, this thread did not start out as a discourse on general political theory and terminology. I was responding to Malachi's general diatribe against capitalism and taxes by simply asserting that socialism and communism were failed systems. The topic of this thread was not arguing about whether the Oneida colony was true communism or not. My comment was a generalization in response to Malachi's generalization.


And since you're more at home with the ad hominem attack . . . let me send my apologies to you wife and kids for being married and related to such an offensive boor. You attitude is reprehensible and your personality is offensive. I can only hope that you're not such a braying ass in person.
 
jj

I would submit that true communism has been tried, but that due to its inherent flaws, always collapses into a totalitarian, militaristic state.
i would be interested in seeing you support such an assertion. I know a little bit about the modern communist revolutions, and nothing I know suggests your interpretation.

I'm sorry, to me, and I say this based on all the evidence available to date, this does suggest that communism is a failed philosophy/religion.
What evidence is that? When has communism been tried and failed, on societal scale?
 
Gregor

I didn't accuse you of making an ad hominem attack. I pointed out that you made an ad hominem attack. And you did.
I called you an ignoramus, that's true -- in response to you calligm malachi a "woo-woo". In case you missed it, I merely returned to you what you already sent out.

And as you fail to realize, this thread did not start out as a discourse on general political theory and terminology. I was responding to Malachi's general diatribe against capitalism and taxes by simply asserting that socialism and communism were failed systems.
No, you didn't. You asserted that (wrongly), and then you called malachi a woo-woo. You reap what you sow.

And since you're more at home with the ad hominem attack . . .
I am at home with truth and facts. You, apparently, are not.

let me send my apologies to you wife and kids for being married and related to such an offensive boor. You attitude is reprehensible and your personality is offensive. I can only hope that you're not such a braying ass in person.
Envious, huh? I suppose envy is a progress from outright stupidity, though...
 
I stand by my conclusion that I think Malachi's opinions are extreme and unsupported. My new opinion is that you must be a braaying ass in person, too.

With my own wife and kids, there is nothing I see in you that I would envy. Nothing.
 
Gregor

I stand by my conclusion that I think Malachi's opinions are extreme and unsupported.
And I stand by my conclusion that you are ignorant of basic political theory. <shrug> Malachi's errors (which I agree are there) don't give you license to engage in contrary errors of your own.

My new opinion is that you must be a braaying ass in person, too.
of course it is. You have to protect your ego from the horror of <gasp> admitting error. You simply cannot admit that you made an uninformed, ignorant comment off the cuff.

With my own wife and kids, there is nothing I see in you that I would envy. Nothing.
Methinks the bitch doth protest too much... :D

P. S. if you think I made argumenta ad hominem, I suggest you brush up on basiuc logic, too.
 
Gregor said:
I stand by my conclusion that I think Malachi's opinions are extreme and unsupported. My new opinion is that you must be a braaying ass in person, too.

With my own wife and kids, there is nothing I see in you that I would envy. Nothing.

Feel free to point out specfic errors. See, this is what people do, they just cop-out and say "I disagree". Its because they can't come up with a factual or logical way to disagree because their views are baseless in the first place, so they cop-out and stick to their baseless views.
 
My opinion of you has changed Victor . . . oh, wait a minute, no it hasn't. I just hope your insecurities will let you sleep at night.
 
The rhetoric war in washington has gotten even sillier. The new child tax credits would result in overages (people get back money they never paid in taxes in the first place). So, the credits were removed for people in this corner case.

Common sense, right? Wrong. Charles Rangle and others were out stumping today saying those evil republicans were taking from the poor and giving to the rich.

I have nothing against democrats. My state has a superb democrat governor (Phil Bredesen). However, these national level talking heads who continually spout off nonsense like this push away potential donors or possible supporters with half a brain.
 
I think that it should be accepted as a fundamental tenet of our system of government, even to the point of being added to our constitution, that no american citizen should be taxed at a higher rate than any other american citizen. Yes, I believe in either a truly flat income tax or a national sales tax. And this I say as someone who would, at present, probably pay more under a flat tax or national sales tax. I don't expect to be poor forever. But, poor or wealthy, I want to be treated fairly.
 
ehbowen said:
I think that it should be accepted as a fundamental tenet of our system of government, even to the point of being added to our constitution, that no american citizen should be taxed at a higher rate than any other american citizen. Yes, I believe in either a truly flat income tax or a national sales tax. And this I say as someone who would, at present, probably pay more under a flat tax or national sales tax. I don't expect to be poor forever. But, poor or wealthy, I want to be treated fairly.

I never undestood. This this WHOLE idea comes from what? Just a bunch of proaganda class warefare you have been subjected to by the Reaganites? Yes. The fact is that a flat tax has NO baiss is sound economic policy. All the people that are for it think they are for it becuase its somehow "morally right". Thats insane.

Anyone who thinks that Bill Gates is a victem of American society and a victem of the American tax system needs to go to the doctor and have their head examined.

As for defining rich, right now I would define "rich" in America as the top 1% of the wealthiest Americans. My dad is in the top 2% and he's not rich, which is pretty sad, it just shows how "rich' that top 1% is. My dad makes about $300,000 a year, he lives very comfortably, but lives in a regular neighborhood, drives a Dodge pickup truck, owns a boat, and works 5 days a week and is on call for wekeends. That's pretty much a normal middle class life, there is huge difference between that and multi-millionairs, which is what the top 1% is.

All these flat-tax loons are being decieved by taxe3s that are weighted too far towards the middle class. Its BECAUSE when you go from making $25,000a year to $70,000 athat you get huge tax increases that people perceive a problem, but the problem is not graduated taxes, the problem is that the taxes are "too flat".

The top tax bracket in America in 2002 was about $300,000 a year. Now under Bush its $130,000 a year. THAT'S the problem. We have people making $30,000,000 a year. The top tax bracket needs to be only at least $4 million a year or even higher.

In the 1940s the top tac bracket was on $5 million a year, which today that would be like having the top tax bracket on about $30 million a year.

By doing that you made the rate at which taxes increase much less dramatic, so that instead of going up by 15% or 10% over a $100,000 range it goes up by only 5% over a $100,000 range, its a less harsh increase as you go up.

Everyone in this country for the past 20 years that has been making over about $400,000 a year has been robbing the country blind, because from about $300,000 a year taxes never go up anymore, YET between $0 and $300,000 they went up dramatically and it hurt very hard as you move up in that middle class range. However, one you break out of the middle class and become rich then taxes become pain free, which is why the top 5% of Americans have become so ultra-wealthy over the past 20 years while the middle class has suffered. A flat tax is nothing but a tax cut for the rich and a tax hike for the poor. Tell me again how that could in any way work?

And again if you really look at what teh rich are saying the rich ar ethe people who least want a flat-tax, they know good and well it would destroy the country. The main rich that want a flax tax are 2nd and 3rd generatrion multi-millionairs, because they never earned it, they never moved up through the ranks. People like Bill Gates are all for a graduated tax.
 
Victor Danilchenko said:
Yup. And this is why there are many rich who are in favor of progressive taxation.

Guilt-ridden liberal Democrats and the Hollywood left don't count... ;)
 
Malachi151 said:


I never undestood. This this WHOLE idea comes from what? Just a bunch of proaganda class warefare you have been subjected to by the Reaganites? Yes. The fact is that a flat tax has NO baiss is sound economic policy. All the people that are for it think they are for it becuase its somehow "morally right". Thats insane.

Anyone who thinks that Bill Gates is a victem of American society and a victem of the American tax system needs to go to the doctor and have their head examined.

As for defining rich, right now I would define "rich" in America as the top 1% of the wealthiest Americans. My dad is in the top 2% and he's not rich, which is pretty sad, it just shows how "rich' that top 1% is. My dad makes about $300,000 a year, he lives very comfortably, but lives in a regular neighborhood, drives a Dodge pickup truck, owns a boat, and works 5 days a week and is on call for wekeends. That's pretty much a normal middle class life, there is huge difference between that and multi-millionairs, which is what the top 1% is.

All these flat-tax loons are being decieved by taxe3s that are weighted too far towards the middle class. Its BECAUSE when you go from making $25,000a year to $70,000 athat you get huge tax increases that people perceive a problem, but the problem is not graduated taxes, the problem is that the taxes are "too flat".

The top tax bracket in America in 2002 was about $300,000 a year. Now under Bush its $130,000 a year. THAT'S the problem. We have people making $30,000,000 a year. The top tax bracket needs to be only at least $4 million a year or even higher.

In the 1940s the top tac bracket was on $5 million a year, which today that would be like having the top tax bracket on about $30 million a year.

By doing that you made the rate at which taxes increase much less dramatic, so that instead of going up by 15% or 10% over a $100,000 range it goes up by only 5% over a $100,000 range, its a less harsh increase as you go up.

Everyone in this country for the past 20 years that has been making over about $400,000 a year has been robbing the country blind, because from about $300,000 a year taxes never go up anymore, YET between $0 and $300,000 they went up dramatically and it hurt very hard as you move up in that middle class range. However, one you break out of the middle class and become rich then taxes become pain free, which is why the top 5% of Americans have become so ultra-wealthy over the past 20 years while the middle class has suffered. A flat tax is nothing but a tax cut for the rich and a tax hike for the poor. Tell me again how that could in any way work?

And again if you really look at what teh rich are saying the rich ar ethe people who least want a flat-tax, they know good and well it would destroy the country. The main rich that want a flax tax are 2nd and 3rd generatrion multi-millionairs, because they never earned it, they never moved up through the ranks. People like Bill Gates are all for a graduated tax.


Blah, blah, blah....

Basically, you just want to punitively tax the most successful and prosperous people in the country, and you have the audacity to claim that it's all in the name of "fairness".
 

Back
Top Bottom