Americans agree: The rich should pay higher

[IamsSon]

Yes... it is. Go to the back of the bus does not mean learn more and you know it. Obama did not say that. Fox News simply reported that he did. Here is Obama's actual quote and it clearly isn't a reference to sitting in the back of the bus.

Yes, he did. Here's a nice video of him saying it: Link

[Guest]

It depends very much on how you count wealth;

In terms of types of financial wealth, the top one percent of households have 38.3% of all privately held stock, 60.6% of financial securities, and 62.4% of business equity. The top 10% have 80% to 90% of stocks, bonds, trust funds, and business equity, and over 75% of non-home real estate. Since financial wealth is what counts as far as the control of income-producing assets, we can say that just 10% of the people own the United States of America.

http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html

A very interesting read.

Interesting that 1% of the population holds 62% of business equity and this is where the most active government lobbying takes place - so 1% are the most influential in terms of business and tax policy.

Are the American public aware of how unfair their society is in terms of wealth distribution;

A remarkable study (Norton & Ariely, 2010) reveals that Americans have no idea that the wealth distribution (defined for them in terms of "net worth") is as concentrated as it is. When shown three pie charts representing possible wealth distributions, 90% or more of the 5,522 respondents -- whatever their gender, age, income level, or party affiliation -- thought that the American wealth distribution most resembled one in which the top 20% has about 60% of the wealth. In fact, of course, the top 20% control about 85% of the wealth (refer back to Table 1 and Figure 1 in this document for a more detailed breakdown of the numbers).

Even more striking, they did not come close on the amount of wealth held by the bottom 40% of the population. It's a number I haven't even mentioned so far, and it's shocking: the lowest two quintiles hold just 0.3% of the wealth in the United States. Most people in the survey guessed the figure to be between 8% and 10%, and two dozen academic economists got it wrong too, by guessing about 2% -- seven times too high. Those surveyed did have it about right for what the 20% in the middle have; it's at the top and the bottom that they don't have any idea of what's going on.

It seems that if those bottom two quintiles could be made aware of their position they would represent a significant voting block.

Are the rich paying more than their fair share, apparently not;

It is widely believed that taxes are highly progressive and, furthermore, that the top several percent of income earners pay most of the taxes received by the federal government. Both ideas are wrong because they focus on official, rather than "effective" tax rates and ignore payroll taxes, which are mostly paid by those with incomes below $100,000 per year.

So the average Jo pays the bulk of it.

And are the rich avoiding paying their fair share, you bet;

So the best estimates that can be put together from official government numbers show a little bit of progressivity. But the details on those who earn millions of dollars each year are very hard to come by, because they can stash a large part of their wealth in off-shore tax havens in the Caribbean and little countries in Europe, starting with Switzerland. And there are many loopholes and gimmicks they can use, as summarized with striking examples in Free Lunch and Perfectly Legal, the books by Johnston that were mentioned earlier. For example, Johnston explains the ways in which high earners can hide their money and delay on paying taxes, and then invest for a profit what normally would be paid in taxes.

Is America one of the most unfair countries for income distribution, you bet again (it keeps company with south Africa);

The degree of income inequality in the United States can be compared to that in other countries on the basis of the Gini coefficient, a mathematical ratio that allows economists to put all countries on a scale with values that range (hypothetically) from zero (everyone in the country has the same income) to 100 (one person in the country has all the income). On this widely used measure, the United States ends up 95th out of the 134 countries that have been studied -- that is, only 39 of the 134 countries have worse income inequality. The U.S. has a Gini index of 45.0; Sweden is the lowest with 23.0, and South Africa is near the top with 65.0.

Are CEO's paying themselves to much in America, well compared to everywhere else - you bet, and its got progressively worse since Free Market Mania took hold;

Another way that income can be used as a power indicator is by comparing average CEO annual pay to average factory worker pay, something that has been done for many years by Business Week and, later, the Associated Press. The ratio of CEO pay to factory worker pay rose from 42:1 in 1960 to as high as 531:1 in 2000, at the height of the stock market bubble, when CEOs were cashing in big stock options. It was at 411:1 in 2005 and 344:1 in 2007, according to research by United for a Fair Economy. By way of comparison, the same ratio is about 25:1 in Europe. The changes in the American ratio from 1960 to 2007 are displayed in Figure 8, which is based on data from several hundred of the largest corporations.

How does the CEO decide what he's worth, he just says what he wants and gets it;

The compensation committee [of the board of directors] talks to an outside consultant who has surveys you could drive a truck through and pay anything you want to pay, to be perfectly honest. The outside consultant talks to the human resources vice president, who talks to the CEO. The CEO says what he'd like to receive. It gets to the human resources person who tells the outside consultant. And it pretty well works out that the CEO gets what he's implied he thinks he deserves, so he will be respected by his peers. (Morgenson, 2005.)

All in all a prity poor report card for systemic inequality in a developed country. Has it produced a happy stable and progressive country ... forgive me if I

Br Cornelius

[Guest]

Despite what your constitution would claim it seems that your country was founded on the principles of inequality and it has always operated unequally ever since. In the early days it was Slavery which allowed this - whats the reason for it now?

Br Cornelius

[IamsSon]

Despite what your constitution would claim it seems that your country was founded on the principles of inequality and it has always operated unequally ever since. In the early days it was Slavery which allowed this - whats the reason for it now?

Br Cornelius

A government that has grown too large supported by liberals and socialists.

[Guest]

A government that has grown too large supported by liberals and socialists.

But they would reduce the disparity so it can't be that.

Br Cornelius

[Joshua Thorne]

LoL...I said in my first post when I joined this discussion that this is one debate that cannot be won...ever.

I applaud Wookitim for his civility, patience and tenacity. I actually do see your point. Good or bad, I have always been blessed/cursed with being able to empathize/identify with both sides of any given coin.

Yes, the rich have built themselves some astoundingly opulent and influential empires on the backs of the working classes and in a psychological/moral sense, there should be a point where "enough is enough"...but that's not going to happen.

You cannot legislate or regulate "good will toward man" nor can you stifle or control limitless greed. It's just the way human nature works...which might be sad one day...That unbridled greed might one day be the key to our country and civilizations downfall...but...no one cares about that today...just gimme mine.

[Ignus Fatuus]

A question out of you to me... and you probably expect an answer.

Tell you what - I'll give you that answer when you answer my questions. I think you have had enough time to formulate a reply now.

Again ... there are no answers to a question with multiple opinions. They are opinions. This is a debate that would end up with you hating me, beceause I probably with others would not agree with you.

What is with you and your need for arguments??? There "ARE" no correct answers to your questions. Besides my correct one about the illegal immigrants not paying any taxes ... which would help our country much.

Please explore your mind and understand that I am not your enemy. What we have is an opinion issue, not a hate issue. I will not ... debate you on a subject that will debate without a solution. Will not!!!

[Wookietim]

Again ... there are no answers to a question with multiple opinions. They are opinions. This is a debate that would end up with you hating me, beceause I probably with others would not agree with you.

Interestingly enough I was asking your opinions. Opinions that directly reflect a portion of this debate.

What is with you and your need for arguments??? There "ARE" no correct answers to your questions. Besides my correct one about the illegal immigrants not paying any taxes ... which would help our country much.

A yes or no answer to two questions that reflect your opinion on whether you would prefer to be rich or poor is beyond your ability to provide?

Please explore your mind and understand that I am not your enemy. What we have is an opinion issue, not a hate issue. I will not ... debate you on a subject that will debate without a solution. Will not!!!

The problem being that you refuse to express your opinions when asked about them. Let's list the ways you have now tried to avoid answering simple questions :

1. Claimed that the questions were about presidents

2. Claimed they were off topic

3. After admitting that they were not about presidents, claimed they were off topic.

4. Went back to claiming that the questions were about presidents.

5. After you go far off topic, you claimed that they were off topic.

6. Now claiming that this is all about opinions and even if they are on topic you are afraid to admit your opinions.

How many more excuses will you come up with, Ignus?

Edited April 28, 2011 by Wookietim

[Guest]

Again ... there are no answers to a question with multiple opinions. They are opinions. This is a debate that would end up with you hating me, beceause I probably with others would not agree with you.

What is with you and your need for arguments??? There "ARE" no correct answers to your questions. Besides my correct one about the illegal immigrants not paying any taxes ... which would help our country much.

Please explore your mind and understand that I am not your enemy. What we have is an opinion issue, not a hate issue. I will not ... debate you on a subject that will debate without a solution. Will not!!!

Since most illegal immigrants are below taxable rates (been on below minimum wage) I don't feel it makes a hell of a lot of practical difference whether they are registered for tax or not - they probably are losing out by not been registered. Think about that. At the same time think about how your economy would function without all that cheap labour. Possibly better, but I don't think most of your CEO's would necessarily agree.

Br Cornelius

[Ignus Fatuus]

Since most illegal immigrants are below taxable rates (been on below minimum wage) I don't feel it makes a hell of a lot of practical difference whether they are registered for tax or not - they probably are losing out by not been registered. Think about that. At the same time think about how your economy would function without all that cheap labour. Possibly better, but I don't think most of your CEO's would necessarily agree.

Br Cornelius

Yup ... as with those down the road who are payed half minimum wage I would have to agree with you on this one. However it is the greed as I stated before that is a problem.

Yet if they are here ... pay them what they deserve and tax them like they are true americans. We just cant continue to let the rich get away with robbery while our folks do not have jobs due to this. Cant understand how so many here do not get this common sense issue??? They send a lot of their money home to their families ... hell who can blame them??? I love my family, yet they are rich. What if a family is starving to death???

However they are continuing to rob us of our jobs. Even at minimum wage this is still a job and they are being payed 4 dollars an hour. They also work harder. Sick, sad and sorry this is!!!

Our economy??? It would be a trickle down effect. Without the cheaper labor the poor would get more. The rich would have to give "some" but would still be rich. Illegal immigrants are a pain!!!

Also still do not know how 8 people live in that 2 bedroom apartment!!! Yet I can guarantee it probably is better than sleeping in sand!!!

[Ignus Fatuus]

Interestingly enough I was asking your opinions. Opinions that directly reflect a portion of this debate.

A yes or no answer to two questions that reflect your opinion on whether you would prefer to be rich or poor is beyond your ability to provide?

The problem being that you refuse to express your opinions when asked about them. Let's list the ways you have now tried to avoid answering simple questions :

1. Claimed that the questions were about presidents

2. Claimed they were off topic

3. After admitting that they were not about presidents, claimed they were off topic.

4. Went back to claiming that the questions were about presidents.

5. After you go far off topic, you claimed that they were off topic.

6. Now claiming that this is all about opinions and even if they are on topic you are afraid to admit your opinions.

How many more excuses will you come up with, Ignus?

... bub try all you can. I have taken psychology classes in college and there is no debate here. Just opinion. Waste your time all you want too. Opinions are just opinions which are just opinions. Nothing off topic as I besides you once stating illegal immigrants was off topic is still but an opinion.

You brought up the presidents. Off topic. You were off topic. Never noted the topic was about presidents. Again you went off topic. This is an opinion issue. Nothing debatable about it. I have been nice and mannered and have told you the truth. This is not a debate that would get anywhere. Opinions are opinions, which are just that opinions.

Goodbye ...

Edited to note that I have given my opinions. However you just do not share them. I hate debates which never go nowhere. Therefore it is a waste of hate to do it. How could you not agree with this???

Besides the rich or poor issue??? I did give my "opinion" that it is the middle class which is the best solution. Not poor ... not rich. Yet our middle class is shrinking along with our economy. I would rather be middle class and share the wealth. I have also stated that the rich are greedy and the poor are lazy. Both truths. Illegals take jobs away for half the price. True. These are not my opinions. The questions you asked however are mostly for debate. Would not get anywhere. I have agreed with you on some issues and you still attacked.

Onto the next thread where you will do the same. As for this one I am done. A waste of time and never to get to anywhere. Pathetic!!!

Edited April 28, 2011 by Ignus Fatuus

[Wookietim]

... bub try all you can. I have taken psychology classes in college and there is no debate here. Just opinion. Waste your time all you want too. Opinions are just opinions which are just opinions. Nothing off topic as I besides you once stating illegal immigrants was off topic is still but an opinion.

You brought up the presidents. Off topic. You were off topic. Never noted the topic was about presidents. Again you went off topic. This is an opinion issue. Nothing debatable about it. I have been nice and mannered and have told you the truth. This is not a debate that would get anywhere. Opinions are opinions, which are just that opinions.

Goodbye ...

Then why is it so scary to you to answer a question that asks your opinion? Oops - that's right : I asked a question and you don't answer questions.

Well, I guess I can just write you off as a person who isn't willing to actually admit their opinions. A person that just isn't bright enough to answer simple questions when asked.

P.S. - to remind you : All I asked was whether you would be rich even if taxes were higher than poor. I referred to Bush and Clinton only in the way that their tax structures were different. So therefore this was not a question about presidents. And you admitted as much when I told you that, point blank, three times. And since this is a thread about the rich paying higher taxes, no - the question of whether illegal immigrants pay taxes is not on topic.

Edited April 28, 2011 by Wookietim

[Order66]

I think it should be a flat rate across the board. Having different rates is just a means of favoritism which gets a political spin in favor of whoever is pushing it but only hurts everybody in the end. When politicians give government contracts to their rich friends its cronyism, but when they give them a tax advantage then its just leveling the playing field.

Edited April 28, 2011 by Halloween78

[TFSM]

This argument is highly contingent upon peoples' understanding of some pretty basic economic and accounting principles.

First of all, you can't look at income tax tables to determine how much a person pays in income taxes. In accounting there is something called an "effective tax rate". The effective rate is the actual, total rate paid with deductions and differing types of income taken into account. Without linking articles (you can google this information pretty easily but I don't have time at the moment to link it for you), the top 400 earners in the country pay an astoundingly low effective (something like 17%). These earners pay about the same effective rate as some middle class families as a percentage of income. This is because capital gains are only taxed at 15%, and a large marjority of the income of wealthy americans is from capital gains and not regular wages. So next time a wealthy individual complains about a 35% tax rate, tell them to hire a better accountant.

Secondly, there are other types of taxes that the wealthy pay less (as a percent of income). Sales tax is largerly considered a regressive tax because it weighs more heavily on poorer people, who spend a very significant amount of their income on items with sales tax. Wealthy people pay very little of their income (as a percent) on items with sales taxes (they mostly invest, save, etc). There is also social security tax, which has a cap (meaning income over $120,000 (that limit might be old) is not subjected to the social security tax).

Thirdly, there is a well-known economic principle called the "Law of Diminishing Marginal Returns". It's the "Hamburger" rule which explains that for each additional hamburger you eat, you enjoy it less. The first hamburger was delicious because you were hungry, then the second was okay, and the third you had to force down. The same principle applies to money. The more money you have, the less each dollar is worth to you. If you have $5.00 to your name, $1.00 means a meal at McDonalds. If you have $100,000 to your name, you'd toss $1.00 to a bum on the street since it has little value to you. Applying the same "flat tax" percent doesn't solve the issue, because 20% of the $5.00 from the one guy is a lot more valuable than 20% of the income of the $100,000 guy.

This principle is the reason why our tax code is so complex. Our US tax code attempts to ensure that each citizen suffers the same hardship from having to pay taxes. That's why people with kids pay less, and people who are wealthy pay more.

Right now, the very wealthy (along with making many times more money today than they did 30 years ago) are also enjoying the lowest tax rates they've had for decades. The money we give to these individuals is intended to spur job growth, but tell me, do you think Bill Gates is going to hire more people at Microsoft because he has an additional $100,000 this year? The whole "job growth" argument for low corporate and wealthy taxes is a fallacy.

Edited April 28, 2011 by TFSM

[Harte]

What is with you and your need for arguments??? There "ARE" no correct answers to your questions. Besides my correct one about the illegal immigrants not paying any taxes ... which would help our country much.

I'm not at all convinced that the above is true.

AFAIK, illegals pay taxes through their bogus SS numbers/green cards. Maybe not income taxes because of low incomes (but even if they were legal, they'd have no income tax liability - for the same reason.)

Maybe I'm wrong, but I seriously doubt that there are a large number of illegals in the country working without using false documentation.

No question about it, there are far more citizens working under the table than there are illegals.

Harte

[Wookietim]

I'm not at all convinced that the above is true.

AFAIK, illegals pay taxes through their bogus SS numbers/green cards. Maybe not income taxes because of low incomes (but even if they were legal, they'd have no income tax liability - for the same reason.)

Maybe I'm wrong, but I seriously doubt that there are a large number of illegals in the country working without using false documentation.

No question about it, there are far more citizens working under the table than there are illegals.

Harte

I might also remind people - illegal immigrants pay sales taxes when they buy things just like everyone else. Therefore they are contributing the the state that they live in.

But beyond that, last I looked this thread was about the rich and whether they ought to pay more in taxes or not - not about illegal immigrants. So Ignus and his discussion about that is very much off topic. And Ignus's inability to answer a simple question (Would he rather be rich even if he had to pay more in taxes or would he rather be poor?) is quite telling in his inability to form a coherent argument to defend his opinion.

[Ignus Fatuus]

I'm not at all convinced that the above is true.

AFAIK, illegals pay taxes through their bogus SS numbers/green cards. Maybe not income taxes because of low incomes (but even if they were legal, they'd have no income tax liability - for the same reason.)

Maybe I'm wrong, but I seriously doubt that there are a large number of illegals in the country working without using false documentation.

No question about it, there are far more citizens working under the table than there are illegals.

Harte

Harte you of all should understand that a debate would not get anywheres why should ... unless it could fix a problem even be??? It is not all true, yet I arguing with anyone would not find a solution. I gave my 2 cents and got negative feedback. It is not worth the waste of time. No dissrespect intended.

We here especially on the political forum argue like 15 dogs fighting over one b****. Why???

Plus yes at least on a local issue. Those illegals did cause many in the county to lose their jobs. They are paid squat. I have no clue to how many illegals are in the nation, yet at least for this county it is a serious issue.

Far more citizens??? Probably true as they get their unemployment as many do here and work lawnmowing and other side jobs and make a killing. Never stated that we actual citizens were not a problem, yet illegals do bring up unemployment quite a bit. That is a fact.

We have a large problem with the greed in the US. However living paycheck to paycheck is a curse. Who would not do anything to improve their situation. I do not blame them. I blame ... again greed!!!

[Ignus Fatuus]

Then why is it so scary to you to answer a question that asks your opinion? Oops - that's right : I asked a question and you don't answer questions.

Well, I guess I can just write you off as a person who isn't willing to actually admit their opinions. A person that just isn't bright enough to answer simple questions when asked.

P.S. - to remind you : All I asked was whether you would be rich even if taxes were higher than poor. I referred to Bush and Clinton only in the way that their tax structures were different. So therefore this was not a question about presidents. And you admitted as much when I told you that, point blank, three times. And since this is a thread about the rich paying higher taxes, no - the question of whether illegal immigrants pay taxes is not on topic.

Will answer but just my opinion.

I did answer that the rich would be rich even with higher taxes. Yet they would break off their less pay from less money by burdening the poor and laying off more workers. Did note this.

Bush/Clinton ... 9/11 and Katrina. What if Clinton had to deal with those two alone??? What would have changed??? Much is the answer. Yet just my opinion.

However the rich paying higher taxes is not going to get us anywhere. Point blank. Greed has a way of making its money and again it would be through the heart of the poor. History repeats and defeats if you do not pay attention.

If illegals payed taxes ... how could anyone with a lick of sense "cents" not understand that our debt would be at least a little decreased??? We have even in this country town many illegals living all shacked up in a two bedroom apartment. How many other illegals are here. Us taxpayers paying for their education, their doctor bills, their this, their that??? No argument about this. This is a problem. Some just want to ignore it.

I want to see them prosper ... I had a student last year who though was born in the US is the son of two illegal immigrants who have never bothered to get their legit status.

The greedy take advantage of us. Is this not what this thread is about. However taxing more those who already pay most the taxes is "NOT" the solution. It is a small deal, deal. Government stops spending like a spoiled wife our middle class mom and pop stores need to once again grow, the poor need to stop breeding so to bring in more money so they can snort their pills, illegals need to pay or go ... solutions are solutions!!!

However for the last time ... tax the rich, attack the poor. History repeated!!!

[Ignus Fatuus]

I might also remind people - illegal immigrants pay sales taxes when they buy things just like everyone else. Therefore they are contributing the the state that they live in.

But beyond that, last I looked this thread was about the rich and whether they ought to pay more in taxes or not - not about illegal immigrants. So Ignus and his discussion about that is very much off topic. And Ignus's inability to answer a simple question (Would he rather be rich even if he had to pay more in taxes or would he rather be poor?) is quite telling in his inability to form a coherent argument to defend his opinion.

Dumb ... why should the rich pay more when ... ohhhhh, maybe you are right. Yet not all the rich hire the illegals!!!

I am starting to have fun with this "Ignus this" and "Ignus that"!!!

I have never meant to p*** in your Cherrios, yet I have seen how I have. We would get nowhere even with the small answering of the questions I gave directly above. Sometimes arguments when they solve nothing are worth nothing.

As stated above I would love to see everyone better off and not living paycheck to paycheck. My opinions however would not solve anything and just further an argument like others here that I do not want a part of.

Period, exclamation ... no question about it!!!

Will read your replies ... yet if they are plainly and simply all more about arguments I want nothing to do with it. This is getting a little too much tarded!!!

[Wookietim]

Will answer but just my opinion.

I did answer that the rich would be rich even with higher taxes. Yet they would break off their less pay from less money by burdening the poor and laying off more workers. Did note this.

Bush/Clinton ... 9/11 and Katrina. What if Clinton had to deal with those two alone??? What would have changed??? Much is the answer. Yet just my opinion.

However the rich paying higher taxes is not going to get us anywhere. Point blank. Greed has a way of making its money and again it would be through the heart of the poor. History repeats and defeats if you do not pay attention.

If illegals payed taxes ... how could anyone with a lick of sense "cents" not understand that our debt would be at least a little decreased??? We have even in this country town many illegals living all shacked up in a two bedroom apartment. How many other illegals are here. Us taxpayers paying for their education, their doctor bills, their this, their that??? No argument about this. This is a problem. Some just want to ignore it.

I want to see them prosper ... I had a student last year who though was born in the US is the son of two illegal immigrants who have never bothered to get their legit status.

The greedy take advantage of us. Is this not what this thread is about. However taxing more those who already pay most the taxes is "NOT" the solution. It is a small deal, deal. Government stops spending like a spoiled wife our middle class mom and pop stores need to once again grow, the poor need to stop breeding so to bring in more money so they can snort their pills, illegals need to pay or go ... solutions are solutions!!!

However for the last time ... tax the rich, attack the poor. History repeated!!!

I will state this one last time :

My question is would YOU rather be rich even with higher taxes than be poor?

Your entire post conveniently skirted that entire question. Too bad you can't answer a direct question with a direct answer. It's nice to hear what you think about Katrina, illegal immigrants, and every topic you can think of other than the question I posed - but it is not an answer. This is like me asking "What is 2+2" and you saying "Well, President Bush had to deal with Katrina and 9/11, and while I want people to succeed...." and acting like that is an answer to my question.

Edited April 28, 2011 by Wookietim

[Ignus Fatuus]

I will state this one last time :

My question is would YOU rather be rich even with higher taxes than be poor?

Your entire post conveniently skirted that entire question. Too bad you can't answer a direct question with a direct answer. It's nice to hear what you think about Katrina, illegal immigrants, and every topic you can think of other than the question I posed - but it is not an answer. This is like me asking "What is 2+2" and you saying "Well, President Bush had to deal with Katrina and 9/11, and while I want people to succeed...." and acting like that is an answer to my question.

Answered the question and will have to state that you are not getting the point.

I would "not" with my luck being middle class wish any ... "any" poor to suffer due to the rich being taxed more. My students come to school hungry, with holes in their clothes, beaten and scarred.

I would much rather be rich with more taxes, yet to hurt the poor is evil. Period!!! Yet the "fact" is that greed will make its money at the breaking of the poor and increasing the agony of being poor. History repeats this and to do this again will only hurt those I care about ... the poor.

Never bolted from this threads question ... "The rich should pay higher taxes". Stayed on subject only to have you and others ask more when those questions were opinion, would not solve any problem and are only put out to push the thread and argue.

Some people are addicted to alchohol ... some snort percs ... some smoke crack.

However some are addicted to their egonostic beliefs and addicted to arguing a debate that would solve nothing. Sorry ... I will argue with you in the future on other threads. Your trolling however even when I answer "my opinions" is disgusting. Find another relief for your anger. Ya needs to go see a psychologist. WOOT!!!IETIM!!!

And again I am not your enemy. However you take too many things being personal. Even after I answered your question it was not good enough for you. My answers would never suffice for you. You need to take a deep look into your heart and see that not everyone is the same, or have the same values, the same cultural standards.

I am all for helping the poor ... yet for the last time I will never hurt the greedy which would hurt the poor. This is a fact!!! Sorry you slept during history classes ..

[Wookietim]

Answered the question and will have to state that you are not getting the point.

I would "not" with my luck being middle class wish any ... "any" poor to suffer due to the rich being taxed more. My students come to school hungry, with holes in their clothes, beaten and scarred.

I would much rather be rich with more taxes, yet to hurt the poor is evil. Period!!! Yet the "fact" is that greed will make its money at the breaking of the poor and increasing the agony of being poor. History repeats this and to do this again will only hurt those I care about ... the poor.

Never bolted from this threads question ... "The rich should pay higher taxes". Stayed on subject only to have you and others ask more when those questions were opinion, would not solve any problem and are only put out to push the thread and argue.

Some people are addicted to alchohol ... some snort percs ... some smoke crack.

However some are addicted to their egonostic beliefs and addicted to arguing a debate that would solve nothing. Sorry ... I will argue with you in the future on other threads. Your trolling however even when I answer "my opinions" is disgusting. Find another relief for your anger. Ya needs to go see a psychologist. WOOT!!!IETIM!!!

And again I am not your enemy. However you take too many things being personal. Even after I answered your question it was not good enough for you. My answers would never suffice for you. You need to take a deep look into your heart and see that not everyone is the same, or have the same values, the same cultural standards.

I am all for helping the poor ... yet for the last time I will never hurt the greedy which would hurt the poor. This is a fact!!! Sorry you slept during history classes ..

And finally, after three days and embedded in a exegesis the size of war and peace we have an answer!

Now, if you would rather be rich even with higher taxes than poor, why is it bad to raise taxes on the rich? That way we have the money to help the poor raise themselves up.

[Ignus Fatuus]

And finally, after three days and embedded in a exegesis the size of war and peace we have an answer!

Now, if you would rather be rich even with higher taxes than poor, why is it bad to raise taxes on the rich? That way we have the money to help the poor raise themselves up.

Do believe I gave the same answer before. Who would not choose to be rich over poor??? Not me!!!

The rich are greedy. They will find ways of making their money one way or the other. Have to keep one eye on the rich. And again, tax the rich attack the poor. Unemployment as it is is a curse. The rich if they make a million last year are set out to make a million this year. Greed is an ugly thing!!!

The poor as I also have stated are on the governments nipple. They are lazy. We have to educate them better and get those who are on their feet to do things for themselves. This milk which comes from our taxpayers does nothing but hurt the taxpayer. Giving people more money for having more kids??? Are you kidding me???

[Joshua Thorne]

Accolades to all of you! For the most part it was a civil debate that all of you knew could not be won when you chose to participate in it. I know I did (though I actually contributed very little). Ignus made a key comment in reference to the minimum wage when he said it was all about greed. This IS at the core of the problem.

If we consider the current state of affairs in our culture and society, it does not take a lot to see that something, somewhere has to fundamentally change. If you project our current path down the road a decade or a generation...this is likely to not be a pleasant place to live anymore. So what do we do?

Do we say "We tell the rich to pay more taxes?" or "We have to make the rich pay better wages." Either one, from the top down point of view is taking, what they perceive as, "their" money out of their pocket. They are not going to like it regardless which option is used.

Here's a heads up I saw in the news yesterday...there are some conservative representatives proposing to review and possibly repeal the minimum wage law...no...seriously. That's probably not a good thing.

I'm discussing some possibilities in another thread off the main board. You are all welcome to come and join in. I'm really interested in discussing options though, not a raw debate. The thread is titled "Where is the USA going?" and I would love to have your participation...(warning though, my posts through the first few pages are wordy and boring so please don't get too agitated with me!)

Edited April 28, 2011 by Joshua Thorne

[questionmark]

I think everybody is asking the wrong question here, the right one being: Would you pay more taxes to be rich?