Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
THE MATRIX

Americans agree: The rich should pay higher

338 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

IamsSon

Are you aware that the entire basis of the tax system is that money is received by the govt based on wealth - and that it is not meant to take all the money a person has? How is simply suggesting a small amount more - at levels that are not that far gone and not nearly as high as they have been in the past, by the way - such a horrid thing?

Read the article I posted. I understand the basis of the tax system, but there is nothing in the tax system that inherently says the rich should be taxed at higher percentages than others. You keep talking about fairness, but somehow seem completely blind to the fact that taxing someone at a higher percentage simply because someone else is not making as much money is not in any way fair.
I still don't see a direct yes or no answer.

I'm sorry to hear you're blind.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
IamsSon

The rich did not make all that money by themselves. I would love to see how much money they could actually make by themselves. There is a chain in any workplace and top makes more than the bottom but all should make enough to live and if they don't there should be services for them so they don't have to live on the streets. There should also be services for people who can't help themselves. And yes there are going to be people who cheat the system at the bottom and top. And when the top has no rules which was the case for years the top is going to do the majority of the cheating such as Enron and rich people filing bankruptcy multiple times and dumping their debts on the majority and that's how we got in the situation we're in now. The rich need to pay more in taxes because they have been cheating the majority of us for years that's how all the money got where it is now. Not because those people at the top are geniuses or even hard workers.

There are no slaves in the US workforce, so I have no idea why the fact that an executive does not earn all the money by himself has any bearing. All employees get paid a wage they AGREED to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wookietim

Read the article I posted. I understand the basis of the tax system, but there is nothing in the tax system that inherently says the rich should be taxed at higher percentages than others. You keep talking about fairness, but somehow seem completely blind to the fact that taxing someone at a higher percentage simply because someone else is not making as much money is not in any way fair.

I'm sorry to hear you're blind.

How is it not fair? Obviously the rich have derived more benefit from the system than the poor have. Therefore it is fair to ask them to contribute more to the system than those that did not derive as much benefit from it.

Not only is it more fair, it makes sense for the rich to do just that beyond that argument. A system that provides decent social services creates a society in which there is the possibility of upward mobility which makes everyone more secure and happy - and therefore more productive. After all, which is more productive : An employee that is worried about how they will pay enough to eat that night or one that is not worried about that? Oh, that's right - you are one that won't answer questions.

So, not only is it fair to ask the rich to contribute more to the success of the system that made them rich, it benefits the rich themselves in the end to do so. Yet you seem perfectly supportive of punishing the poor just so that the rich can have a short term boost to their fortunes. That is what is not fair.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
IamsSon

How is it not fair? Obviously the rich have derived more benefit from the system than the poor have. Therefore it is fair to ask them to contribute more to the system than those that did not derive as much benefit from it.

So, "the system" is the one keeping "the poor" poor then?
Not only is it more fair, it makes sense for the rich to do just that beyond that argument. A system that provides decent social services creates a society in which there is the possibility of upward mobility which makes everyone more secure and happy - and therefore more productive.
Actually, from what happened in the USSR, what is happening in Greece, Spain, France, Germany, Europe in general, what is happening with many welfare-dependent families here in the US, a system that provides "decent social services" creates a culture of people who would rather depend on the government to give them the money they take away from people who earned it, than work to improve themselves.
After all, which is more productive : An employee that is worried about how they will pay enough to eat that night or one that is not worried about that?
An employee who does his job, gains experience, and gets paid what he earns..
So, not only is it fair to ask the rich to contribute more to the success of the system that made them rich, it benefits the rich themselves in the end to do so. Yet you seem perfectly supportive of punishing the poor just so that the rich can have a short term boost to their fortunes. That is what is not fair.

Did "the system" make them rich? Edited by IamsSon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wookietim

So, "the system" is the one keeping "the poor" poor then?

"The system" does not keep a person poor. And it does not make a person rich. But it does provide an environment in which certain people derive benefits from it more than others. And the rich are the ones deriving many more benefits from it than the poor are.

Now, quit trying to put words in my mouth.

Actually, from what happened in the USSR, what is happening in Greece, Spain, France, Germany, Europe in general, what is happening with many welfare-dependent families here in the US, a system that provides "decent social services" creates a culture of people who would rather depend on the government to give them the money they take away from people who earned it, than work to improve themselves.

An employee who does his job, gains experience, and gets paid what he earns..

Did "the system" make them rich?

There are very few people who would rather be poor than rich, so that argument simply doesn't work. Tell me - even if you lived in any of those countries, which would you rather be : Poor or Rich?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
conspiracybeliever

There are no slaves in the US workforce, so I have no idea why the fact that an executive does not earn all the money by himself has any bearing. All employees get paid a wage they AGREED to.

You give people a choice to work for slave wages or live on the streets and beg and you call that a choice? You can't say someone agreed to something if they have no choice! And there are plenty of slaves in this country. You choose not to see them or claim it's their choice.

The fact that the executive didn't make all the money himself means it doesn't all belong to him He needs to pay the people who helped him make that money. And pay them a fair wage. We don't have kings and queens in this country.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
IamsSon

"The system" does not keep a person poor. And it does not make a person rich. But it does provide an environment in which certain people derive benefits from it more than others. And the rich are the ones deriving many more benefits from it than the poor are.

Wouldn't someone who is not paying to maintain "the system" but is actually receiving benefits from "the system" be the one considered to be benefiting from the system?
Now, quit trying to put words in my mouth.
It seemed that since you want to hold the rich responsible for the poor being poor, and since you said the rich were made rich by the system, then it just seemed to follow that it's actually "the system" which was responsible for making "the poor" poor.
There are very few people who would rather be poor than rich, so that argument simply doesn't work. Tell me - even if you lived in any of those countries, which would you rather be : Poor or Rich?
Actually it works quite well. People may not like being rich, but there certainly are people who like not having to exert themselves too much and who will accept a low standard of living if it means they have to do little and can live off the money earned by the hard work of others.

You give people a choice to work for slave wages or live on the streets and beg and you call that a choice? You can't say someone agreed to something if they have no choice! And there are plenty of slaves in this country. You choose not to see them or claim it's their choice.

The fact that the executive didn't make all the money himself means it doesn't all belong to him He needs to pay the people who helped him make that money. And pay them a fair wage. We don't have kings and queens in this country.

You may want to actually read the post you quoted because it said nothing about slave wages. I just pointed out the FACT that people work for a wage they agree to receive for their work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wookietim

Wouldn't someone who is not paying to maintain "the system" but is actually receiving benefits from "the system" be the one considered to be benefiting from the system?

And obviously the rich are receiving more of a benefit from the system than the poor are. Otherwise the poor would be the rich.

It seemed that since you want to hold the rich responsible for the poor being poor

Since I never said that, I will point out (for a second time) you are trying to put words in my mouth. And that is where I stop reading your post. One more attempt like that on your part and you lose your right to carry on a conversation with me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Harte

P.S. - this is the reception you get when you decide to make little racist comments of telling people to "Go to the back of the bus" if they don't agree with you. And don't try to act like you didn't know the racist connotations of that reference when you made it.

Heh.

I thought, until I finished your sentence, that you were talking about the time Obama said that.

Harte

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wookietim

Heh.

I thought, until I finished your sentence, that you were talking about the time Obama said that.

Harte

And I didn't agree with it then either. But at the same time, I don't normally have direct conversations with Obama either. And Obama doesn't try to hide behind an excuse of "I'm depressed so don't attack me" either like Daniel does.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
IamsSon

And obviously the rich are receiving more of a benefit from the system than the poor are. Otherwise the poor would be the rich.

I have yet to see even an attempt to prove that "the system" benefits the rich. All I see is that the bottom 47% of wage earners pay no taxes and yet receive the bulk of the "assistance" from "the system." So, reality clearly indicates that "the system" benefits the poor, not the rich. What I see is that "the system" vilifies and victimized "the rich."
Since I never said that, I will point out (for a second time) you are trying to put words in my mouth. And that is where I stop reading your post. One more attempt like that on your part and you lose your right to carry on a conversation with me.

OK, so if the rich aren't responsible for making the poor poor, then on what do you base your idea that they are responsible for insuring the poor receive assistance just because they are poor?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wookietim

I have yet to see even an attempt to prove that "the system" benefits the rich. All I see is that the bottom 47% of wage earners pay no taxes and yet receive the bulk of the "assistance" from "the system." So, reality clearly indicates that "the system" benefits the poor, not the rich. What I see is that "the system" vilifies and victimized "the rich."

In that case, how come the poor are poor? It's not by choice - we don't have almost half the country saying "Gee - I prefer to not know how to pay both the rent and the grocery bill and I prefer not being able to take vacations" after all. Your logic is faulty.

But I DO see only 1% of the country having 90% of the wealth. And I see a govt that is willing to give them even more wealth.

OK, so if the rich aren't responsible for making the poor poor, then on what do you base your idea that they are responsible for insuring the poor receive assistance just because they are poor?

1. Those that benefit most from the system deserve to contribute the most to the system. The rich - those 1% that hold 90% of the wealth in the country - are benefiting from the system a lot more than the rest.

2. A system that allows those that are not rich to participate in the general wealth of the country is more stable and benefits everyone - not just the poor but also the middle class and rich. A system that allows itself to become top heavy with the vast majority left in poverty and only a small aristocracy living with excessive amounts of wealth is a system ripe for a complete fall.

3. A system that does not simply provide the rich with ways to get richer but also allows for the poor to ascend to the middle class status (or higher) leads to a society where everyone is more fulfilled and happy - which leads to better and more harmonious employees which leads to better products which leads to a better and more stable economy for all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OverSword

3. A system that does not simply provide the rich with ways to get richer but also allows for the poor to ascend to the middle class status (or higher) leads to a society where everyone is more fulfilled and happy - which leads to better and more harmonious employees which leads to better products which leads to a better and more stable economy for all.

Unfortunately that would conflict with the current government/bank policy of trying to eliminate the middle class.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wookietim

Unfortunately that would conflict with the current government/bank policy of trying to eliminate the middle class.

Actually, the govt policy is what I am speaking out against - I am speaking out against the idea of handing tax cuts to the rich and paying for them by cutting services to the middle class and poor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OverSword

Actually, the govt policy is what I am speaking out against - I am speaking out against the idea of handing tax cuts to the rich and paying for them by cutting services to the middle class and poor.

I can't even agree with you without you correcting me can I?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wookietim

I can't even agree with you without you correcting me can I?

I think I am misreading your post... After arguing with Daniel and Ignus all day, I am a bit over-sensitive...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OverSword

I think I am misreading your post... After arguing with Daniel and Ignus all day, I am a bit over-sensitive...

That's where you blew it. You don't argue with Daniel you side-track him by saying mean things about his cats.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wookietim

That's where you blew it. You don't argue with Daniel you side-track him by saying mean things about his cats.

I like cats... and if I say mean things about them then the one I have at home will step up her attempts to murder me in my sleep...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OverSword
:D That is understandable :tu:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BlindMessiah

sorry i didnt know you were black. and it wasnt racist, it meant go back and learn some more.

Does it matter what his race is? Yes... it is. That is not what that means and you know it. Otherwise you wouldn't have know it pertained to African Americans.

Telling someone to go to the back of the bus is not racist in and of itself. As Daniel pointed out, it has a completely non-racist meaning. President Obama used the phrase when talking about Republicans.

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.

Finally we got this car up on level ground. And, yes, it's a little beat up. It needs to go to the body shop. It's got some dents; it needs a tune-up. But it's pointing in the right direction. And now we've got the Republicans tapping us on the shoulder, saying, we want the keys back. You can't have the keys back. You don't know how to drive. You can ride with us if you want, but you got to sit in the backseat. We're going to put middle-class America in the front seat. We're looking out for them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
conspiracybeliever

Wouldn't someone who is not paying to maintain "the system" but is actually receiving benefits from "the system" be the one considered to be benefiting from the system?

It seemed that since you want to hold the rich responsible for the poor being poor, and since you said the rich were made rich by the system, then it just seemed to follow that it's actually "the system" which was responsible for making "the poor" poor.

Actually it works quite well. People may not like being rich, but there certainly are people who like not having to exert themselves too much and who will accept a low standard of living if it means they have to do little and can live off the money earned by the hard work of others.

You may want to actually read the post you quoted because it said nothing about slave wages. I just pointed out the FACT that people work for a wage they agree to receive for their work.

You may not have said anything about slave wages but I did. Why did you ignore everything else I said? And in many cases the rich are responsible for the poor being poor. With all the corruption at the top overall they are responsible for the poor being poor. The accounting practices that seem to be in every company.... who is paying when the prices go up due to that? They are paying us to steal from ourselves. Look at Enron, look at how that happened. Enron was not alone. That trickled down and it was a common practice. That is what this country is all about. That's what it's come down to. This is what we are.

Edited by conspiracybeliever

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Br Cornelius

Yes the rich have lobbied to have minimal wage control and then proceeded to pay minimum wage for most jobs. That equates to the rich been directly responsible for the poor been poor. Of course thats not taking into account the fact that the rich have exported most of Americas jobs to cheaper countries, so again they have created the American poor. Any way you look at it the rich of America are largely responsible for the burgeoning of the poor.

Since the rich will not take reasonable responsibility for the people they rely on to keep them rich and to keep the country ticking over - it falls on the state to do it for them by levying taxes. Its a tough life this fair society thing, I suggest if they don't like it they should follow up on their threats and **** off to China.

Br Cornelius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
IamsSon

Yes the rich have lobbied to have minimal wage control and then proceeded to pay minimum wage for most jobs.

Sources, please.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
IamsSon

You may not have said anything about slave wages but I did. Why did you ignore everything else I said? And in many cases the rich are responsible for the poor being poor.

If it's happened in many cases then you should have no problem presenting facts for this. Please do so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
IamsSon

In that case, how come the poor are poor?

Because people like you keep telling them it's not their fault and keep giving them someone else's money and not requiring them to do anything for it.
It's not by choice - we don't have almost half the country saying "Gee - I prefer to not know how to pay both the rent and the grocery bill and I prefer not being able to take vacations" after all. Your logic is faulty.
Are you sure? After all, there are plenty of poor people who made the sacrifices, worked the long hard hours and became rich, so obviously it is possible for a poor person to become middle class or even rich, this is not India after all.
But I DO see only 1% of the country having 90% of the wealth. And I see a govt that is willing to give them even more wealth.
Really? Where do you see that? The data from the government shows that the top 50% made 87% of the wealth, not the top 1%. Please provide sources that say the top 1% have 90% of the wealth.

1. Those that benefit most from the system deserve to contribute the most to the system. The rich - those 1% that hold 90% of the wealth in the country - are benefiting from the system a lot more than the rest.

Since the top 1% does not hold 90% of the wealth this is a completely false statement. I agree that those benefiting most from the system deserve to contribute to the system. Obviously someone who is not paying anything into the system, but is getting benefits from the system that are paid by taking money from people who are earning it. Again, either provide reliable sources that show that the top 1% earned 90% of the wealth, or retract this lie.
2. A system that allows those that are not rich to participate in the general wealth of the country is more stable and benefits everyone - not just the poor but also the middle class and rich. A system that allows itself to become top heavy with the vast majority left in poverty and only a small aristocracy living with excessive amounts of wealth is a system ripe for a complete fall.
I guess you're talking about another country, I thought you were talking about the US.
3. A system that does not simply provide the rich with ways to get richer but also allows for the poor to ascend to the middle class status (or higher) leads to a society where everyone is more fulfilled and happy - which leads to better and more harmonious employees which leads to better products which leads to a better and more stable economy for all.

Exactly. That's the kind of economy we have in the US. I guess the country you're talking about has a different type of economy.

I apologize, here I've been thinking you were talking about the US and it turns out you're talking about another country. One where the top 1% control 90% of the wealth and which has an economy which does not provide opportunity for people to improve their economic situation through creativity, hard work, and experience. Please let us know what country it is you're talking about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.