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

Because in order to do that one has to take services away from the middle class and poor. In other words, in order to let the rich get richer the poor have to get poorer. When we have to shut down Planned Parenthood (A service that the rich do not use) in order to fund tax cuts for the top 1% earners, that is punishing the poor to reward the rich.

Fund tax cuts? You don't fund tax cuts! It's not as if the US government is sending people a check. Tax cuts mean that people get to keep more of THEIR money. The money THEY EARNED.

Now please answer the questions:

If I needed $5.00 and you had $20, could I go over and just take $5.00 from you?

If you refused to give me $5.00 would you be punishing me?

Do you have a right to hold on to your $20.00?

Do I have a right to your $20.00?

Would you be punishing me less if you had worked 1,000 hours digging ditches to earn that $20.00?

Would you be punishing me more if someone walked over to you as you were sitting there watching TV and gave you $20.00?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
danielost

I've got a question, since nobody else seems to want to answer it :

Which would you rather be : Rich under the Clinton tax structure or Poor under the Bush tax cuts? Because I suspect you would still rather be rich even if you had to pay more money in taxes than otherwise... and if so, why is it that you think that the Clinton tax structure was so bad? Were the rich utterly destitute under those taxes?

if i had wanted to be rich, i would be. but i just didnt feel like it.(depression) that part doesnt really matter who is president.

but it seems that you are only fighting for it to be under a dems program never mind who was pumping more money into it, medicare.

Edited by danielost

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wookietim

Fund tax cuts? You don't fund tax cuts! It's not as if the US government is sending people a check. Tax cuts mean that people get to keep more of THEIR money. The money THEY EARNED.

Now please answer the questions:

If I needed $5.00 and you had $20, could I go over and just take $5.00 from you?

If you refused to give me $5.00 would you be punishing me?

Do you have a right to hold on to your $20.00?

Do I have a right to your $20.00?

Would you be punishing me less if you had worked 1,000 hours digging ditches to earn that $20.00?

Would you be punishing me more if someone walked over to you as you were sitting there watching TV and gave you $20.00?

Well, that is exactly what needs to be done - taking money away from tax revenues (In the form of tax cuts) means that money has to be reduced in another area (In the form of reducing services to the middle class and poor). That is the equivalent of "Funding" tax cuts.

Answers to your questions :

"

Fund tax cuts? You don't fund tax cuts! It's not as if the US government is sending people a check. Tax cuts mean that people get to keep more of THEIR money. The money THEY EARNED.

Now please answer the questions:

"If I needed $5.00 and you had $20, could I go over and just take $5.00 from you?" - No, since doing that without lawful permission would be called stealing. By the way, since taxes are legal, taxes are not stealing and this makes no sense to ask.

If you refused to give me $5.00 would you be punishing me? - again, since there is no legal reason for you to take it, no that is not punishing you. On the other hand if there was a law then you could and me not giving it would mean that I was in the wrong.

Do you have a right to hold on to your $20.00? - legally since there is no law that says I have to give it to you yes. If there were taxes, then I would not be able to legally hold onto it, therefore in that case it would be "no".

Would you be punishing me less if you had worked 1,000 hours digging ditches to earn that $20.00? - Since your question rests on the idea that you can do this illegally, no.

Would you be punishing me more if someone walked over to you as you were sitting there watching TV and gave you $20.00? - Again, since legally you have no way to take it, no.

I think I see your problem - you equate taxes with stealing... Which is sort of a stupid way to think of it. Therefore, when you stop trying to say that somehow the poor are stealing from the rich in the form of taxes, perhaps you can be trusted to talk intelligently about this topic. Until then, however, you are proceeding from an incorrect first step.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wookietim

if i had wanted to be rich, i would be. but i just didnt feel like it.(depression) that part doesnt really matter who is president.

but it seems that you are only fighting for it to be under a dems program never mind who was pumping more money into it, medicare.

You know what? I am calling "BS" on that line. Don't tell me that you aren't rich just because you don't feel like it. You are using this "I am depressed" line a lot and you know what? It doesn't fly with me. Start being honest and stop trying to hide behind somethign that you think will get sympathy from me. Grow up and be honest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
danielost

Because in order to do that one has to take services away from the middle class and poor. In other words, in order to let the rich get richer the poor have to get poorer. When we have to shut down Planned Parenthood (A service that the rich do not use) in order to fund tax cuts for the top 1% earners, that is punishing the poor to reward the rich.

there havent been any tax cuts in obamas time. i dont think there are any proposed tax cuts, i could be wrong,.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
danielost

You know what? I am calling "BS" on that line. Don't tell me that you aren't rich just because you don't feel like it. You are using this "I am depressed" line a lot and you know what? It doesn't fly with me. Start being honest and stop trying to hide behind somethign that you think will get sympathy from me. Grow up and be honest.

again you misread my statement. i did not become rich because i didnt feel like doing all of that work. that is depression.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wookietim

there havent been any tax cuts in obamas time. i dont think there are any proposed tax cuts, i could be wrong,.

There were during Bush - the the GOP fought tooth and nail and held the country hostage to extend them. Stop trying to act like the rich aren't getting tax cuts in return for lessened services to the middle class and poor. Be honest and admit that the poor are being punished to help the rich.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wookietim

again you misread my statement. i did not become rich because i didnt feel like doing all of that work. that is depression.

So, you enjoy being poor. No - that is not "Depression". That is more accurately termed "A full on Lie". Stop trying to use "Depression" as a tactic to excuse your own right wing lying. There is not a single person that prefers to have to live from paycheck to paycheck, you and your so-called "Depression" included.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
rashore

Woah, hey... Play nice folks :)

This is supposed to be about taxing the rich, not slamming each other personally.

I think a combination of tax reform and cuts would probably be effective. There are a lot of different small problems causing a lot of big effects.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
IamsSon

Well, that is exactly what needs to be done - taking money away from tax revenues (In the form of tax cuts) means that money has to be reduced in another area (In the form of reducing services to the middle class and poor). That is the equivalent of "Funding" tax cuts.

Money was NOT taken away. It was not there! The government does not make money, there was no money taken from the government.
Answers to your questions :

"If I needed $5.00 and you had $20, could I go over and just take $5.00 from you?" - No, since doing that without lawful permission would be called stealing. By the way, since taxes are legal, taxes are not stealing and this makes no sense to ask.

If you refused to give me $5.00 would you be punishing me? - again, since there is no legal reason for you to take it, no that is not punishing you. On the other hand if there was a law then you could and me not giving it would mean that I was in the wrong.

Do you have a right to hold on to your $20.00? - legally since there is no law that says I have to give it to you yes. If there were taxes, then I would not be able to legally hold onto it, therefore in that case it would be "no".

Would you be punishing me less if you had worked 1,000 hours digging ditches to earn that $20.00? - Since your question rests on the idea that you can do this illegally, no.

Would you be punishing me more if someone walked over to you as you were sitting there watching TV and gave you $20.00? - Again, since legally you have no way to take it, no.

I think I see your problem - you equate taxes with stealing... Which is sort of a stupid way to think of it. Therefore, when you stop trying to say that somehow the poor are stealing from the rich in the form of taxes, perhaps you can be trusted to talk intelligently about this topic. Until then, however, you are proceeding from an incorrect first step.

Please note that I did not ask if it was legal. So let's assume it's legal. If you have $20.00 and I need $5.00 can I just take it from you? Edited by IamsSon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wookietim

Please note that I did not ask if it was legal. So let's assume it's legal. If you have $20.00 and I need $5.00 can I just take it from you?

But by definition taking money personally from each other without asking is illegal. Taxes are not the same thing, therefore one cannot ask these questions as if they are equivalent to taxes and therefore the questions are invalid in relation to increasing taxes on the rich. I will also remind you that you are suggesting we raise taxes by 20% ($5 out of $20) on the rich in your questions. Actually all that has been suggested is an average of 7%... Which makes your examples doubly invalid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
danielost

There were during Bush - the the GOP fought tooth and nail and held the country hostage to extend them. Stop trying to act like the rich aren't getting tax cuts in return for lessened services to the middle class and poor. Be honest and admit that the poor are being punished to help the rich.

those tax cuts were over 8 years ago, our economy boomed during most of that time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wookietim

Woah, hey... Play nice folks :)

This is supposed to be about taxing the rich, not slamming each other personally.

I think a combination of tax reform and cuts would probably be effective. There are a lot of different small problems causing a lot of big effects.

I do not seek out Daniel and if he doesn't like being told that his defense of "Pity me - I'm depressed" doesn't fly with me he can go talk to someone else. As it is he seems to follow me around and every time he is backed into a corner he trots out the tired old "I am depressed" defense. It doesn't work and if he doesn't like me calling him on it he can go talk to someone else and try to curry pity with them. As it is his extreme right wing though process (Which translates into "The rich are better than us so we must coddle them like fragile creatures") annoys me and will not get anything other than ridicule from me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wookietim

those tax cuts were over 8 years ago, our economy boomed during most of that time.

Look around you. Is it booming?

A countries economy has momentum behind it. It takes a long time for a stupid move like coddling the rich to have an adverse effect on it. And we are seeing exactly what that adverse effect is now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
danielost

So, you enjoy being poor. No - that is not "Depression". That is more accurately termed "A full on Lie". Stop trying to use "Depression" as a tactic to excuse your own right wing lying. There is not a single person that prefers to have to live from paycheck to paycheck, you and your so-called "Depression" included.

and i will call you a lier, i have a person living in my house who does not work and expects everything to be handed to him. not talking about myself. and if you have never had the disease of depression you dont know how it works. i get up and want to die. i go to bed and want to die. i want to make money but cant my energy up to do so. i dont work and i want to die. becoming rich feeling like that just doesnt work. besides when i drove cab i had money every day or almost everyday i worked.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
danielost

Look around you. Is it booming?

A countries economy has momentum behind it. It takes a long time for a stupid move like coddling the rich to have an adverse effect on it. And we are seeing exactly what that adverse effect is now.

it takes a long time for a stupid move like lowing taxes on the rich to work too. which is why the economy didnt improve under reagon but did under clinton. clinton needs to thank reagon for his booming economy not himself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wookietim

and i will call you a lier, i have a person living in my house who does not work and expects everything to be handed to him. not talking about myself. and if you have never had the disease of depression you dont know how it works. i get up and want to die. i go to bed and want to die. i want to make money but cant my energy up to do so. i dont work and i want to die. becoming rich feeling like that just doesnt work. besides when i drove cab i had money every day or almost everyday i worked.

1. And that person is living in your house. Not living from paycheck to paycheck.

2. I don't really care if you have depression or not. If you want to argue with me and present extreme right wing silliness to me as if they are arguments then be prepared to be told your ideas are extreme right wing and silly and stop trying to hide behind your "Depression". If you don't like it, go talk to someone else - I only respond to you when you respond to me. You are the one that seems to glom onto my posts - not the other way around.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
danielost

Money was NOT taken away. It was not there! The government does not make money, there was no money taken from the government.

Please note that I did not ask if it was legal. So let's assume it's legal. If you have $20.00 and I need $5.00 can I just take it from you?

it would be legal if the government said it was.,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wookietim

it takes a long time for a stupid move like lowing taxes on the rich to work too. which is why the economy didnt improve under reagon but did under clinton. clinton needs to thank reagon for his booming economy not himself.

Except here's the funny thing - Clintons tax rates had their time. And they led to a booming economy. Bush's tax rates had their time and led to extreme unemployment and a =n economy that is not improving for anyone other than the rich.

Winner : Clinton.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
danielost

1. And that person is living in your house. Not living from paycheck to paycheck.

2. I don't really care if you have depression or not. If you want to argue with me and present extreme right wing silliness to me as if they are arguments then be prepared to be told your ideas are extreme right wing and silly and stop trying to hide behind your "Depression". If you don't like it, go talk to someone else - I only respond to you when you respond to me. You are the one that seems to glom onto my posts - not the other way around.

and that makes you kind of dumb doesnt it. since no where was i talking about the gop and linking it to my depression. your the one trying to force me to see that i have to want to be rich. i dont. my statement was i could have been if i had wanted to be.

i am ok with living day to day with the amount of money i have. around 680 dollars a month. am i trying to increase that amount yes.

Edited by danielost

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wookietim

and that makes you kind of dumb doesnt it. since no where was i talking about the gop and linking it to my depression. your the one trying to force me to see that i have to want to be rich. i dont. my statement was i could have been if i had wanted to be.

And so it continues - the stupid arguments and the attempt to curry sympathy. It isn't gonna happen here - I think your position is silly and less than productive and I am not going to say "Awwww... Poor guy. You are depressed. Therefore it's a good idea to argue against your own best interests."

Go play with people that will do that if you want that. Otherwise don't respond to me.

Tell you what - I will do you a favor - I will completely ignore you from this point forward.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
danielost

Except here's the funny thing - Clintons tax rates had their time. And they led to a booming economy. Bush's tax rates had their time and led to extreme unemployment and a =n economy that is not improving for anyone other than the rich.

Winner : Clinton.

except that clinton ended in a recession too. the only thing that saved us, as funny as that is, was the attack on 9/11. the difference between clinton and bush is clinton was able to hide it until the end of his term.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
IamsSon

But by definition taking money personally from each other without asking is illegal. Taxes are not the same thing, therefore one cannot ask these questions as if they are equivalent to taxes and therefore the questions are invalid in relation to increasing taxes on the rich. I will also remind you that you are suggesting we raise taxes by 20% ($5 out of $20) on the rich in your questions. Actually all that has been suggested is an average of 7%... Which makes your examples doubly invalid.

First of all I was not attempting to equate the $5/$20 example to the percentage of taxes paid by the rich, since they already pay 40% of the taxes at a rate of 23%.

Second, I understand why you immediately want to bring in legality. It is so obviously wrong for someone to take money or something else from someone without their consent, especially when it is done by insurmountable force, that there is no way you could answer the questions without realizing how wrong your position is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wookietim

First of all I was not attempting to equate the $5/$20 example to the percentage of taxes paid by the rich, since they already pay 40% of the taxes at a rate of 23%.

Second, I understand why you immediately want to bring in legality. It is so obviously wrong for someone to take money or something else from someone without their consent, especially when it is done by insurmountable force, that there is no way you could answer the questions without realizing how wrong your position is.

Taxes are not equal to theft though... Therefore the comparison falls apart.

Now, how about I present you with a situation: Is it right for an employer to lobby the govt to abolish the minimum wage law and then use that new employment environment to pay their employees wages that are too low to live on simply to be able to keep more money for themselves? Would you argue in favor of that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wookietim

except that clinton ended in a recession too. the only thing that saved us, as funny as that is, was the attack on 9/11. the difference between clinton and bush is clinton was able to hide it until the end of his term.

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.

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.