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

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

It's OK, it's obvious you know your position is ridiculously wrong.

Of course taxes are not equal to theft. Everyone recognizes a thief is doing something wrong. People actually feel sorry for someone who doesn't get enough of someone else's money when it's taxes.

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?

The minimum wage was never intended to be something a person, much less a family could live off. Minimum wage is paid to employees who have little to no experience while they gain enough experience so that it can be properly gauged, or to people doing jobs that require little to no skill and should be getting done by kids who want to have some spending money on the weekend. Minimum wage laws encourage lazy people to remain lazy and inexperienced by paying them enough to sort of make it and make everyone feel sorry for them. I am certainly in favor of eliminating minimum wage laws. People should be paid what they deserve due to their experience and results, not an artificial "feel-good" wage that encourages lack of experience and no work ethic. Edited by IamsSon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wookietim

It's OK, it's obvious you know your position is ridiculously wrong.

It's wrong to point out that you are asking question about if it is alright to do something against the law in relation to something that is legal? Could you explain how your questions actually relate in a meaningful way to the topic of increasing the taxes in a minuscule way on the rich?

The minimum wage was never intended to be something a person, much less a family could live off. Minimum wage is paid to employees who have little to no experience while they gain enough experience so that it can be properly gauged, or to people doing jobs that require little to no skill and should be getting done by kids who want to have some spending money on the weekend. Minimum wage laws encourage lazy people to remain lazy and inexperienced by paying them enough to sort of make it and make everyone feel sorry for them. I am certainly in favor of eliminating minimum wage laws. People should be paid what they deserve due to their experience and results, not an artificial "feel-good" wage that encourages lack of experience and no work ethic.

That's nice and doesn't answer my question (Which I did for your questions). Tap dancing around what the minimum wage was supposed to mean or not is not an answer. In short, would it be acceptable for you for an employer to ask employees to work for sweatshop level wages just to increase the employers personal wealth?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ignus Fatuus

Again - since Ignus proudly declares he doesn't want to change the topic and therefore refuses to answer questions (That actually relate to the topic - they are just questions he doesn't want to answer because they destroy his argument) and defines the topic only as "Should the rich pay more in taxes", I submit the idea that him suddenly spinning off and discussing whether illegal immigrants are paying taxes proves that he is more than willing to go off topic... when it suits him.

"Since Ignus" ... wow!!! :lol:

What is wrong with staying on topic as moderators will demand time to time??? If you want another debate, make another thread!!!

And again the answers to these questions are opinion based. What would I get from another opinion which you want to attack??? I am not here for anger and hate ... just debate!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ignus Fatuus

Hahaha...this is one of those discussions that cannot be won...ever. There will have to be a majority rule, a mandate or judgement passed and those on the losing side have to eat it...it's that simple. You cannot legislate morality, good will to men or integrity in society...things like greed, envy, anger, and over indulgence always fog the spectacles when trying to "see" the truth. (Guess who make up the majority tho?...the poor people that want the rich to pay more taxes!!)

Yes, I don't like it one bit that 1% of americans make 45% of all the money....no matter how you slice that, something seems broken there. I have to laugh at the people on here actually defending that 1% like they are entitled to it...like you think you are one day going to be among their numbers and you are "protecting" your "future" rights...I got bad news for you. If you have time to troll/fish an internet forum about USA politics...on an Unexplained mysteries website...you aren't going to be joining their numbers any time soon so stop defending them...they are fleecing the masses and killing the middle class.

I have not read this whole thing, 9 out 10 times it's the same liberal "tax and spend" versus the conservative "save the wealthy's money" argument.

What ever happened to the flat tax theory? whatever you make...you pay a flat percentage of...period (no deducts, no refunds, just pay it and move along)...sorry, I know that equates to "the more you make the more you pay" but a flat tax is the most fair of all...everyone pays the same percentage...the actual dollar value is irrelevant...set it at 10% and watch the coffers explode with surplus and then reel it back down to where the budget can stay balanced and allow for growth and development

and about the deducts and refunds...how much money does our country p!ss away every year by collecting too much and having to send out refunds? How much does that cost? A whole pile of money could be saved by just paying a flat tax right off the top and completely eliminating the expense of issuing refunds....think about it...

Thank you ... an opinion debate that never could be won. Would be a waste of time. Yet many just like to argue. What a shame!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wookietim

"Since Ignus" ... wow!!! :lol:

What is wrong with staying on topic as moderators will demand time to time??? If you want another debate, make another thread!!!

And again the answers to these questions are opinion based. What would I get from another opinion which you want to attack??? I am not here for anger and hate ... just debate!!!

If you want to stay on topic, them veering off topic to talk about illegal immigrants probably isn't the right way to do it. And compounding that by arguing that questions asked of you (That are on topic) is making it worse.

Why is it that you are so scared of answering questions? But not scared of talking about illegal immigrants on a thread about increasing the taxes on the rich?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ignus Fatuus

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.

Thought you was going to do him the favor of "ignoring him"???

Then call him a racist. Your going a little too far ... I did not see racism in that quote. Just an opinion. Opinions do not always speak of racism. Are you going to call me a racist now??? I do not have one hateful bone in my body ... well I am hard headed, yet the only thing I hate ... is hate itself. :hmm:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ignus Fatuus

If you want to stay on topic, them veering off topic to talk about illegal immigrants probably isn't the right way to do it. And compounding that by arguing that questions asked of you (That are on topic) is making it worse.

Why is it that you are so scared of answering questions? But not scared of talking about illegal immigrants on a thread about increasing the taxes on the rich?

Boy you have a wookie hold on this forum ... :lol:

Plus you are right as I went off topic "in a way" with the illegals. Yet this does effect our tax system. So was I wrong???

Those arguments can never be won ... so why would I want to waste my "hate"???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wookietim

Thought you was going to do him the favor of "ignoring him"???

Then call him a racist. Your going a little too far ... I did not see racism in that quote. Just an opinion. Opinions do not always speak of racism. Are you going to call me a racist now??? I do not have one hateful bone in my body ... well I am hard headed, yet the only thing I hate ... is hate itself. :hmm:

I always find it interesting that you show up to defend Daniel...

But since I refuse to engage in a conversation with you until you answer my questions, I guess your defense of him is pretty pointless on your part.

Answer the questions you are so afraid to address. Or is this how you teach your students - to simply avoid questions they don't like?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wookietim

Boy you have a wookie hold on this forum ... :lol:

Plus you are right as I went off topic "in a way" with the illegals. Yet this does effect our tax system. So was I wrong???

Those arguments can never be won ... so why would I want to waste my "hate"???

In a thread whose topic is increasing taxes on the rich, discussing whether illegal immigrants pay taxes or not is off topic, so, "Yes".

Now answer my questions since they were on topic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ignus Fatuus

I always find it interesting that you show up to defend Daniel...

But since I refuse to engage in a conversation with you until you answer my questions, I guess your defense of him is pretty pointless on your part.

Answer the questions you are so afraid to address. Or is this how you teach your students - to simply avoid questions they don't like?

Yup I am his super hero!!! :lol: Here I come to save his day!!!

Then another attack. And again no need to waste my hate, I think I'll keep it for myself.

What do you mean by afraid to address ... or is it a non issue to argue an argument which is opinion and cant be won???

Attacking my teaching ability!!! WOW!!! I simply teach my students to avoid issues that cant be approached and won. Are you happy or are you in a dire need to have this debate???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bildr

Honestly, I think the solution is simple - everyone is taxed the same but there is no "get out" clause to be abused by the clever. You earn X, you pay tax on X, a lower tax rate applied across the board would net a higher tax income over all IIRC, while at the same time giving a bit of a tax relief to the poorer members of society.

Or even simpler, we do the way you said, but by % ! Like EVRYONE would be thus,per exemple, have to pay 15% of their revenu in taxes! ET VOILA ! No paying less for the rich. B)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ignus Fatuus

In a thread whose topic is increasing taxes on the rich, discussing whether illegal immigrants pay taxes or not is off topic, so, "Yes".

Now answer my questions since they were on topic.

No its not ... if these illegals paid taxes, like they should what would be so extreme about raising taxes on the rich when so much more needed revenue would come???

Therefore it was on topic. Just answered that question ... which was on topic!!! :tu:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wookietim

Yup I am his super hero!!! :lol: Here I come to save his day!!!

Then another attack. And again no need to waste my hate, I think I'll keep it for myself.

What do you mean by afraid to address ... or is it a non issue to argue an argument which is opinion and cant be won???

Attacking my teaching ability!!! WOW!!! I simply teach my students to avoid issues that cant be approached and won. Are you happy or are you in a dire need to have this debate???

Apparently no need to actually address questions that relate to the topic of the thread either.

And I am pointing out that you have now tried every way you can think of to get out of simply answering to simple questions. Why is that? The only answer I can come up with is that the questions must scare you...

And how is providing yes or no answers about your opinions suddenly an issue that can't be won? Oh - that's right - that's a question and you don't answer questions. You just declare your opinions and refuse to engage in discussion about them... After all, otherwise you might answer simple questions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wookietim

No its not ... if these illegals paid taxes, like they should what would be so extreme about raising taxes on the rich when so much more needed revenue would come???

Therefore it was on topic. Just answered that question ... which was on topic!!! :tu:

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
IamsSon

It's wrong to point out that you are asking question about if it is alright to do something against the law in relation to something that is legal? Could you explain how your questions actually relate in a meaningful way to the topic of increasing the taxes in a minuscule way on the rich?

Miniscule way? 7% is miniscule? If it's miniscule then why do it at all? This "miniscule" 7% would have the rich paying 44% at a 30% rate, and the bottom 50%, which by the way, not everyone in the bottom 50% is "the poor." Do you really think it's fair that one person is forced to give up 30% of what they earn, while another person not only doesn't pay any taxes, but gets the money taken away from the other person? Do you really think that is fair?
That's nice and doesn't answer my question (Which I did for your questions). Tap dancing around what the minimum wage was supposed to mean or not is not an answer. In short, would it be acceptable for you for an employer to ask employees to work for sweatshop level wages just to increase the employers personal wealth?

Actually, your question was:
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?
And my answer was that I am all for eliminating artificial minimum wages that encourage laziness and reliance on government. So, yes, it is right for an employer to lobby for the abolishment of the minimum wage, every citizen has the right to lobby for their interests. Now, whether employees would accept "sweatshop" wages is rather questionable. More than likely, the employer would have to pay wages that would actually attract employees, and I'm sure, if he was interested in providing a service or product that the public would want, he would want to employ people with skill and experience, so he would have to pay wages that attracted that kind of employee.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
danielost

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.

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wookietim

Miniscule way? 7% is miniscule? If it's miniscule then why do it at all? This "miniscule" 7% would have the rich paying 44% at a 30% rate, and the bottom 50%, which by the way, not everyone in the bottom 50% is "the poor." Do you really think it's fair that one person is forced to give up 30% of what they earn, while another person not only doesn't pay any taxes, but gets the money taken away from the other person? Do you really think that is fair?

an extra 7% is not going to destroy the fortunes of the rich. It is not going to bring about the end of business empires nor is it going to cause mass layoffs. But it would mean that we could fund important social services that the middle class and poor need. So a tax increase that won't even be felt by the rich will help millions of non-rich. That's a pretty good deal.

Actually, your question was:

And my answer was that I am all for eliminating artificial minimum wages that encourage laziness and reliance on government. So, yes, it is right for an employer to lobby for the abolishment of the minimum wage, every citizen has the right to lobby for their interests. Now, whether employees would accept "sweatshop" wages is rather questionable. More than likely, the employer would have to pay wages that would actually attract employees, and I'm sure, if he was interested in providing a service or product that the public would want, he would want to employ people with skill and experience, so he would have to pay wages that attracted that kind of employee.

That is not a direct answer. Yes or no - would it be right in your mind for an employer to pay wages that were so low that employees could never live on them simply to increase the employers personal fortune?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wookietim

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

Whether I am black or not should not be the case. Bandying about racist references is wrong no matter the color of the person you are talking to. And you cannot in any way tell me that you didn't know the racist connotations of that.

So in response to your "Sorry" - too little, too late, and too stupid of an apology. Stop responding to me. I will to you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
IamsSon

an extra 7% is not going to destroy the fortunes of the rich. It is not going to bring about the end of business empires nor is it going to cause mass layoffs. But it would mean that we could fund important social services that the middle class and poor need. So a tax increase that won't even be felt by the rich will help millions of non-rich. That's a pretty good deal.

Who said anything about destroying their fortunes? Is that how you measure fairness: "Hey as long as they still have some money it's OK to take their hard-earned money and give it to someone else?"

If you won't feel a 7% decrease in your wages why don't you go ahead and pay an extra 7% yourself? I mean the government will gladly accept if you decide to pay more taxes. Will you put your money where you're so easily putting someone else's money and pay an extra 7% in taxes?

Do you even pay taxes?

You know, I bet if we got Geithner, and the other Liberals who "forget" to pay their taxes to actually pay up, their precious "poor" would be taken care of without having to take more money from people who are already actually paying taxes.

That is not a direct answer. Yes or no - would it be right in your mind for an employer to pay wages that were so low that employees could never live on them simply to increase the employers personal fortune?

It was a full and direct answer, I just removed the inflammatory BS you added to it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
IamsSon

Whether I am black or not should not be the case. Bandying about racist references is wrong no matter the color of the person you are talking to. And you cannot in any way tell me that you didn't know the racist connotations of that.

So in response to your "Sorry" - too little, too late, and too stupid of an apology. Stop responding to me. I will to you.

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
IamsSon

Obama Peddles Myths About Taxes And The Rich

By JOHN MERLINE , INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY Posted 04/26/2011 05:14 PM ET

President Obama has been traveling the country selling what he calls a "balanced plan" to reduce the nation's gargantuan debt.

It would cut the debt a total of $4 trillion over 12 years, relying on tax hikes on the rich for $1 trillion of that. Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis., in contrast, would cut the debt by $4.4 trillion in 10 years without raising any taxes.

Full article

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wookietim

Who said anything about destroying their fortunes? Is that how you measure fairness: "Hey as long as they still have some money it's OK to take their hard-earned money and give it to someone else?"

If you won't feel a 7% decrease in your wages why don't you go ahead and pay an extra 7% yourself? I mean the government will gladly accept if you decide to pay more taxes. Will you put your money where you're so easily putting someone else's money and pay an extra 7% in taxes?

Do you even pay taxes?

You know, I bet if we got Geithner, and the other Liberals who "forget" to pay their taxes to actually pay up, their precious "poor" would be taken care of without having to take more money from people who are already actually paying taxes.

It is not like they will only have "Some" of their money. They will still be much richer than anyone else. They will still have their cars and their houses and their companies and still be able to summer in Monaco if they want. All that will happen is that the middle class and poor will benefit from those that derive the most from the country paying the most.

Right now a CEO can make up to 10,000 times the yearly wage of his employees. And we are only asking him to pay a few more percent than those same employees. That's a pretty good bargain.

It was a full and direct answer, I just removed the inflammatory BS you added to it.

It was a yes/no question : Is that scenario the right thing to do or the wrong thing to do? You have yet to simply answer the direct question with a direct answer. When you do I will be happy to answer more of your questions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
IamsSon

It is not like they will only have "Some" of their money. They will still be much richer than anyone else. They will still have their cars and their houses and their companies and still be able to summer in Monaco if they want. All that will happen is that the middle class and poor will benefit from those that derive the most from the country paying the most.

Right now a CEO can make up to 10,000 times the yearly wage of his employees. And we are only asking him to pay a few more percent than those same employees. That's a pretty good bargain.

So, you do think it's fair as long as you don't take away all their money. Are you as gracious with your money as you are with other peoples'?
It was a yes/no question : Is that scenario the right thing to do or the wrong thing to do? You have yet to simply answer the direct question with a direct answer. When you do I will be happy to answer more of your questions.

I answered the question, but not the ridiculous rhetoric you had in it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wookietim

So, you do think it's fair as long as you don't take away all their money. Are you as gracious with your money as you are with other peoples'?

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?

I answered the question, but not the ridiculous rhetoric you had in it.

I still don't see a direct yes or no answer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
conspiracybeliever

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.

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.