Skip to main content

Replies sorted oldest to newest

I would tend to agree with pba since the article continually brings up the Reagan factor but all the candidates are for cutting taxes to the rich and I believe they all try to compare themselves to Reagan. Reagan was a phony made for TV presidency who cut taxes for the rich and screwed the working people.

I have to admit I can't think of much he did or said as senator and the article points out he has little name recognition as a former senator and more as an actor. They even say he was accused of being "lazy" as a senator.

He does claim to be a "true conservative" but that has turned into a very meaningless label that is twisted to mean a number of things by a number of different people, all claiming to be a "true conservative."

I am a progressive liberal and I know I know where I stand.

What's really interesting about the article is the emphases on how much money he has and how it hampers his chances. Not mention of his stance on the issues outside of the conservative and Reagan statements.

I think once again the American people have no choice besides Kucinich, Gravel and Ron Paul. I don't support Paul but I would say he is "outside the belt way." He is a libertarian that is liberal on social issues but conservative on economic issues.

Once again we see we are a one party state, the "Corporate Party."
Progressive Liberal? Talk about an oxymoron.

The so called rich deserve even more tax breaks, look The Top 50% of earners pay 96.54% of All Income Taxes and the top 1% pay more than a third at 34.27%. How is that fair? Wouldn't you scream bloody murder if you paid 40% more income tax than a guy that made $1.00 an hour more than you? Everyone should pay the same tax rate regardless of how much they make. Or we should have a consumption based sales tax.

Why do liberals think people should be penalized for working harder and smarter than others?

How many income producing jobs do working class people create? Zero. How much personal money and property do most working people have at risk everyday they go to work? Zero. Truth is the entrepreneuers of this country are the ones that create the jobs. They should be rewarded.

When we started our business for the first few years our employees were making more money than we were every week. We had everything we owned on the line everyday and it would not have taken much in the beginning for us to lose it all.

I realize it is a matter of perspective. I watched the Dems debate last night and it seemed like they were competing for who could have the craziest ideas. You know it's is bad when the guy from Alaska and Kucinich made the most sense of any.

I have voted for Ron Paul before when he ran as a Libertarian but he isn't even considered valid by the liberal media.

I love the Shoals but until the people get more business oriented and away from the worker/union mentality they will remain economically challenged. The unions ruined the working industrial class in the area. I hope the kids coming up today will remember this and rebuild the business viability in our area.

Please think this time and vote Libertarian or Republican. The Dems have had their chance in North Alabama. Let's move on.


The class envy of the Left is exactly what is holding them back
Thompson = Lather, rinse, repeat.

SSDD

Is there anyone here that thinks a candidate can get the party nomination, either GOP or Dem, and not have to sell his soul to reach such a pinnacle?

Can we please raise our standards and expectations?

If you think Thompson has been acting in L&O, wait until you see him in the Whitehouse....
Well $200,000 per year is a long way from being rich. By today's standards 200K a year is upper middle class at best. geddon97 is someone that gets it.

By the way if anyone is content with being average that is fine. Our society needs them too. They just shouldn't complain that people with more ambition make more money.
Ambition does not always equate wealth. You clearly do not realise that the average income for most Americans is a little above $44,000. per year according to the last Census. $200,000. per year is in the upper third of income levels. The majority of Americans are "average" - hence the name. I suspect you are "average" at the very most. I have actually NEVER heard anyone in my entire life "complain" about someone making more than them - unless, of course and rightly so, they do the same job with the same level of success. This is just a right-wing talking point/rant.
You state that 94% of taxes are paid by the top 50%, But the top 1% of the population have as much wealth as the bottom 90% They should pay in accordance to what they get out, a basic principle of capitalism.

The tax burden falls on the remaining percentage in the middle class.

The average wage is around $40,000 a year as meanasasnke states.

No millionaire got that money without the labor of the worker.

Ron Paul is a Libertarian. They are liberal on social matters but conservative on economic matters. Liberals believe we need a strong govenrment, elected by the people, to preserve our rights, both civil and in the work place.

Libertarians believe in a limited amount of govenrment, like Reagan and the conservatives.
quote:
Originally posted by Pogo142:
You state that 94% of taxes are paid by the top 50%, But the top 1% of the population have as much wealth as the bottom 90% They should pay in accordance to what they get out, a basic principle of capitalism.

The tax burden falls on the remaining percentage in the middle class.

The average wage is around $40,000 a year as meanasasnke states.

No millionaire got that money without the labor of the worker.

Ron Paul is a Libertarian. They are liberal on social matters but conservative on economic matters. Liberals believe we need a strong govenrment, elected by the people, to preserve our rights, both civil and in the work place.

Libertarians believe in a limited amount of govenrment, like Reagan and the conservatives.


Reagan and the "conservatives" have proven themselves to grow government at the same rate as everyone else. Sorry.
You state that 94% of taxes are paid by the top 50%, But the top 1% of the population have as much wealth as the bottom 90% They should pay in accordance to what they get out, a basic principle of capitalism.

People that make more money should pay more I agree. But it is only fair for everyone to pay the same rate.

So say the rate is 10% or whatever rate. The person that earns 1,000,000 pays more than the one that earns 44,000.

People should not be penalized for being successful. We should all be treated equally.

The laborers are paid by the person they helped earn a million dollars at a rate the laborer agreed to work for.

Ok, have a good night Mena , Pogo and all. I enjoy our discussions.
When conservatives talk about limited government they mean in regulating business and protecting workers and people from exploitation and unscrupulous business practices.

When it comes to war, a surveillance society and police and government in your workplace and bedroom and the prison industry they are all for expanding it.

Wealthy people are not being "penalized" for their riches, they are being taxed. The corporate media is saturated with wealthy pundits, many who earn millions, to protect the wealth of the corporate class and ruling elite's. They fill the airwaves and print with scare stories and rhetoric about how the wealthy are being picked on and how unfair it is.

They try to scare the already overworked and under paid middle class into believing the government is going to take more of our money. These wealthy pundits are paid big $$$$$$ bucks to push this nonsense at us. Then these very same pundits will attack workers for wanting a fair share of the profits for their labor and better working conditions. Why can't workers be treated fairly and receive fair pay for their labor? When workers complain and organize to do something they label it "Class Warfare."

The top 1% of the population owns as much wealth as the "bottom" 90%. I can remember only about 15 years ago when they owned as much as the "bottom" 80%. They continue to increase their wealth. They should pay in accordance which would be the top 1% should pay 90% of the tax. We are talking about billionaires and multi millionaires.
quote:
They should pay in accordance which would be the top 1% should pay 90% of the tax. We are talking about billionaires and multi millionaires.


Sorry, the math doesn't work with that. That sounds too much like a government seizing private funds from citizens simply because they earned too much. It's the wealthy that start business or invest in business that create jobs for the middle class. If you over tax them, the wealthiest 1% will be less likely to create new business opportunities because they will receive a heavier tax burden if they make more money. Therefore you idea will reduce jobs for middle class workers. The quest for profit creates jobs, when you take away profit, you take away jobs.

Personally, I don't like the idea of an income tax at all. If we have to have one, the fairest way is to simply have a flat tax. An affordable percentage for everyone, plain and simple. The problem is that this would eliminate most of the IRS and give politicans less over-worded tax codes to hide ways to rip us off.
NashBama:

Sorry, the math doesn't work with that. That sounds too much like a government seizing private funds from citizens simply because they earned too much. It's the wealthy that start business or invest in business that create jobs for the middle class. If you over tax them, the wealthiest 1% will be less likely to create new business opportunities because they will receive a heavier tax burden if they make more money. Therefore you idea will reduce jobs for middle class workers. The quest for profit creates jobs, when you take away profit, you take away jobs.

Personally, I don't like the idea of an income tax at all. If we have to have one, the fairest way is to simply have a flat tax. An affordable percentage for everyone, plain and simple. The problem is that this would eliminate most of the IRS and give politicans less over-worded tax codes to hide ways to rip us off.

________________________________________________________________________________________________

There is no way the government is going to "over tax" the very wealthy out of business. They are not paying their fair share and when they do they will still be billionaires and multi millionaires.

They will continue to do what they do, create business and "wheel and deal." The idea that they won't is just scare talk.

We are not talking about over taxing them out of business.

The fairest tax system is one that taxes those who get the most out of the system in accordance with the principles of capitalism, they pay back into the system in accordance to what they get out.

When 1% owns as much wealth as 90% taxing that 90% is not a fair system.

The wealthy may start businesses but it's the worker who works them and creates that wealth also. Raise their wages and they can afford to pay more. Give them a bigger share of the pie and they will pay more.

Again, we are not talking about someone who earns $200,000 or even $500,000 a year. We are talking about Billionaire and Multi Millionaires.
quote:
Originally posted by FirenzeVeritas:
quote:
Originally posted by pba:
Another Actor who wants to cut taxes for the very Rich!


Actually, Thompson was a pol. before he was an actor. He portrayed himself in a movie and got the acting bug. Still, don't we all want the late Henry Fonda or nobody?


Actually Thompson started out life as a lawyer.
A political lawyer. How unusual.
quote:
When 1% owns as much wealth as 90% taxing that 90% is not a fair system.


Again, your math is wrong. The bottom 20% pays little or no taxes but recieves the most in government services. The middle pays some, but the bulk of the income tax comes from the top 10%. Trying to get 90% of the federal income tax from 1% of the population is not fair at all.

Besides, a tax on wage earnings is unfair to 100% of the population. We should keep what we earn, plan and simple. I would rather not have the government spend money I've worked for before it gets to me.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The fairest tax system is one that taxes those who get the most out of the system in accordance with the principles of capitalism, they pay back into the system in accordance to what they get out.

When 1% owns as much wealth as 90% taxing that 90% is not a fair system.

The wealthy may start businesses but it's the worker who works them and creates that wealth also. Raise their wages and they can afford to pay more. Give them a bigger share of the pie and they will pay more.

Again, we are not talking about someone who earns $200,000 or even $500,000 a year. We are talking about Billionaire and Multi Millionaires
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I think the logic of these arguments are fundamentally flawed.

1. The first point "The fairest tax system is one that taxes those who get the most out of the system in accordance with the principles of capitalism" This is a principal of Marxism not Capitalism remember "from each according to their ability, to each according to their needs"?

2. Second point: "When 1% owns as much wealth as 90% taxing that 90% is not a fair system." A persons wealth is their private property. They earned it. Just because they earned more than their neighbor why should they have to give up a bigger percentage in taxes. What would you think if your neighbors came by your house every week demanding you give them some of your paycheck because you make more than they do? Isn't that theft?

3. Point three: "The wealthy may start businesses but it's the worker who works them and creates that wealth also. Raise their wages and they can afford to pay more. Give them a bigger share of the pie and they will pay more."
The employee (worker) is voluntarily selling their time for a set wage that they have agreed to work for. It is true that no business can be successful without people but these people are generally non-equity employees with nothing invested in the company. If the employees wish to trade a set wage for equity then if the company doesn't make money one quarter or two quarters or an entire year the employees would earn nothing. This is exactly the gamble entreprenuers take everyday. How many "average" people would take that chance? As it is now the company pays the employees during bad times and good whether the owner makes any money or not. If their is a windfall the person who put their entire worth at risk should get the profits from this success.

Whether someone earns 10 thousand or 10 billion dollars a year it is their private property and should not be redistributed by people who envy them for earning more and think they deserve a piece of it. A flat rate tax or a consumtion tax is the only fair way from my perspective.
quote:
I think the logic of these arguments are fundamentally flawed.

1. The first point "The fairest tax system is one that taxes those who get the most out of the system in accordance with the principles of capitalism" This is a principal of Marxism not Capitalism remember "from each according to their ability, to each according to their needs"?

2. Second point: "When 1% owns as much wealth as 90% taxing that 90% is not a fair system." A persons wealth is their private property. They earned it. Just because they earned more than their neighbor why should they have to give up a bigger percentage in taxes. What would you think if your neighbors came by your house every week demanding you give them some of your paycheck because you make more than they do? Isn't that theft?

3. Point three: "The wealthy may start businesses but it's the worker who works them and creates that wealth also. Raise their wages and they can afford to pay more. Give them a bigger share of the pie and they will pay more."
The employee (worker) is voluntarily selling their time for a set wage that they have agreed to work for. It is true that no business can be successful without people but these people are generally non-equity employees with nothing invested in the company. If the employees wish to trade a set wage for equity then if the company doesn't make money one quarter or two quarters or an entire year the employees would earn nothing. This is exactly the gamble entreprenuers take everyday. How many "average" people would take that chance? As it is now the company pays the employees during bad times and good whether the owner makes any money or not. If their is a windfall the person who put their entire worth at risk should get the profits from this success.

Whether someone earns 10 thousand or 10 billion dollars a year it is their private property and should not be redistributed by people who envy them for earning more and think they deserve a piece of it. A flat rate tax or a consumtion tax is the only fair way from my perspective.


Excellent post. A good dose of common sense for everyone.
A consupmtion tax (sales tax) is, in my opinion, the best way of doing it. The more expensive your tastes, the more you pay. That way, the wealthy who got that way by saving, can continue to do so without penalty.

I'd also be in favor of a flat tax, but I know no liberal will ever buy that.

I just don't see how anyone can argue that someone should pay a higher percentage because they are wealthy. I know Pogo keeps pointing out that these people he refers to are billionaires and millionaires, so it sounds like he is saying we just shouldn't allow anyone to earn that much money. I guess these are all evil people who should have to pay. I say that is garbage.

All he and those like him are advocating is a redistribution of wealth and there is no other way to look at it. This liberal thinking has to be the result of jealousy of others who have been more successful. If you penalize people for being successful, pretty soon no one will try to succeed. There will be no reason to. The wealth already pay more and receive the least benefit for it. The poor pay the least and receive the most benefit. If everything were fair, those receiving the most benefit would pay the most. As it is, I think we could compromise and have everyone pay the same percentage. Or have a a consumption based tax.

Hey, let's tax personal cell phones like we do cigarettes and alcohol. That way at least I might not have to stand in line behind the person with 5 kids using food stamps in the checkout line and yapping rudely on the cell phone about their next government check. Seriously, tax the people that drain the most from the system.

I don't know of any wealthy people who even care about getting social security, but they have to contribute to it everytime they get paid. Just like they won't be benefiting from Medicaid, but they are forced to contribute.
I agree with a user tax. However, we are so far in the hole from poor leadership and political robbery, we will have to raise taxes, or declare bankruptcy as a country.

Blame the Republicans, and the Democrats. Both have been spending money that we didn't have for decades, all the while piling up monstrous debt and promising pie in the sky benefits to gullible trusting constituents.

Take your worst case scenario, and multiply that by ten fold. Don't trust me, just google "David Walker GAO" and read it for yourself. And congress knows.

And why would these congressional shysters think that spending more than you take in is smart leadership? Try it at home and see what happens.

Tax hikes and/or currency devaluation (hyper-inflation) are coming and we've all got reservations on the Titanic.
NashBama:

Again, your math is wrong. The bottom 20% pays little or no taxes but receives the most in government services. The middle pays some, but the bulk of the income tax comes from the top 10%. Trying to get 90% of the federal income tax from 1% of the population is not fair at all.

Besides, a tax on wage earnings is unfair to 100% of the population. We should keep what we earn, plan and simple. I would rather not have the government spend money I've worked for before it gets to me.

________________________________________________________________________________________________

The reason the bottom 20% pays little to no taxes and receives the most in government assistance is because they can't live on the poor wages they are paid. If they received fair compensation for their labor they wouldn't need government assistance. Walmart is a good example, their policy is to keep salaries low with no benefits and have the employees rely on government programs.

The top 1% own as much wealth as the bottom 90%, that's who should be paying the bulk of the taxes but they are not. If they paid there fair share you would be able to keep more of your money.

A tax on wealth is the only fair tax system.
Netracer41

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The fairest tax system is one that taxes those who get the most out of the system in accordance with the principles of capitalism, they pay back into the system in accordance to what they get out.

When 1% owns as much wealth as 90% taxing that 90% is not a fair system.

The wealthy may start businesses but it's the worker who works them and creates that wealth also. Raise their wages and they can afford to pay more. Give them a bigger share of the pie and they will pay more.

Again, we are not talking about someone who earns $200,000 or even $500,000 a year. We are talking about Billionaire and Multi Millionaires
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I think the logic of these arguments are fundamentally flawed.

1. The first point "The fairest tax system is one that taxes those who get the most out of the system in accordance with the principles of capitalism" This is a principal of Marxism not Capitalism remember "from each according to their ability, to each according to their needs"?

2. Second point: "When 1% owns as much wealth as 90% taxing that 90% is not a fair system." A persons wealth is their private property. They earned it. Just because they earned more than their neighbor why should they have to give up a bigger percentage in taxes. What would you think if your neighbors came by your house every week demanding you give them some of your paycheck because you make more than they do? Isn't that theft?

3. Point three: "The wealthy may start businesses but it's the worker who works them and creates that wealth also. Raise their wages and they can afford to pay more. Give them a bigger share of the pie and they will pay more."
The employee (worker) is voluntarily selling their time for a set wage that they have agreed to work for. It is true that no business can be successful without people but these people are generally non-equity employees with nothing invested in the company. If the employees wish to trade a set wage for equity then if the company doesn't make money one quarter or two quarters or an entire year the employees would earn nothing. This is exactly the gamble entrepreneurs take everyday. How many "average" people would take that chance? As it is now the company pays the employees during bad times and good whether the owner makes any money or not. If their is a windfall the person who put their entire worth at risk should get the profits from this success.

Whether someone earns 10 thousand or 10 billion dollars a year it is their private property and should not be redistributed by people who envy them for earning more and think they deserve a piece of it. A flat rate tax or a consumption tax is the only fair way from my perspective.

________________________________________________________________________________________________


I know today's wealthy pundits in the media tell you that Capitalism means you should get to keep as much as you can but it's not true. A basic principle of Capitalism is "one pays back in accordance to what one gets out of the system."

The system we have now is based on the principles of exploitation and greed.

Capitalism is the law of the jungle that allows those who are smarter and more talented to exploit and live off the labor of those who are not as smart. People are poor because they are not receiving fair wages for their labor. Governments are instituted by men (people) to ensure that all benefit from the system. Seeing that there is not a concentration of wealth among the few at the expense of others is one of these principles. Otherwise we have monopolies, inequalities and a ruling class. It is not a healthy system and poverty breeds crime and decay.

When the poor are exploited that is a "theft."

The government represents the well being of society and all that are part of it, from the most talented to the least and all have the same rights and are part of this society. Governements are to serve all citizens.

An employee's work does give them "equity" in the business and they want it to succeed as much as anyone. The more stake they have in the business the more effort they put into it. Workers can give years of the life to a company and if it folds they lose just as much as those who started the business.

The most gains workers have made and one of the highest standards of living working people achieved were through organizing and unions. The demise of the unions is directly related to lowering of wages and working conditions.

The fairest system taxes those who have the most.

Wealth is what needs to be taxed, not the labor of working people.
aubfire1

A consumption tax (sales tax) is, in my opinion, the best way of doing it. The more expensive your tastes, the more you pay. That way, the wealthy who got that way by saving, can continue to do so without penalty.

I'd also be in favor of a flat tax, but I know no liberal will ever buy that.

I just don't see how anyone can argue that someone should pay a higher percentage because they are wealthy. I know Pogo keeps pointing out that these people he refers to are billionaires and millionaires, so it sounds like he is saying we just shouldn't allow anyone to earn that much money. I guess these are all evil people who should have to pay. I say that is garbage.

All he and those like him are advocating is a redistribution of wealth and there is no other way to look at it. This liberal thinking has to be the result of jealousy of others who have been more successful. If you penalize people for being successful, pretty soon no one will try to succeed. There will be no reason to. The wealth already pay more and receive the least benefit for it. The poor pay the least and receive the most benefit. If everything were fair, those receiving the most benefit would pay the most. As it is, I think we could compromise and have everyone pay the same percentage. Or have a a consumption based tax.

Hey, let's tax personal cell phones like we do cigarettes and alcohol. That way at least I might not have to stand in line behind the person with 5 kids using food stamps in the checkout line and yapping rudely on the cell phone about their next government check. Seriously, tax the people that drain the most from the system.

I don't know of any wealthy people who even care about getting social security, but they have to contribute to it every time they get paid. Just like they won't be benefiting from Medicaid, but they are forced to contribute.

________________________________________________________________________________________________

A sales tax or consumption tax only penalizes those who make less then others. The poor always do go with less anyway and now many in the middle class do also.

People are poor because they are receiving low wages. They are not receiving fair wages for their labor. I am not advocating a "redistribution of wealth" so much but fair and just wages. That is a "fair distribution" of wealth.

You are repeating the scare talk you hear from the corporate media pundits but back from the 1930's through to the 1980's corporations and the wealthy did pay more and no one went out of business or quit working. They paid a fairer share and still had a comfortable existence. It was under Reagan that they began to cut the taxes on the wealthy and they have continued doing so since. And from what I have begun to read by Thompson shows me that he will continue the same polices of tax breaks to the rich while the burdens fall to the middle class and distract from real solutions with rhtoric and scapegoatiing immigrants and the poor.

I never said the wealthy are "evil people" but those that exploit people are.

The wealthy receive the most benefits from others labor.

Wealth is what needs to be taxed.
quote:
Originally posted by kperk:
Personally, I'm for a national sales tax. The ONLY people who don't pay their fair share are the lousy, lazy, poor-by-choice. All they have done is suck our country dry and its time they pay up. If you feel sorry for THOSE poor, YOU pay for them.


You tell us which ones they are. Sort em out and then I will gladly agree to pay for them. So simplistic, ineffective and reactionary. Got it all figured out dont ya? This is an interesting study. Have a look http://www.oznet.k-state.edu/humannutrition/_timely/PUBAST.HTM.
IF Freddie is ever to assume "Reagan's Mantle", first he will need to address the issue of the Iraq War. His website seems to gloss over the issue and I could only find one reference to Iraq buried on the site, where he voted FOR use of military force in Iraq. I wonder, is he afraid to touch this issue? Maybe he's afraid that he'll alienate all the right-wing neocons if he comes out and takes a position on it?
quote:
Originally posted by kperk:
Personally, I'm for a national sales tax. The ONLY people who don't pay their fair share are the lousy, lazy, poor-by-choice. All they have done is suck our country dry and its time they pay up. If you feel sorry for THOSE poor, YOU pay for them.


You make a very good point. Truth is the anyone who isn't mentally or physically handicapped and is poor in this country is poor by choice. It could be their choice not to take advantage of free public education or choice to become addicted to drugs or alcohol, or choice to simply live off the welfare state. Look at the Asian or East Indian people that come here with nothing, not even the ability to speak english and create prosperity for themselves. There is no excuse for poor Americans except they "choose" to be poor.
quote:
Originally posted by Netracer41:
quote:
Originally posted by kperk:
Personally, I'm for a national sales tax. The ONLY people who don't pay their fair share are the lousy, lazy, poor-by-choice. All they have done is suck our country dry and its time they pay up. If you feel sorry for THOSE poor, YOU pay for them.


The children of these reprehensible, lowlifes DO NOT MAKE DECISIONS for the family. Everything is NOT black and white - no matter how well researched - or not - your opinion may be.

You make a very good point. Truth is the anyone who isn't mentally or physically handicapped and is poor in this country is poor by choice. It could be their choice not to take advantage of free public education or choice to become addicted to drugs or alcohol, or choice to simply live off the welfare state. Look at the Asian or East Indian people that come here with nothing, not even the ability to speak english and create prosperity for themselves. There is no excuse for poor Americans except they "choose" to be poor.
People are poor because thye are paid low wages.
Millions of Americans are under the poverty line and still have jobs. They are what is called the working poor.

Then minimium wage hadn't risen in years and it's still too low and wages have been stagnate and barely keeping up with inflation for 20 years.

It's why presonal debt is so high

Add Reply

Post

Untitled Document
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×