Can any con/repub give me good reason why the rich should not be taxed MORE?

[Listening]

The rich with that mentality have no idea how hard it is to live with such a small amount of income. I make less than 15,000 a year and that's not even the lowest rung and I find it really hard to maintain financial sanity in my life. But no... it's such an awful horrendous thing to bump up the rich tax percentage a couple points. The lack of humanity in those poor people!

I lived off 15K quite nicely for a while.

So, do we cancel each other (and your silly assertion) out ?

 

[Cowman]

Please define "suffering".

I love this kind of rhetoric. It makes it easy to see who is typing without thinking.

Demanding that poor people who barely have enough money to maintain their existence at the lowest rung of society pay additional taxes before being willing to have the rich move back to a previous tax rate is a pretty nasty thing.

Suffering is demanding ? Can slow down long enough to think about what you are typing ?

If your defintion of "suffering" was happening, I might be concerned.

But it isn't.

So I'm not.

Our poor would be considered middle class in most societies and have more material wealth than the average middle class family of the 50's.

They utilize services. They can help pay for them.

If you had any reading comprehension you should have realized that I wasn't answering you, I was making a statement.

Jesus Christ man.

I lived off 15K quite nicely for a while.

So, do we cancel each other (and your silly assertion) out ?

Out of your mother's basement without bills to pay other than whatever subscriptions you spent your money on instead? I'm sure it was quite nice. Mmm hmm.

 

[007]

Why is this STUPID thread still going on?

 

[Listening]

Demanding that poor people who barely have enough money to maintain their existence at the lowest rung of society pay additional taxes before being willing to have the rich move back to a previous tax rate is a pretty nasty thing.

Suffering is demanding ? Can slow down long enough to think about what you are typing ?

If your defintion of "suffering" was happening, I might be concerned.

But it isn't.

So I'm not.

Our poor would be considered middle class in most societies and have more material wealth than the average middle class family of the 50's.

They utilize services. They can help pay for them.

If you had any reading comprehension you should have realized that I wasn't answering you, I was making a statement.

Jesus Christ man.

My mistake.

When someone quotes my question, I assume they are answering it. I guess it may be to much to ask of some to understand that.

 

[rdean]

Can any con/repub give me good reason why the rich should not be taxed MORE?

Because they are special. Many are "demi-gods", that's why Republicans call the the "CREATORS" (play heavenly music here). They are the only ones who work hard. They deserve to run the country. Because they made lots of money.

 

[Listening]

Out of your mother's basement without bills to pay other than whatever luxury subscriptions you spent your money on instead? I'm sure it was quite nice. Mmm hmm.

On my own.

I'll wait for your next stupid comment.

 

[Listening]

Why is this STUPID thread still going on?

Becasue wealth envious liberals still exist.

 

[Cowman]

Out of your mother's basement without bills to pay other than whatever luxury subscriptions you spent your money on instead? I'm sure it was quite nice. Mmm hmm.

On my own.

I'll wait for your next stupid comment.

Can I play this game too.

I briefly lived the life of a millionaire, and I can assure you that most of us aren't job creators! We are merely leeches on pulse of the economy in this nation. We obfuscated and power played our way into wealth. The jobs that we supposedly create are merely provided by the corporations that have also so generously provided us with our golden parachutes.

Suffering is demanding ? Can slow down long enough to think about what you are typing ?

If your defintion of "suffering" was happening, I might be concerned.

But it isn't.

So I'm not.

Our poor would be considered middle class in most societies and have more material wealth than the average middle class family of the 50's.

They utilize services. They can help pay for them.

If you had any reading comprehension you should have realized that I wasn't answering you, I was making a statement.

Jesus Christ man.

My mistake.

When someone quotes my question, I assume they are answering it. I guess it may be to much to ask of some to understand that.

Not really all that experienced in internet forums then, are you? Quoting an individual simply means you are responding to them or merely referencing them to make a point, not that you're getting the response you want.

 

[Listening]

Out of your mother's basement without bills to pay other than whatever luxury subscriptions you spent your money on instead? I'm sure it was quite nice. Mmm hmm.

On my own.

I'll wait for your next stupid comment.

Can I play this game too.

I briefly lived the life of a millionaire, and I can assure you that most of us aren't job creators! We are merely leeches on pulse of the economy in this nation. We obfuscated and power played our way into wealth. The jobs that we supposedly create are merely provided by the corporations that have also so generously provided us with our golden parachutes.

And here it is.

Well, I can see why you live on 15K a year now....not so good at the money thing, are you ?

 

[Intense]

Out of your mother's basement without bills to pay other than whatever luxury subscriptions you spent your money on instead? I'm sure it was quite nice. Mmm hmm.

On my own.

I'll wait for your next stupid comment.

Can I play this game too.

I briefly lived the life of a millionaire, and I can assure you that most of us aren't job creators! We are merely leeches on pulse of the economy in this nation. We obfuscated and power played our way into wealth. The jobs that we supposedly create are merely provided by the corporations that have also so generously provided us with our golden parachutes.

If you had any reading comprehension you should have realized that I wasn't answering you, I was making a statement.

Jesus Christ man.

My mistake.

When someone quotes my question, I assume they are answering it. I guess it may be to much to ask of some to understand that.

Not really all that experienced in internet forums then, are you? Quoting an individual simply means you are responding to them or simply referencing them, not that you're getting the response you want.

I think you should share what you are smoking. Why Bogart it?

Some people get a hotel on Boardwalk and Park Place, and it goes straight to their heads.

 

[Listening]

Out of your mother's basement without bills to pay other than whatever luxury subscriptions you spent your money on instead? I'm sure it was quite nice. Mmm hmm.

On my own.

I'll wait for your next stupid comment.

Can I play this game too.

I briefly lived the life of a millionaire, and I can assure you that most of us aren't job creators! We are merely leeches on pulse of the economy in this nation. We obfuscated and power played our way into wealth. The jobs that we supposedly create are merely provided by the corporations that have also so generously provided us with our golden parachutes.

If you had any reading comprehension you should have realized that I wasn't answering you, I was making a statement.

Jesus Christ man.

My mistake.

When someone quotes my question, I assume they are answering it. I guess it may be to much to ask of some to understand that.

Not really all that experienced in internet forums then, are you? Quoting an individual simply means you are responding to them or merely referencing them to make a point, not that you're getting the response you want.

Like I said, it may be a bit much......

 

[Cowman]

On my own.

I'll wait for your next stupid comment.

Can I play this game too.

I briefly lived the life of a millionaire, and I can assure you that most of us aren't job creators! We are merely leeches on pulse of the economy in this nation. We obfuscated and power played our way into wealth. The jobs that we supposedly create are merely provided by the corporations that have also so generously provided us with our golden parachutes.

And here it is.

Well, I can see why you live on 15K a year now....not so good at the money thing, are you ?

No, probably not so good at it, otherwise I might be whining about being taxed a bit more despite my extremely comfortable lifestyle.

 

[Listening]

Can I play this game too.

I briefly lived the life of a millionaire, and I can assure you that most of us aren't job creators! We are merely leeches on pulse of the economy in this nation. We obfuscated and power played our way into wealth. The jobs that we supposedly create are merely provided by the corporations that have also so generously provided us with our golden parachutes.

And here it is.

Well, I can see why you live on 15K a year now....not so good at the money thing, are you ?

No, probably not so good at it, otherwise I might be whining about being taxed a bit more despite my extremely comfortable lifestyle.

Oh you get taxed alright. Unless you are excempt from SS which I highly doubt.

What you won't pay and won't for another 15 to 20 K is federal taxes.

So you can thank those of us who do pay for all the services you benefit from but don't help pay for.

I'll look for that in your next post.

 

[Cowman]

Well thank you then sir, thank you for taking such pride in paying for services that I benefit from while bitching about it all the while. You are a Great American!

 

[Listening]

Well thank you then sir, thank you for taking such pride in paying for services that I benefit from while bitching about it all the while. You are a Great American!

You are welcome....but please recall that the original premise was that we would not raise taxes on the rich without asking everyone to put some skin in the game.

So, if you want the rich to pay for more of your free services....I suggest you utilize just those words.

 

[MeBelle]

Can any con/repub give me good reason why the rich should not be taxed MORE?

Because they are special. Many are "demi-gods", that's why Republicans call the the "CREATORS" (play heavenly music here). They are the only ones who work hard. They deserve to run the country. Because they made lots of money.

Perhaps you should ask the rich lib/dems why they don't/haven't willingly, paid more in taxes...duh. Are 'they' special?

 

[Listening]

Can any con/repub give me good reason why the rich should not be taxed MORE?

Because they are special. Many are "demi-gods", that's why Republicans call the the "CREATORS" (play heavenly music here). They are the only ones who work hard. They deserve to run the country. Because they made lots of money.

Perhaps you should ask the rich lib/dems why they don't/haven't willingly, paid more in taxes...duh. Are 'they' special?

Because while we can't demand that everyone pay taxes to help support what we already spend on.....

They sure as heck can demand we pay more taxes to suppor the additional things they want to buy.....

It's that kind of logic that got President Obama elected.......

 

[Bern80]

And that's still not a fact.

What isn't a fact? That I didn't say it? or Or it isn't a fact to state that government has a problem with overspending? When you consistently spend more than you take in, that's a problem. That is an undeniable fact. No amount of saying 'no it isn't' like some petulent child that didn't get is toy is gonna change that.

Are you being intentionally dense? Have you forgotten what we're actually talking about?

I said there is no good reason not to go back to the Clinton era tax rates, to which you replied that there is a good reason... that the REAL problem is overspending. I said the real problem is the deficit, which reflects BOTH spending AND tax revenues and that is a fact. And as always, the appropriate balance of spending cuts and tax increases required to close a deficit gap is a matter of opinion. Apparently your opinion on the matter is so strong that you've jedi-mind tricked yourself into believing it's a fact. I happen to agree that spending cuts are necessary, but I'm smart enough to know that that is just my opinion.

The only one being dense here is mani. You stepped in shit when you decided to be disagreeable simply for the sake of being disagreeable.

FACT: The defecit and debt are NOT the 'real' problem. Why is that not a fact you ask? Because it is not the root source of the issue. It didn't happen on it's own or magically appear out of nowhere. It is a SYMPTOM of a problem. You can't effectively treat symptoms if you don't acknowledge what caused them. And what caused the debt and deficit is our government spending more than it takes in in revenue. Do we have to eliminate a big chunk of our debt? Yes. But the FACT is to do that we have to address how we got there in the first place. And you're dumb enough to believe 'well we got here because people weren't taxed enough'?

If you think government needs to take in more money, you're simply wrong for a couple reasons: 1) No matter what the government taxes people they still take in the same amount of money relative to GDP year in and year out. Unless we start getting into some extremely high tax rates, government already basically knows how much money in tax revenue it's going to have to work with before they do the budget. They know because we have the ability to estimate what GDP will likely be in the future and what government collects in taxes as a percent of GDP has historically stayed about the same year in and year out (15-17%). Since the amount of money the government collects isn't going to change significantly any revenune increases to fix 'the problem' are going to be relatively minor. 2) Even if you insisted we signifacantly increase taxes to fix 'the problem' there is little logical reason to believe government wouldn't use that money instead to simply spend more on other things. Can the government increase revenue to combat the issue? Yes, and the FACT is they can do that without raising tax rates. I said going back to Clinton level taxes would be a bad idea for the same reason you don't give crack to a crack head expecting them to stop doing crack.

 

[manifold]

Blah blah blibiddy blah. The idea that spending outstripping taxes is a good reason to keep taxes where they are is logically fucking retarded. It really is as simple as that.

Being bad for the economy is at least a reasonable and logical argument, as has been articulated already. I happen to disagree in this case, but at least it makes logical sense.

But again, to say that the fact our government spends more than it collects is a good reason to not collect more is mind-bogglingly imbecilic.

 

[Bern80]

Blah blah blibiddy blah. The idea that spending outstripping taxes is a good reason to keep taxes where they are is logically fucking retarded. It really is as simple as that.

Being bad for the economy is at least a reasonable and logical argument, as has been articulated already. I happen to disagree in this case, but at least it makes logical sense.

But again, to say that the fact our government spends more than it collects is a good reason to not collect more is mind-bogglingly imbecilic.

Only to a liberal mani. Logic isn't generally found in a liberal's vocabulary and you clearly don't understand the meaning of the word. You didn't really address my point. Is giving a crack head more crack a good way to control their crack habit? The only semi-logical argument you could make is that everything government spends now is done efficiently and everything they're spending now is what they should be spending on. We all know that simply isn't true, thus government needing more money is not the issue.