[POLL] - Liberals, how much is a "fair share?" - Taxes

[Foxfyre]

It is really a simple concept. The person who owns his business has an unalienable right to take whatever profits or assets he wants from his own property. If he does that in a smart way, he enjoys the fruit of his own labor/investment--if he does that foolishly his business will suffer or fail. But it is his property to do with as he wishes.

The wise investor invests in companies with an owner with a proven track record for honesty and integrity and/or the business with a proven track record for providing a good product and/or service that earns profits in most years. Those who gamble on just anybody for short term profit--i.e. day traders--can lose their shirts and deserve to do so as they are doing nothing other than gambling.

However. . . .

If the business owner has partners or shareholders, he does not have the right to abscond with their THEIR property and, if he does so, he is committing theft and is subject to penalties of the law as well as being subject to civil suit from those he defrauds or steals from.

In my opinion, in a perfect world, the producers would be the only ones who would have the right to vote on what a 'fair share' of taxes the producers would pay when it is only the producers who will pay it.

 

[PMZ]

ROFL! The idea that any politician has any desire to pay down the debt is utterly hysterical. Were you born yesterday?

Clinton did.

Actually under Clinton the debt went up every year. That's what happens when you give politicians blind trust. They lie to you...

Only if you do your accounting a different way than the government does.

Remember the report that I referenced from the CBO that concluded that if Bush continued Clintonomics, our entire national debt would have been paid off by 2006?

Think of that! Zero debt.

 

[PMZ]

ROFL! The idea that any politician has any desire to pay down the debt is utterly hysterical. Were you born yesterday?

Clinton did.

ROFL! Clinton benefited from the Peace Dividend, thanks to Reagan. He never tried to pay down the debt. He kept trying to increase it.

More BriPat delusion.

 

[PMZ]

And it's the job of politicians to manipulate you into doing it for you, and they just look out for their own interest. You think W is the devil and Obama is our Messiah, and they are the same thing.

Capitalism, which just means economic freedom is how we the people manage our democracy. What you advocate leads to Communism, and you're taking us there fast. Which is what you want, except the word.

''Capitalism, which just means economic freedom is how we the people manage our democracy.''

Perfectly wrong.

Democracy is how we manage our capitalism. Business complies with our laws, not vice versa.

Wrong.

In capitalism, people vote with their pocketbook. It's a true democracy because the majority make the decision of who wins and who fails. In capitalism, the minority are still free to "vote" their own picketbooks as they choose.

A democracy in government is a tyranny of the majority. The minority have no freedom to chose anything. Then when as you say the "democracy" manages the capitalism, they remove the choice of the minority. Like obamacare. And then you have no capitalism.

Again, why does the word Marxist bother you? You are clearly that.

Can you even comprehend that capitalism is an economic system and democracy is a decision making strategy? Is that completely beyond your capability?

Do you really think that businesses are exempt from our laws?

I've never met anyone who knows less about their country.

 

[PMZ]

PMZ objects to those who built and finance the business having the right to vote what happens to that business. Imagine that. But he claims all this brilliant personal business experience--just as he claimed to be a brilliant scientist on the environmental threads. Amazing guy this PMZ. Quite a resume.

(Reminder. . . I still have that nice assortment of bridges to sell ya'll - sale prices this time of year.)

But some of ya'll are absolutely right. People like Obama get elected because they promise more free stuff than the other guy. He sure as hell didn't get elected on his resume, qualifications, or experience.

And most of those who vote for an Obama type don't WANT to be producers, but they sure as hell want what the producers have and some would even suggest that the producers have no control of any kind over their own businesses or the profits/wages they earn from them. And they want the ability to dictate to the producers what their 'Fair Share' of taxes is gonna be. Sounds pretty Marxist to me.

I think that the Fox boobs and boobies must have implanted a chip that has programmed their subjects to believe that everything that is not plutocracy must be Marxism. And the bots who only do black and white (in computers that's called a one bit processor) all say Amen.

A tyranny of ignorance blindly supporting that wealth is entitled to power no matter what the French and American Revolution and the Civil wars were fought over.

Saying forgive them, they know not what they do is an extreme understatement.

 

[bripat9643]

Do you believe that Bernie Madoff corporations should have been allowed to continue to operate?

Bernie Madoff broke the law by defrauding his customers. What Democrats are talking about his shutting down corporations simply because they make too much money in the eyes of Democrats, or because they make products Democrats don't like, like tobacco companies and oil companies.

What BriPat wants to be true. What he believes that he's entitled to have true.

Delusional.

Huh? What do I believe I'm entitled to have?

You're the one who thinks he's entitled to tell corporations how to run their business and how much they can pay their executives.

 

[PMZ]

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Now that's messed up!!!! and your calling us names!!! Damn!

Make more money regardless of the cost to others is sufficient only in a market where price is the only decision making criteria. Let's see if we can think of a market like that in today's world.

Nope, can't think of one.

This is a problem because conservatism is based completely on that one thing that no longer even exists. Ouch!

I guess that they should have gone on to fifth grade to get the next level of detail.

 

[bripat9643]

PMZ objects to those who built and finance the business having the right to vote what happens to that business. Imagine that. But he claims all this brilliant personal business experience--just as he claimed to be a brilliant scientist on the environmental threads. Amazing guy this PMZ. Quite a resume.

(Reminder. . . I still have that nice assortment of bridges to sell ya'll - sale prices this time of year.)

But some of ya'll are absolutely right. People like Obama get elected because they promise more free stuff than the other guy. He sure as hell didn't get elected on his resume, qualifications, or experience.

And most of those who vote for an Obama type don't WANT to be producers, but they sure as hell want what the producers have and some would even suggest that the producers have no control of any kind over their own businesses or the profits/wages they earn from them. And they want the ability to dictate to the producers what their 'Fair Share' of taxes is gonna be. Sounds pretty Marxist to me.

I think that the Fox boobs and boobies must have implanted a chip that has programmed their subjects to believe that everything that is not plutocracy must be Marxism. And the bots who only do black and white (in computers that's called a one bit processor) all say Amen.

A tyranny of ignorance blindly supporting that wealth is entitled to power no matter what the French and American Revolution and the Civil wars were fought over.

Saying forgive them, they know not what they do is an extreme understatement.

Defending equal rights for all is not "supporting the wealthy." Believe it or not, the wealthy have the same rights as everyone else. They aren't criminals. the wealthy have no power other than the ability to spend money. Government has guns that it can use to take away every dime the wealthy earn.

Who should we be afraid of?

 

[kaz]

Remember, my position that you are disagreeing with is that business leaders should be held accountable for growth.

Has nothing to do with your pontificating about what others think.

No, the question is "who" holds them accountable for growth. I say the people they work for, the shareholders, you say that politicians should have ubiquitous power over them and can hold them to any standard they want.

And Madoff had nothing to do with "growth" he committed fraud.

 

[bripat9643]

''Capitalism, which just means economic freedom is how we the people manage our democracy.''

Perfectly wrong.

Democracy is how we manage our capitalism. Business complies with our laws, not vice versa.

Wrong.

In capitalism, people vote with their pocketbook. It's a true democracy because the majority make the decision of who wins and who fails. In capitalism, the minority are still free to "vote" their own picketbooks as they choose.

A democracy in government is a tyranny of the majority. The minority have no freedom to chose anything. Then when as you say the "democracy" manages the capitalism, they remove the choice of the minority. Like obamacare. And then you have no capitalism.

Again, why does the word Marxist bother you? You are clearly that.

Can you even comprehend that capitalism is an economic system and democracy is a decision making strategy? Is that completely beyond your capability?

That's actually wrong. Capitalism is also a decision making system. It's the system were individuals make the decisions rather then some bureaucrat 2000 miles away.

Do you really think that businesses are exempt from our laws?

I've never met anyone who knows less about their country.

Whoever claimed businesses were exempt from the law other then Marxists like you?

 

[kaz]

Clinton did.

Actually under Clinton the debt went up every year. That's what happens when you give politicians blind trust. They lie to you...

Only if you do your accounting a different way than the government does.

Finally you said something that's true. In my accounting, the national debt going up every year is not paying down the debt as you claimed. In government accounting, the national debt can go up while you have a surplus.

Remember the report that I referenced from the CBO that concluded that if Bush continued Clintonomics, our entire national debt would have been paid off by 2006?

Think of that! Zero debt.

Remember how the CBO is required by law to create fictitious projections where instead of basing their projections on what economists say will happen based on economic models, they have to project what politicians want to happen?

I remember you did come up with the strong argument of "nuh uh," but afraid you were wrong on that. And Clinton had nothing to do with it. He proposed huge increases in spending and Newt said no. And the economy was booming because of Reagan's policies. Clinton was the guy who was sitting on the park bench when the cops caught the bank robbers and liberals gave him a medal for it.

 

[dcraelin]

I believe it was Kevin Phillips who wrote "The Emerging Republican majority" who also wrote in "Arrogant Capital" that history has shown the financialization of countries is their downfall. Said bankers get rich dealing in government debt and push politicians NOT to pay down debt. This I think is true reason Republican politicians dont want to raise taxes on the rich...because they are water- carriers for those who get rich off of dealing with government debt.

The bankers who downgraded the US debt and their primary justification was deficits and debt as a percent of GDP? The only reason liberalism exists is that you don't test your rhetoric against empirical data. If you did, liberalism would go the way of the dodo bird.

downgraded debt can be a moneymaker for some. ...Dont consider myself a liberal but bankers are generally classic liberals.

Republicans don't want to raise taxes on the rich because Republicans seek power in different ways than do leftists/Democrats. Republicans know that you can't punish the rich without hurting the less rich, and their constituency is mostly the producers of the country rather than mostly the takers.

Thats the cover story anyway

This is not meant to suggest that Republicans are not every bit as corrupt as Democrats in using their office to increase their personal power, influence, prestige, and wealth, but that situation will not be corrected so long as we allow them to use our money to buy votes and keep themselves in power where they can enrich themselves beyond most of our wildest imaginations.

I agree with you here.

 

[kaz]

''Capitalism, which just means economic freedom is how we the people manage our democracy.''

Perfectly wrong.

Democracy is how we manage our capitalism. Business complies with our laws, not vice versa.

Wrong.

In capitalism, people vote with their pocketbook. It's a true democracy because the majority make the decision of who wins and who fails. In capitalism, the minority are still free to "vote" their own picketbooks as they choose.

A democracy in government is a tyranny of the majority. The minority have no freedom to chose anything. Then when as you say the "democracy" manages the capitalism, they remove the choice of the minority. Like obamacare. And then you have no capitalism.

Again, why does the word Marxist bother you? You are clearly that.

Can you even comprehend that capitalism is an economic system and democracy is a decision making strategy? Is that completely beyond your capability?

Do you really think that businesses are exempt from our laws?

I've never met anyone who knows less about their country.

I've met lots of Marxists. The Democratic party is full of them.

 

[kaz]

I believe it was Kevin Phillips who wrote "The Emerging Republican majority" who also wrote in "Arrogant Capital" that history has shown the financialization of countries is their downfall. Said bankers get rich dealing in government debt and push politicians NOT to pay down debt. This I think is true reason Republican politicians dont want to raise taxes on the rich...because they are water- carriers for those who get rich off of dealing with government debt.

The bankers who downgraded the US debt and their primary justification was deficits and debt as a percent of GDP? The only reason liberalism exists is that you don't test your rhetoric against empirical data. If you did, liberalism would go the way of the dodo bird.

downgraded debt can be a moneymaker for some. ...Dont consider myself a liberal but bankers are generally classic liberals.

You're right you're not a liberal, you're a leftist.

And bankers are not classic liberals, that you wrote what you did then called them classic liberals is an oxymoron.

 

[PMZ]

It is really a simple concept. The person who owns his business has an unalienable right to take whatever profits or assets he wants from his own property. If he does that in a smart way, he enjoys the fruit of his own labor/investment--if he does that foolishly his business will suffer or fail. But it is his property to do with as he wishes.

The wise investor invests in companies with an owner with a proven track record for honesty and integrity and/or the business with a proven track record for providing a good product and/or service that earns profits in most years. Those who gamble on just anybody for short term profit--i.e. day traders--can lose their shirts and deserve to do so as they are doing nothing other than gambling.

However. . . .

If the business owner has partners or shareholders, he does not have the right to abscond with their THEIR property and, if he does so, he is committing theft and is subject to penalties of the law as well as being subject to civil suit from those he defrauds or steals from.

In my opinion, in a perfect world, the producers would be the only ones who would have the right to vote on what a 'fair share' of taxes the producers would pay when it is only the producers who will pay it.

''In my opinion, in a perfect world, the producers would be the only ones who would have the right to vote on what a 'fair share' of taxes the producers would pay when it is only the producers who will pay it''

This is why democracy works. The majority middle class producers of wealth are the majority and therefore, as a group, have the most influence. At least they do if they are the smart ones.

The not so smart ones are easy prey for the wealthy parasites to recruit via media propaganda.

So the future of democracy hangs in the balance.

Can our education system insure that there will always be enough smart workers to think independently?

Lots of evidence that this onslaught of the living but mind dead ignorazzi is being repelled.

American democracy is safe for now.

 

[PMZ]

Remember, my position that you are disagreeing with is that business leaders should be held accountable for growth.

Has nothing to do with your pontificating about what others think.

No, the question is "who" holds them accountable for growth. I say the people they work for, the shareholders, you say that politicians should have ubiquitous power over them and can hold them to any standard they want.

And Madoff had nothing to do with "growth" he committed fraud.

Do you understand that, except for IPOs, equity trading is merely a transaction whereby the previous owner is betting pessimistically and the potential future owner is betting optimistically and they agree on a price? The corporation is not involved. Calling shareholders, ''owners'' is delusional. And thinking that they have any real stake in the success of the corporation is even more so. It's all a giant Ponzi scheme that only works if the economy is growing.

CEOs love to advertise that they are accountable to shareholders and overseen by a BOD but it's all a puppet show. They are not.

While there have been some very capable people in the right place at the right time it's getting to be a small percentage of the total. Many are merely pirates looting and plundering the wealth creators, the workers.

 

[kaz]

Remember, my position that you are disagreeing with is that business leaders should be held accountable for growth.

Has nothing to do with your pontificating about what others think.

No, the question is "who" holds them accountable for growth. I say the people they work for, the shareholders, you say that politicians should have ubiquitous power over them and can hold them to any standard they want.

And Madoff had nothing to do with "growth" he committed fraud.

Do you understand that, except for IPOs, equity trading is merely a transaction whereby the previous owner is betting pessimistically and the potential future owner is betting optimistically and they agree on a price? The corporation is not involved. Calling shareholders, ''owners'' is delusional. And thinking that they have any real stake in the success of the corporation is even more so. It's all a giant Ponzi scheme that only works if the economy is growing.

CEOs love to advertise that they are accountable to shareholders and overseen by a BOD but it's all a puppet show. They are not.

While there have been some very capable people in the right place at the right time it's getting to be a small percentage of the total. Many are merely pirates looting and plundering the wealth creators, the workers.

Right out of the Communist manifesto. And yet you give politicians a pass. LOL.

You know nothing about capitalism or how corporations operate. Zero. What you see is what you want to see. The US corporations have kicked ass, it's a model that works. It's politicians who are bringing it all down on us. The liberal explanation for every failed liberal policy is we didn't do it enough. Oh, and blame the victim. Your manifesto is full of that.

 

[PMZ]

Bernie Madoff broke the law by defrauding his customers. What Democrats are talking about his shutting down corporations simply because they make too much money in the eyes of Democrats, or because they make products Democrats don't like, like tobacco companies and oil companies.

What BriPat wants to be true. What he believes that he's entitled to have true.

Delusional.

Huh? What do I believe I'm entitled to have?

You're the one who thinks he's entitled to tell corporations how to run their business and how much they can pay their executives.

They follow our laws. Why is that so hard for you to grasp?

 

[bripat9643]

What BriPat wants to be true. What he believes that he's entitled to have true.

Delusional.

Huh? What do I believe I'm entitled to have?

You're the one who thinks he's entitled to tell corporations how to run their business and how much they can pay their executives.

They follow our laws. Why is that so hard for you to grasp?

They have rights just like every citizen of this country. What part of that is so hard for you to grasp?

 

[bripat9643]

While there have been some very capable people in the right place at the right time it's getting to be a small percentage of the total. Many are merely pirates looting and plundering the wealth creators, the workers.

I couldn't describe the U.S. government any better than that.