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

[Foxfyre]

Have you ever heard the terms "Federalist" and "Anti-Federalist"? That, I assume, is what the meant.

Do you know what the word "Federalist" means? Hint, it does not mean "centralized power."

I have been poor enough when we subsisted on oatmeal and $1 for 3 lbs pinto beans for days on end. I have been poor enough we didn't know where our next meal was coming from or how we were going to make the car payment or pay the rent or keep the lights on.

But I had every bit as much choice in how to use my own ability and resources as the rich people who were all over town living in their beautifully landscaped brick homes and driving their expensive new model cars. And because those rich people chose to give us opportunity to earn wages and we had complete freedom in how to use them, my husband and I worked our way out of poverty and eventually could drive our own new car, lived in our own home that we owned, and ran our own business.

We could have easily have wrung our hands that we were at the bottom when others were at the top and felt sorry for ourselves. And we could have just sat down and whined that others had more than we did and we deserved more than we had.

Fortunately for us, that was in the era when there weren't any entitlements or government safety nets for us. And it never occurred that our prosperity was anybody's responsibility other than ours.

So, you didn't see any difference between poverty and wealth? Interesting. I've tried both and much prefer more to less. Like you, I had a choice. I did what I had to to get from one to the other. I believe in the American Dream and assume others do as well. In fact, I can't imagine who would simply choose poverty given a choice. But, if that satisfies them, I guess that it's no skin off my nose. But for people who have no choice, if I can help them by giving them more choice, why wouldn't I?

You made the assumption with your first sentence how? You made the assumption that I haven't experienced both, how? You drew the assumption that I chose poverty how? And who among us, other than the severely mentally or physically challenged, has no choice?

 

[PMZ]

Ok that's one question answered. Now that we understand the terms you are using... Let's continue on to your political philosophy.

Why do you insist on limiting your wealth creation to your self classified middle income? Why do you insist that people that make more money than you, don't deserve their income as much as you deserve your income?

If someone works 80 hours to produce twice the wealth you create in 40 hours, why should they have to pay a higher tax rate than you? Why do you insist on penalizing him for working twice as many hours as you do?

Pretty basic questions can you answer them?

They are pretty basic questions. That's why I'm surprised that you don't know the answers.

I got educated to do what I'm best at. My specialty. I always enjoyed doing what I'm best at, and that specialty allowed my family to live the kind of lives that we wanted to live. Of course, over the years I had to pay others to do their specialty for me, but, that's life in the third melenium.

I don't know anybody who worked harder than I, and enjoyed the life I led, but always had my heroes who did my specialty exceptionally well.

Capitalism and socialism define who owns the means. Some or all of us. Who is the landlord. Business goes well beyond that meager description. It is how people create wealth and harvest the benefit of whatever wealth production skills and abilities they have been given or can learn.

I respect all who invest their time in wealth production for it is through work that mankind advances. Today I just see too many people reaping huge rewards for marginal contribution. Too many people who fall for the pure BS that huge rewards means huge contributions.

I have no idea what you mean by penalizing. I don't consider paying my phone bill a penalty. Nor my taxes. They are merely the cost to me of other specialties that support the life that I want to live.

Pretty basic, yes. Yet, you have not been able to even come close to answering these very basic questions. Instead of answering the questions, you bob and weave and start talking about being some sort of justice over all that is fair and just.

So in your non-answers you indicate that you are ok with rich people keeping their money if you personally make the decision that they have earned it as much as you have. However, if you make the personal decision that they did not earn it as much as you have then you will (use weapons?) to take their money and redistribute it to people who are more worthy of these assets that the unjust rich have stolen from the people. For example, by redistributing the money to such as yourself or others that you will personally select.

To the issue of reaping... the government is supposed to be breaking up monopolies.

Now, you're just making up stuff. I told you why I'm free and respect the country that gave me the opportunity to be who I am. You can live any life you are capable of achieving. Just do it and stop whining. You're nowhere near as special as you'd like to be.

You live in a free market country. Find a better deal if you don't like ours.

 

[ilia25]

Fortunately for us, that was in the era when there weren't any entitlements or government safety nets for us. And it never occurred that our prosperity was anybody's responsibility other than ours.

But this is a different era. This economy leaves most people w/o decent wages, even when they are working hard (and by decent I mean 21st century decent, not just having the roof over your head and bread on your table).

Give me one reason why we should NOT try and fix that.

 

[kaz]

Fortunately for us, that was in the era when there weren't any entitlements or government safety nets for us. And it never occurred that our prosperity was anybody's responsibility other than ours.

But this is a different era. This economy leaves most people w/o decent wages, even when they are working hard (and by decent I mean 21st century decent, not just having the roof over your head and bread on your table).

Give me one reason why we should NOT try and fix that.

We should fix it. Fixing it means that government gets out of the way and allows people to make something of themselves. What you want to do is make it worse. Money does not come out of nowhere. Every dollar you give to Peter you stole from Paul. Peter's getting money for not working, Paul is losing money he worked for. Neither is incented to work.

 

[RKMBrown]

They are pretty basic questions. That's why I'm surprised that you don't know the answers.

I got educated to do what I'm best at. My specialty. I always enjoyed doing what I'm best at, and that specialty allowed my family to live the kind of lives that we wanted to live. Of course, over the years I had to pay others to do their specialty for me, but, that's life in the third melenium.

I don't know anybody who worked harder than I, and enjoyed the life I led, but always had my heroes who did my specialty exceptionally well.

Capitalism and socialism define who owns the means. Some or all of us. Who is the landlord. Business goes well beyond that meager description. It is how people create wealth and harvest the benefit of whatever wealth production skills and abilities they have been given or can learn.

I respect all who invest their time in wealth production for it is through work that mankind advances. Today I just see too many people reaping huge rewards for marginal contribution. Too many people who fall for the pure BS that huge rewards means huge contributions.

I have no idea what you mean by penalizing. I don't consider paying my phone bill a penalty. Nor my taxes. They are merely the cost to me of other specialties that support the life that I want to live.

Pretty basic, yes. Yet, you have not been able to even come close to answering these very basic questions. Instead of answering the questions, you bob and weave and start talking about being some sort of justice over all that is fair and just.

So in your non-answers you indicate that you are ok with rich people keeping their money if you personally make the decision that they have earned it as much as you have. However, if you make the personal decision that they did not earn it as much as you have then you will (use weapons?) to take their money and redistribute it to people who are more worthy of these assets that the unjust rich have stolen from the people. For example, by redistributing the money to such as yourself or others that you will personally select.

To the issue of reaping... the government is supposed to be breaking up monopolies.

Now, you're just making up stuff. I told you why I'm free and respect the country that gave me the opportunity to be who I am. You can live any life you are capable of achieving. Just do it and stop whining. You're nowhere near as special as you'd like to be.

You live in a free market country. Find a better deal if you don't like ours.

>>> You're nowhere near as special as you'd like to be.

How would you know whether I'm happy with my place in life or not? You know nothing of me.

You did not answer the questions. I did not ask you why you are free or if you respect the country. Those were your statements answering your own questions not mine. You appear to be talking to yourself. Can you answer the questions I asked or not?

I intend to do whatever it takes to stop folks, like you, from fundamentally changing my country.

 

[PMZ]

Do you know what the word "Federalist" means? Hint, it does not mean "centralized power."

I have been poor enough when we subsisted on oatmeal and $1 for 3 lbs pinto beans for days on end. I have been poor enough we didn't know where our next meal was coming from or how we were going to make the car payment or pay the rent or keep the lights on.

But I had every bit as much choice in how to use my own ability and resources as the rich people who were all over town living in their beautifully landscaped brick homes and driving their expensive new model cars. And because those rich people chose to give us opportunity to earn wages and we had complete freedom in how to use them, my husband and I worked our way out of poverty and eventually could drive our own new car, lived in our own home that we owned, and ran our own business.

We could have easily have wrung our hands that we were at the bottom when others were at the top and felt sorry for ourselves. And we could have just sat down and whined that others had more than we did and we deserved more than we had.

Fortunately for us, that was in the era when there weren't any entitlements or government safety nets for us. And it never occurred that our prosperity was anybody's responsibility other than ours.

So, you didn't see any difference between poverty and wealth? Interesting. I've tried both and much prefer more to less. Like you, I had a choice. I did what I had to to get from one to the other. I believe in the American Dream and assume others do as well. In fact, I can't imagine who would simply choose poverty given a choice. But, if that satisfies them, I guess that it's no skin off my nose. But for people who have no choice, if I can help them by giving them more choice, why wouldn't I?

You made the assumption with your first sentence how? You made the assumption that I haven't experienced both, how? You drew the assumption that I chose poverty how? And who among us, other than the severely mentally or physically challenged, has no choice?

I don't know if you ever check the news or not, but business has let the country down by their inability to grow. So, one of the consequences of the Bush regime is stubborn unemployment keeping many willing workers on the sidelines. You say that they willing choose poverty over employment. I doubt that. That there are many unfulfilled jobs out there. Kaz tells us that he can replace all of his workers anytime that he wants, so there is a disconnect here.

If you and I chose to leave poverty when we had the opportunity, where did these people come from who choose otherwise and why?

 

[RKMBrown]

Fortunately for us, that was in the era when there weren't any entitlements or government safety nets for us. And it never occurred that our prosperity was anybody's responsibility other than ours.

But this is a different era. This economy leaves most people w/o decent wages, even when they are working hard (and by decent I mean 21st century decent, not just having the roof over your head and bread on your table).

Give me one reason why we should NOT try and fix that.

The question is not whether or not improvements can be made. The question is what improvements can be made that will result in a better country being left to our children than the one we've been handed by our parents.

 

[PMZ]

Pretty basic, yes. Yet, you have not been able to even come close to answering these very basic questions. Instead of answering the questions, you bob and weave and start talking about being some sort of justice over all that is fair and just.

So in your non-answers you indicate that you are ok with rich people keeping their money if you personally make the decision that they have earned it as much as you have. However, if you make the personal decision that they did not earn it as much as you have then you will (use weapons?) to take their money and redistribute it to people who are more worthy of these assets that the unjust rich have stolen from the people. For example, by redistributing the money to such as yourself or others that you will personally select.

To the issue of reaping... the government is supposed to be breaking up monopolies.

Now, you're just making up stuff. I told you why I'm free and respect the country that gave me the opportunity to be who I am. You can live any life you are capable of achieving. Just do it and stop whining. You're nowhere near as special as you'd like to be.

You live in a free market country. Find a better deal if you don't like ours.

>>> You're nowhere near as special as you'd like to be.

How would you know whether I'm happy with my place in life or not? You know nothing of me.

You did not answer the questions. I did not ask you why you are free or if you respect the country. Those were your statements answering your own questions not mine. You appear to be talking to yourself. Can you answer the questions I asked or not?

I intend to do whatever it takes to stop folks, like you, from fundamentally changing my country.

Your style seems to be to ask a question, then if you don't like the answer, claim it unanswered, I suppose because you think that only the answer that you prefer is the truth. That's that entitlement thing again.

If you don't like your country, what do you care about? Just getting your way?

Conservatism had a more than adequate chance to perform and failed completely. Why would you think that doing the same thing over and over would lead to different results?

 

[RKMBrown]

So, you didn't see any difference between poverty and wealth? Interesting. I've tried both and much prefer more to less. Like you, I had a choice. I did what I had to to get from one to the other. I believe in the American Dream and assume others do as well. In fact, I can't imagine who would simply choose poverty given a choice. But, if that satisfies them, I guess that it's no skin off my nose. But for people who have no choice, if I can help them by giving them more choice, why wouldn't I?

You made the assumption with your first sentence how? You made the assumption that I haven't experienced both, how? You drew the assumption that I chose poverty how? And who among us, other than the severely mentally or physically challenged, has no choice?

I don't know if you ever check the news or not, but business has let the country down by their inability to grow. So, one of the consequences of the Bush regime is stubborn unemployment keeping many willing workers on the sidelines. You say that they willing choose poverty over employment. I doubt that. That there are many unfulfilled jobs out there. Kaz tells us that he can replace all of his workers anytime that he wants, so there is a disconnect here.

If you and I chose to leave poverty when we had the opportunity, where did these people come from who choose otherwise and why?

Not true. Businesses are growing, but many of these businesses have decided to do their growth in other countries where the business climate is more amenable to their business. The dirt bag in charge decided to pick and choose which Businesses that would be favored Businesses, by writing huge checks to his personal favs. The dirt bag in charge prefers union business, government business, and green business. How are the dirt bag's picks going so far?

 

[PMZ]

Fortunately for us, that was in the era when there weren't any entitlements or government safety nets for us. And it never occurred that our prosperity was anybody's responsibility other than ours.

But this is a different era. This economy leaves most people w/o decent wages, even when they are working hard (and by decent I mean 21st century decent, not just having the roof over your head and bread on your table).

Give me one reason why we should NOT try and fix that.

The question is not whether or not improvements can be made. The question is what improvements can be made that will result in a better country being left to our children than the one we've been handed by our parents.

Exactly what President Obama has said and done for 5 years while Republicans shut down Congress to prevent progress.

 

[PMZ]

You made the assumption with your first sentence how? You made the assumption that I haven't experienced both, how? You drew the assumption that I chose poverty how? And who among us, other than the severely mentally or physically challenged, has no choice?

I don't know if you ever check the news or not, but business has let the country down by their inability to grow. So, one of the consequences of the Bush regime is stubborn unemployment keeping many willing workers on the sidelines. You say that they willing choose poverty over employment. I doubt that. That there are many unfulfilled jobs out there. Kaz tells us that he can replace all of his workers anytime that he wants, so there is a disconnect here.

If you and I chose to leave poverty when we had the opportunity, where did these people come from who choose otherwise and why?

Not true. Businesses are growing, but many of these businesses have decided to do their growth in other countries where the business climate is more amenable to their business. The dirt bag in charge decided to pick and choose which Businesses that would be favored Businesses, by writing huge checks to his personal favs. The dirt bag in charge prefers union business, government business, and green business. How are the dirt bag's picks going so far?

Business used to be smart enough to invest in productivity which allowed skilled workers to out produce cheap workers. Then people like you said let's give that money to CEOs instead as they are all a company needs to be successful.

What were you thinking????

 

[kaz]

Exactly what President Obama has said and done for 5 years while Republicans shut down Congress to prevent progress.

Mark Twain: The opposite of progress is Congress

I almost spit all over my computer screen when you bewailed that shutting down Congress was "preventing" progress. I can think of no better way to enable it.

 

[Foxfyre]

So, you didn't see any difference between poverty and wealth? Interesting. I've tried both and much prefer more to less. Like you, I had a choice. I did what I had to to get from one to the other. I believe in the American Dream and assume others do as well. In fact, I can't imagine who would simply choose poverty given a choice. But, if that satisfies them, I guess that it's no skin off my nose. But for people who have no choice, if I can help them by giving them more choice, why wouldn't I?

You made the assumption with your first sentence how? You made the assumption that I haven't experienced both, how? You drew the assumption that I chose poverty how? And who among us, other than the severely mentally or physically challenged, has no choice?

I don't know if you ever check the news or not, but business has let the country down by their inability to grow. So, one of the consequences of the Bush regime is stubborn unemployment keeping many willing workers on the sidelines. You say that they willing choose poverty over employment. I doubt that. That there are many unfulfilled jobs out there. Kaz tells us that he can replace all of his workers anytime that he wants, so there is a disconnect here.

If you and I chose to leave poverty when we had the opportunity, where did these people come from who choose otherwise and why?

When there are tens of millions of capable people out of work, yes Kaz can replace his workforce fairly easily should he need to. In times of full employment, that sometimes becomes much more difficult to do without offering much more in wages and benefits, however in a robust economy, the businessman can expect profits that will allow him to pay more without that becoming inflationary. If the same work force is making me $2 million in profits over the $1 million I was earning during a prolonged recession, I can afford to pay those people much better. I will also likely be encouraged to expland my business and hire more people and thereby increase my profits.

Many people do choose quasi proverty on the government dole if they receive a higher income that way than they can make earning low wages in the private sector. Unfortunately, those who choose that option will be stuck in permanent quasi poverty while those who choose to work their way out of poverty probably won't stay in poverty.

Business has not let the country down. Thousands, maybe millions of small businesses are unable to borrow the operating capital they need to make bids or get their people back to work. That is a failing of government policy, not business.

And businesses, large and small, are sitting on trillions of investment capital rather than risk putting it to work in the most business-unfriendly Administration I can remember in my lifetime and in the face of a permanently stuck economy and a government who refuses to initiate policy to allow it to get moving, and most especially in the face of uncertain taxes and regulation this government is holding over their heads. Why would reasonable people risk all to put money to work only to lose it and then have nothing to live on?

And again you are the master of non-sequitur by quoting my post and then spouting stuff that answered not a single question nor was it responsive to my point in any way.

 

[PMZ]

Fortunately for us, that was in the era when there weren't any entitlements or government safety nets for us. And it never occurred that our prosperity was anybody's responsibility other than ours.

But this is a different era. This economy leaves most people w/o decent wages, even when they are working hard (and by decent I mean 21st century decent, not just having the roof over your head and bread on your table).

Give me one reason why we should NOT try and fix that.

We should fix it. Fixing it means that government gets out of the way and allows people to make something of themselves. What you want to do is make it worse. Money does not come out of nowhere. Every dollar you give to Peter you stole from Paul. Peter's getting money for not working, Paul is losing money he worked for. Neither is incented to work.

I remember when business was smart enough to grow and satisfy we, the people. Now we are paying CEO's 10-100X for shrinking. And they want to trash the country because disposing of waste responsibly is too hard.

Let's find and bring back the capable ones and send the bean counters to China.

 

[RKMBrown]

Now, you're just making up stuff. I told you why I'm free and respect the country that gave me the opportunity to be who I am. You can live any life you are capable of achieving. Just do it and stop whining. You're nowhere near as special as you'd like to be.

You live in a free market country. Find a better deal if you don't like ours.

>>> You're nowhere near as special as you'd like to be.

How would you know whether I'm happy with my place in life or not? You know nothing of me.

You did not answer the questions. I did not ask you why you are free or if you respect the country. Those were your statements answering your own questions not mine. You appear to be talking to yourself. Can you answer the questions I asked or not?

I intend to do whatever it takes to stop folks, like you, from fundamentally changing my country.

Your style seems to be to ask a question, then if you don't like the answer, claim it unanswered, I suppose because you think that only the answer that you prefer is the truth. That's that entitlement thing again.

If you don't like your country, what do you care about? Just getting your way?

Conservatism had a more than adequate chance to perform and failed completely. Why would you think that doing the same thing over and over would lead to different results?

Wrong... I'll ask them again and number them this time to make it easier for you to follow.

1) Why do you insist on limiting your wealth creation to your self classified middle income?

2) Why do you insist that people that make more money than you, don't deserve their income as much as you deserve your income?

3) If someone works 80 hours to produce twice the wealth you create in 40 hours, why should they have to pay a higher tax rate than you?

4) Why do you insist on penalizing him for working twice as many hours as you do?

5) Pretty basic questions can you answer them?


>>> If you don't like your country, what do you care about?
You straw-man is wrong. I like my country. What I care about is stopping folks like you from turning the best country on the planet into some sort of quasi socialist regime run by an emperor and his czars.

>>> Conservatism had a more than adequate chance to perform and failed completely.
When was that? When the democrats were running congress or when the neo-con socialist war hawk Bush was elected president?

>>> Why would you think that doing the same thing over and over would lead to different results?

I don't that's the point. Socialism, has never and will never work.

 

[PMZ]

You made the assumption with your first sentence how? You made the assumption that I haven't experienced both, how? You drew the assumption that I chose poverty how? And who among us, other than the severely mentally or physically challenged, has no choice?

I don't know if you ever check the news or not, but business has let the country down by their inability to grow. So, one of the consequences of the Bush regime is stubborn unemployment keeping many willing workers on the sidelines. You say that they willing choose poverty over employment. I doubt that. That there are many unfulfilled jobs out there. Kaz tells us that he can replace all of his workers anytime that he wants, so there is a disconnect here.

If you and I chose to leave poverty when we had the opportunity, where did these people come from who choose otherwise and why?

When there are tens of millions of capable people out of work, yes Kaz can replace his workforce fairly easily should he need to. In times of full employment, that sometimes becomes much more difficult to do without offering much more in wages and benefits, however in a robust economy, the businessman can expect profits that will allow him to pay more without that becoming inflationary. If the same work force is making me $2 million in profits over the $1 million I was earning during a prolonged recession, I can afford to pay those people much better. I will also likely be encouraged to expland my business and hire more people and thereby increase my profits.

Many people do choose quasi proverty on the government dole if they receive a higher income that way than they can make earning low wages in the private sector. Unfortunately, those who choose that option will be stuck in permanent quasi poverty while those who choose to work their way out of poverty probably won't stay in poverty.

Business has not let the country down. Thousands, maybe millions of small businesses are unable to borrow the operating capital they need to make bids or get their people back to work. That is a failing of government policy, not business.

And businesses, large and small, are sitting on trillions of investment capital rather than risk putting it to work in the most business-unfriendly Administration I can remember in my lifetime and in the face of a permanently stuck economy and a government who refuses to initiate policy to allow it to get moving, and most especially in the face of uncertain taxes and regulation this government is holding over their heads. Why would reasonable people risk all to put money to work only to lose it and then have nothing to live on?

And again you are the master of non-sequitur by quoting my post and then spouting stuff that answered not a single question nor was it responsive to my point in any way.

I am absolutely the master of non-sequitur using your definition. Conservative dogma has brought both business and government down, so adhering to it is pathetically ignorant.

You are an aristocracy syncophant. Your choice. The longer that you preach that business can do no harm and government no good, your place in our politics is cemented in place. Irrelevant. It's just too bad that the country gave you the chance that we did. It's going to take several generations to repair the damage.

 

[PMZ]

>>> You're nowhere near as special as you'd like to be.

How would you know whether I'm happy with my place in life or not? You know nothing of me.

You did not answer the questions. I did not ask you why you are free or if you respect the country. Those were your statements answering your own questions not mine. You appear to be talking to yourself. Can you answer the questions I asked or not?

I intend to do whatever it takes to stop folks, like you, from fundamentally changing my country.

Your style seems to be to ask a question, then if you don't like the answer, claim it unanswered, I suppose because you think that only the answer that you prefer is the truth. That's that entitlement thing again.

If you don't like your country, what do you care about? Just getting your way?

Conservatism had a more than adequate chance to perform and failed completely. Why would you think that doing the same thing over and over would lead to different results?

Wrong... I'll ask them again and number them this time to make it easier for you to follow.

1) Why do you insist on limiting your wealth creation to your self classified middle income?

2) Why do you insist that people that make more money than you, don't deserve their income as much as you deserve your income?

3) If someone works 80 hours to produce twice the wealth you create in 40 hours, why should they have to pay a higher tax rate than you?

4) Why do you insist on penalizing him for working twice as many hours as you do?

5) Pretty basic questions can you answer them?


>>> If you don't like your country, what do you care about?
You straw-man is wrong. I like my country. What I care about is stopping folks like you from turning the best country on the planet into some sort of quasi socialist regime run by an emperor and his czars.

>>> Conservatism had a more than adequate chance to perform and failed completely.
When was that? When the democrats were running congress or when the neo-con socialist war hawk Bush was elected president?

>>> Why would you think that doing the same thing over and over would lead to different results?

I don't that's the point. Socialism, has never and will never work.

"1) Why do you insist on limiting your wealth creation to your self classified middle income?" Because work creates wealth. Wealth doesn't need to work.

2) Why do you insist that people that make more money than you, don't deserve their income as much as you deserve your income? "I don't and never have. This is what you have to make up about others to look good yourself."

3) If someone works 80 hours to produce twice the wealth you create in 40 hours, why should they have to pay a higher tax rate than you? "You're assuming that wealth produced=income. Extremely naive.

4) Why do you insist on penalizing him for working twice as many hours as you do?

5) Pretty basic questions can you answer them? Got to go. Will be back.

 

[RKMBrown]

I don't know if you ever check the news or not, but business has let the country down by their inability to grow. So, one of the consequences of the Bush regime is stubborn unemployment keeping many willing workers on the sidelines. You say that they willing choose poverty over employment. I doubt that. That there are many unfulfilled jobs out there. Kaz tells us that he can replace all of his workers anytime that he wants, so there is a disconnect here.

If you and I chose to leave poverty when we had the opportunity, where did these people come from who choose otherwise and why?

Not true. Businesses are growing, but many of these businesses have decided to do their growth in other countries where the business climate is more amenable to their business. The dirt bag in charge decided to pick and choose which Businesses that would be favored Businesses, by writing huge checks to his personal favs. The dirt bag in charge prefers union business, government business, and green business. How are the dirt bag's picks going so far?

Business used to be smart enough to invest in productivity which allowed skilled workers to out produce cheap workers. Then people like you said let's give that money to CEOs instead as they are all a company needs to be successful.

What were you thinking????

Huh? On what planet do you live?

Can you name one Business that does not invest in productivity? Can you name one person or company on the planet that would pick cheap unskilled labor over skilled labor? What you are not understanding, likely, is that Americans do not have a patent on skill, nor do they have a patent on intelligence, nor do they have a patent on effort, nor do they have a patent on capitalism. If you want to talk about CEO pay your gonna have to talk to the owners of the company. I would agree that most CEOs get paid way too much money, and I certainly would not pay my CEO more than I think he's worth. That said I don't want the government setting salary caps. I do think the government is supposed to break up monopolies. If the CEOs have a monopoly on money based on some monopolizing of labor.. yeah break up the monopoly. For example, the owners should be allowed to have a say in what the pay is for their CEOs, such as by a shareholder vote.

 

[RKMBrown]

Your style seems to be to ask a question, then if you don't like the answer, claim it unanswered, I suppose because you think that only the answer that you prefer is the truth. That's that entitlement thing again.

If you don't like your country, what do you care about? Just getting your way?

Conservatism had a more than adequate chance to perform and failed completely. Why would you think that doing the same thing over and over would lead to different results?

Wrong... I'll ask them again and number them this time to make it easier for you to follow.

1) Why do you insist on limiting your wealth creation to your self classified middle income?

2) Why do you insist that people that make more money than you, don't deserve their income as much as you deserve your income?

3) If someone works 80 hours to produce twice the wealth you create in 40 hours, why should they have to pay a higher tax rate than you?

4) Why do you insist on penalizing him for working twice as many hours as you do?

5) Pretty basic questions can you answer them?


>>> If you don't like your country, what do you care about?
You straw-man is wrong. I like my country. What I care about is stopping folks like you from turning the best country on the planet into some sort of quasi socialist regime run by an emperor and his czars.

>>> Conservatism had a more than adequate chance to perform and failed completely.
When was that? When the democrats were running congress or when the neo-con socialist war hawk Bush was elected president?

>>> Why would you think that doing the same thing over and over would lead to different results?

I don't that's the point. Socialism, has never and will never work.

"1) Why do you insist on limiting your wealth creation to your self classified middle income?" Because work creates wealth. Wealth doesn't need to work.

2) Why do you insist that people that make more money than you, don't deserve their income as much as you deserve your income? "I don't and never have. This is what you have to make up about others to look good yourself."

3) If someone works 80 hours to produce twice the wealth you create in 40 hours, why should they have to pay a higher tax rate than you? "You're assuming that wealth produced=income. Extremely naive.

4) Why do you insist on penalizing him for working twice as many hours as you do?

5) Pretty basic questions can you answer them? Got to go. Will be back.

You call those answers?

1) You insist on limiting your wealth creation to your self classified middle income, because work creates wealth? What the hell does that mean? That's not even close to an answer. Are you trying to say you limit your income because you are lazy?

>>> 2) Why do you insist that people that make more money than you, don't deserve their income as much as you deserve your income? "I don't and never have.

Ok then this is something we can work from. Why do you want a progressive tax, and / or why do you feel income for CEOs is undeserved but your income is more deserved and/or more important than the rich guy's money so you should be rewarded with a lower tax rate. Or are you changing your mind and now agree we should move to a flat rate or zero income tax?

>>> 3) If someone works 80 hours to produce twice the wealth you create in 40 hours, why should they have to pay a higher tax rate than you? "You're assuming that wealth produced=income. Extremely naive.

Not true, I'm using YOUR definition of wealth, wealth being that which is created through labor. Can you answer this basic question, yes or no?

FYI if you want to debate, it'll be easier to make progress if you at least attempt to not make up lies about the people you are talking to. If progress is not your intention, well then I'll just assume you are just Trolling and move on.

 

[ilia25]

Fortunately for us, that was in the era when there weren't any entitlements or government safety nets for us. And it never occurred that our prosperity was anybody's responsibility other than ours.

But this is a different era. This economy leaves most people w/o decent wages, even when they are working hard (and by decent I mean 21st century decent, not just having the roof over your head and bread on your table).

Give me one reason why we should NOT try and fix that.

We should fix it. Fixing it means that government gets out of the way and allows people to make something of themselves.

You're probably an idiot, so let me repeat it for you: this economy does not create enough of decent paying jobs. If the government gets out of the way, most of people will have to work for low pay. That is what the 21st century economy does.