Taxing the wealthy more will have little to no impact on your life or anyone around you

[Ray From Cleveland]

And then you have less people investing. Is that what you want?

People investing already pay brokerage costs

Doesn't deter them in the least

Brokerage costs are nothing compared to taxes. If you increase taxes on investments, investors look for lower taxed investments such as those overseas. In fact we have record amounts of people giving up their citizenship over taxation in this country, and those aren't even the very rich people.

Bullshit

There are billions of transactions a day. Each pays some broker a service fee. The government getting a percentage of each sale will not scare anyone away

They are too greedy

There are less and less brokers every day thanks to our technology. The fee is minimum and doesn't affect the bottom line. Taxes are different. Why do you think they keep capital gains lower than other taxes? Because they want people to be attracted to the market. If taxes get too high, those investors go elsewhere.

Why are capital gains taxed at a lower rate than actual labor?

Because of the Golden Rule: He who has the gold makes the rules

Does taxing labor dissuade people from working?

Most people don't have a choice but to work. Investors have multiple choices in where they invest their money.

 

[Arianrhod]

What I am saying we have been in debt in this nation for over a century, there can be no prosperity if in debt.

Don't you understand, if there is any debt how can it be paid for?

What I understand is that every nation has debt, but the U.S. is remiss in not teaching economics in high school...

That does not make it right, living within means is the only right way.

It doesn't get any simpler than that...

Yes, it's very simple, and a complete misunderstanding of the issue.

Any financial entity owes more than it has, is fraudulent.

So you're saying "break up the big banks"? Fine. When do we start?

 

[rightwinger]

People investing already pay brokerage costs

Doesn't deter them in the least

Brokerage costs are nothing compared to taxes. If you increase taxes on investments, investors look for lower taxed investments such as those overseas. In fact we have record amounts of people giving up their citizenship over taxation in this country, and those aren't even the very rich people.

Bullshit

There are billions of transactions a day. Each pays some broker a service fee. The government getting a percentage of each sale will not scare anyone away

They are too greedy

There are less and less brokers every day thanks to our technology. The fee is minimum and doesn't affect the bottom line. Taxes are different. Why do you think they keep capital gains lower than other taxes? Because they want people to be attracted to the market. If taxes get too high, those investors go elsewhere.

Why are capital gains taxed at a lower rate than actual labor?

Because of the Golden Rule: He who has the gold makes the rules

Does taxing labor dissuade people from working?

Most people don't have a choice but to work. Investors have multiple choices in where they invest their money.

Yes ...I can see them bailing on the stock market because of increased fees

Same old fear mongering....if we are not nice to rich people, they will run away

 

[Brain357]

Yes I get it. You don't think there should be any taxes. Great plan. Pay for the military and infrastructure with no taxes.

That is the duty of the federal government, social programs are not. Thus the failure of social programs.

We wouldn't have such a welfare problem if the rich weren't so greedy.

We wouldn't have a welfare problem if the takers weren't so greedy.

So who is greedier: somebody that wants to keep more of their money that they earn or somebody that doesn't make money and wants somebody else's money instead?

All the takers are far from rich. The greedy are the ones with all the money.

You know this how??

You have to be real poor to collect any welfare. The rich are called the rich for a reason.

 

[Brain357]

Yes I get it. You don't think there should be any taxes. Great plan. Pay for the military and infrastructure with no taxes.

That is the duty of the federal government, social programs are not. Thus the failure of social programs.

We wouldn't have such a welfare problem if the rich weren't so greedy.

We wouldn't have a welfare problem if the takers weren't so greedy.

So who is greedier: somebody that wants to keep more of their money that they earn or somebody that doesn't make money and wants somebody else's money instead?

All the takers are far from rich. The greedy are the ones with all the money.

It doesn't matter if or how rich they are. Greedy people are those that take from others who have earned it. Is it greedy of you because you have a savings account? Is it greedy of you to ask your employer for a raise? Is it greedy of you to look for bargains and deals at the stores or service centers? Of course not. You are only looking to keep more of what you earned. That's exactly what rich people do.

Greed is making lots of money while paying employees so little they are on welfare.

 

[thereisnospoon]

And your evidence of this is where exactly?

CEOs keep pushing for more and more H-1B visas.

American IT Workers Complain of Losing Jobs to Foreign H-1B Visa Holders

Why doesnt the gov tell em no?
It is after all in their power to do so.

Because the CEOs give them money to get reelected. We need campaign finance reform more than ever.

Which will accomplish WHAT?.....Do you think the electronic media will simply donate time to candidates?

The spending on elections is out of control. It will keep the very rich from being able to buy off politicians.

That is non responsive.......You are protesting the methods by which campaigns are placed in front of the target audience.
Come up with a better solution and we have a discussion.
Just posting "there's too much money in politics" is not only stating the obvious, but it also looks like whining.

 

[thereisnospoon]

That is the duty of the federal government, social programs are not. Thus the failure of social programs.

We wouldn't have such a welfare problem if the rich weren't so greedy.

We wouldn't have a welfare problem if the takers weren't so greedy.

So who is greedier: somebody that wants to keep more of their money that they earn or somebody that doesn't make money and wants somebody else's money instead?

All the takers are far from rich. The greedy are the ones with all the money.

You know this how??

You have to be real poor to collect any welfare. The rich are called the rich for a reason.

A) no you don't. There are more people gaming the social safety net system than those legitimately collecting benefits.
Who collects welfare and why rich people are referred to as rich are two mutually exclusive subjects

 

[Arianrhod]

That is non responsive.......You are protesting the methods by which campaigns are placed in front of the target audience.

Not speaking for anyone else, but I'm protesting the Citizens United ruling that "money is speech."

 

[thereisnospoon]

That is the duty of the federal government, social programs are not. Thus the failure of social programs.

We wouldn't have such a welfare problem if the rich weren't so greedy.

We wouldn't have a welfare problem if the takers weren't so greedy.

So who is greedier: somebody that wants to keep more of their money that they earn or somebody that doesn't make money and wants somebody else's money instead?

All the takers are far from rich. The greedy are the ones with all the money.

It doesn't matter if or how rich they are. Greedy people are those that take from others who have earned it. Is it greedy of you because you have a savings account? Is it greedy of you to ask your employer for a raise? Is it greedy of you to look for bargains and deals at the stores or service centers? Of course not. You are only looking to keep more of what you earned. That's exactly what rich people do.

Greed is making lots of money while paying employees so little they are on welfare.

Ok...lets see. We now have you regurgitating a liberal narrative....something about low skill workers and their limited income potential.
Then you jump right in with another whiny narrative "making lots of money".....As though that were some sort of criminal offense.
Your side hates anyone you deem as "wealthy" We get it. There is one certainty. There is NOTHING you can do about it.
There will always be achievers and success stories. There will also always be failures and those who are opposed to achievement.

 

[thereisnospoon]

That is non responsive.......You are protesting the methods by which campaigns are placed in front of the target audience.

Not speaking for anyone else, but I'm protesting the Citizens United ruling that "money is speech."

"Money" is not speech. Under the current system, the use of it "represents" speech...
Instead of protesting( complaining) find a solution.....

 

[thereisnospoon]

STFU you stupid troll moron

Trolls don't give links and argue facts. They're all GOP too. And call people morons as argument.

Thats hilarious coming from someone who uses hater dupe as a standard means of rebuttal.

You ARE DUPES, I didn't say you were stupid, just duped- that's politics, not stupid namecalling. It's proved every day- it's the basis of the GOP now. "Obama had control for 2 years, Barney and F+F caused the meltdown, 47% pay no taxes, skyrocketing premiums, Dems want Welfare, giving Iran the bomb, Iraq was working on nukes, e-mails, IRS, UNIONS!!!!", and on and on. Total bs.

Can you all believe this shit?!

Obama has been president for near 7 years but this stupidfuck only accounts for 2 because that's when he had a super majority

He had a super majority for 13 DAYS in session, Pub dupe.

Oh please...That excuse. Obama is STILL King Shit even with the GOP in the majority......The guy vetoes everything. And why is this? Because Obama is nothing more than a hyper-partisan political hack. He is the obstructionist.
If the GOP had real conservatives instead of these old guard spineless RINOS they could pass what they wanted and then point to Obama as the one who is being uncooperative.

 

[Sallow]

Says who? You?
I was easily making six figures prior to the crash. I won't claim that it was tax cuts that did it but it sure as hell wasn't something that carried over into Obama's administration.
You morons claim one thing but your only scape goat is the crash. The crash that was partially caused by Democratic policies. So desperate to help the poor that everyone paid the price.

Just look at how the economy has done, the evidence is clear.

Our economy crashed because of shady trading & financial practices. Partially thanks to people like Barney Frank and their bullshit "help the poor" policies.
The economy stayed in the shitter because we elected a fucking amatuer who knew NOTHING about economics & had the same God damn philosophy that got us there in the first place.

None of the "help the poor" policies contributed to the economic crisis.

That's been debunked over and over again.

Forcing banks to grant mortgages to people who couldn't pay them is what caused the crisis, so your claim is pure bullshit.

I am always mystified at the ease with which some people ignore the unintended consequences of gov't meddling in business.

They conveniently forget it was gov't policy - as well intentioned as it may have been - that fueled the housing bubble and predictable implosion.

The same peeps whine incessantly about the jobs we export yet fail to recognize (or refuse to admit) that gov't policies - like those of the EPA - are directly responsible.

Deep down inside they may know that more gov't is a guarantee of failure but their solution is - drum roll, please - MORE GOV'T.

The government stopped redlining.

The only "unintended" consequence of that was gentrification.

The government had nothing to do with "forcing" the banks to make bad loans.

They did that on their own.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Just look at how the economy has done, the evidence is clear.

Our economy crashed because of shady trading & financial practices. Partially thanks to people like Barney Frank and their bullshit "help the poor" policies.
The economy stayed in the shitter because we elected a fucking amatuer who knew NOTHING about economics & had the same God damn philosophy that got us there in the first place.

None of the "help the poor" policies contributed to the economic crisis.

That's been debunked over and over again.

Forcing banks to grant mortgages to people who couldn't pay them is what caused the crisis, so your claim is pure bullshit.

I am always mystified at the ease with which some people ignore the unintended consequences of gov't meddling in business.

They conveniently forget it was gov't policy - as well intentioned as it may have been - that fueled the housing bubble and predictable implosion.

The same peeps whine incessantly about the jobs we export yet fail to recognize (or refuse to admit) that gov't policies - like those of the EPA - are directly responsible.

Deep down inside they may know that more gov't is a guarantee of failure but their solution is - drum roll, please - MORE GOV'T.

The government stopped redlining.

The only "unintended" consequence of that was gentrification.

The government had nothing to do with "forcing" the banks to make bad loans.

They did that on their own.

Banks were told in essence "if you don't make these loans, bend over and grab your ankles".....
In return, the federal government told the banks it would guarantee the paper AND made up the rules whereby mortgages could be packaged and sold as "investments"...The left wing politicians would look good to their constituents while the lenders were sold on a 'guarantee' of positive return....
Looking back it was the left wing of the federal government that was obsessed with the idea of increasing home ownership. The government screwed with the marketplace and created a disaster. Anyone with more than two functioning brain cells could see the impending disaster, but politics ruled and everyone was forced to hold their breath.
Now, banks that refused to play ball were indeed punished. Punished with intense federal audits.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Just look at how the economy has done, the evidence is clear.

Our economy crashed because of shady trading & financial practices. Partially thanks to people like Barney Frank and their bullshit "help the poor" policies.
The economy stayed in the shitter because we elected a fucking amatuer who knew NOTHING about economics & had the same God damn philosophy that got us there in the first place.

None of the "help the poor" policies contributed to the economic crisis.

That's been debunked over and over again.

Forcing banks to grant mortgages to people who couldn't pay them is what caused the crisis, so your claim is pure bullshit.

I am always mystified at the ease with which some people ignore the unintended consequences of gov't meddling in business.

They conveniently forget it was gov't policy - as well intentioned as it may have been - that fueled the housing bubble and predictable implosion.

The same peeps whine incessantly about the jobs we export yet fail to recognize (or refuse to admit) that gov't policies - like those of the EPA - are directly responsible.

Deep down inside they may know that more gov't is a guarantee of failure but their solution is - drum roll, please - MORE GOV'T.

The government stopped redlining.

The only "unintended" consequence of that was gentrification.

The government had nothing to do with "forcing" the banks to make bad loans.

They did that on their own.

2/16/2009 @ 12:01AM
A Government-Mandated Housing Bubble
Peter J. Wallison Edward J. Pinto

A Government-Mandated Housing Bubble

 

[Sallow]

Our economy crashed because of shady trading & financial practices. Partially thanks to people like Barney Frank and their bullshit "help the poor" policies.
The economy stayed in the shitter because we elected a fucking amatuer who knew NOTHING about economics & had the same God damn philosophy that got us there in the first place.

None of the "help the poor" policies contributed to the economic crisis.

That's been debunked over and over again.

Forcing banks to grant mortgages to people who couldn't pay them is what caused the crisis, so your claim is pure bullshit.

I am always mystified at the ease with which some people ignore the unintended consequences of gov't meddling in business.

They conveniently forget it was gov't policy - as well intentioned as it may have been - that fueled the housing bubble and predictable implosion.

The same peeps whine incessantly about the jobs we export yet fail to recognize (or refuse to admit) that gov't policies - like those of the EPA - are directly responsible.

Deep down inside they may know that more gov't is a guarantee of failure but their solution is - drum roll, please - MORE GOV'T.

The government stopped redlining.

The only "unintended" consequence of that was gentrification.

The government had nothing to do with "forcing" the banks to make bad loans.

They did that on their own.

Banks were told in essence "if you don't make these loans, bend over and grab your ankles".....
In return, the federal government told the banks it would guarantee the paper AND made up the rules whereby mortgages could be packaged and sold as "investments"...The left wing politicians would look good to their constituents while the lenders were sold on a 'guarantee' of positive return....
Looking back it was the left wing of the federal government that was obsessed with the idea of increasing home ownership. The government screwed with the marketplace and created a disaster. Anyone with more than two functioning brain cells could see the impending disaster, but politics ruled and everyone was forced to hold their breath.
Now, banks that refused to play ball were indeed punished. Punished with intense federal audits.

Bullshit.

 

[Brain357]

We wouldn't have such a welfare problem if the rich weren't so greedy.

We wouldn't have a welfare problem if the takers weren't so greedy.

So who is greedier: somebody that wants to keep more of their money that they earn or somebody that doesn't make money and wants somebody else's money instead?

All the takers are far from rich. The greedy are the ones with all the money.

You know this how??

You have to be real poor to collect any welfare. The rich are called the rich for a reason.

A) no you don't. There are more people gaming the social safety net system than those legitimately collecting benefits.
Who collects welfare and why rich people are referred to as rich are two mutually exclusive subjects

Prove you don't.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

That is the duty of the federal government, social programs are not. Thus the failure of social programs.

We wouldn't have such a welfare problem if the rich weren't so greedy.

We wouldn't have a welfare problem if the takers weren't so greedy.

So who is greedier: somebody that wants to keep more of their money that they earn or somebody that doesn't make money and wants somebody else's money instead?

All the takers are far from rich. The greedy are the ones with all the money.

It doesn't matter if or how rich they are. Greedy people are those that take from others who have earned it. Is it greedy of you because you have a savings account? Is it greedy of you to ask your employer for a raise? Is it greedy of you to look for bargains and deals at the stores or service centers? Of course not. You are only looking to keep more of what you earned. That's exactly what rich people do.

Greed is making lots of money while paying employees so little they are on welfare.

Is that what greed is?

If you need your car repaired and you have two garages to take it to, which one would you choose? The one that's going to charge you $850.00 or the one that's going to charge you $625.00?

If you decide to have somebody else cut and take care of your lawn, do you choose the company that's going to charge you $45.00 per cut, or are you going to use the company that charges $70.00 per cut?

Why would you or anybody else for that matter pay people more money than the job they are doing is worth? That's a sure sign of failure. And if you are overpaying your workers, you too will be looking for a job real soon because your competition will wipe you out in no time at all.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Brokerage costs are nothing compared to taxes. If you increase taxes on investments, investors look for lower taxed investments such as those overseas. In fact we have record amounts of people giving up their citizenship over taxation in this country, and those aren't even the very rich people.

Bullshit

There are billions of transactions a day. Each pays some broker a service fee. The government getting a percentage of each sale will not scare anyone away

They are too greedy

There are less and less brokers every day thanks to our technology. The fee is minimum and doesn't affect the bottom line. Taxes are different. Why do you think they keep capital gains lower than other taxes? Because they want people to be attracted to the market. If taxes get too high, those investors go elsewhere.

Why are capital gains taxed at a lower rate than actual labor?

Because of the Golden Rule: He who has the gold makes the rules

Does taxing labor dissuade people from working?

Most people don't have a choice but to work. Investors have multiple choices in where they invest their money.

Yes ...I can see them bailing on the stock market because of increased fees

Same old fear mongering....if we are not nice to rich people, they will run away

It's not fear mongering. It's happened repeatedly. See all those American jobs go to China? Why did they do that, because we were so nice to them?

 

[Brain357]

We wouldn't have such a welfare problem if the rich weren't so greedy.

We wouldn't have a welfare problem if the takers weren't so greedy.

So who is greedier: somebody that wants to keep more of their money that they earn or somebody that doesn't make money and wants somebody else's money instead?

All the takers are far from rich. The greedy are the ones with all the money.

It doesn't matter if or how rich they are. Greedy people are those that take from others who have earned it. Is it greedy of you because you have a savings account? Is it greedy of you to ask your employer for a raise? Is it greedy of you to look for bargains and deals at the stores or service centers? Of course not. You are only looking to keep more of what you earned. That's exactly what rich people do.

Greed is making lots of money while paying employees so little they are on welfare.

Is that what greed is?

If you need your car repaired and you have two garages to take it to, which one would you choose? The one that's going to charge you $850.00 or the one that's going to charge you $625.00?

If you decide to have somebody else cut and take care of your lawn, do you choose the company that's going to charge you $45.00 per cut, or are you going to use the company that charges $70.00 per cut?

Why would you or anybody else for that matter pay people more money than the job they are doing is worth? That's a sure sign of failure. And if you are overpaying your workers, you too will be looking for a job real soon because your competition will wipe you out in no time at all.

Well this extreme underpaying is what grows government. As long as the rich pay so little the gov will grow.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

We wouldn't have a welfare problem if the takers weren't so greedy.

So who is greedier: somebody that wants to keep more of their money that they earn or somebody that doesn't make money and wants somebody else's money instead?

All the takers are far from rich. The greedy are the ones with all the money.

It doesn't matter if or how rich they are. Greedy people are those that take from others who have earned it. Is it greedy of you because you have a savings account? Is it greedy of you to ask your employer for a raise? Is it greedy of you to look for bargains and deals at the stores or service centers? Of course not. You are only looking to keep more of what you earned. That's exactly what rich people do.

Greed is making lots of money while paying employees so little they are on welfare.

Is that what greed is?

If you need your car repaired and you have two garages to take it to, which one would you choose? The one that's going to charge you $850.00 or the one that's going to charge you $625.00?

If you decide to have somebody else cut and take care of your lawn, do you choose the company that's going to charge you $45.00 per cut, or are you going to use the company that charges $70.00 per cut?

Why would you or anybody else for that matter pay people more money than the job they are doing is worth? That's a sure sign of failure. And if you are overpaying your workers, you too will be looking for a job real soon because your competition will wipe you out in no time at all.

Well this extreme underpaying is what grows government. As long as the rich pay so little the gov will grow.

Government growth has nothing to do with rich people. Government grows when we elect the people that promise to make it grow. See the Democrat presidential debate.