The Question Conservatives Can't Answer

[gslack]

"The following fact was sent to numerous conservative pundits, politicians, and profit-seekers:

"Based on Tax Foundation figures, the richest 1% has TRIPLED its share of America's income over the past 30 years. Much of the gain came from tax cuts and minimally taxed financial instruments.

"If their income had increased only at the pace of American productivity (80%), they would be taking about a TRILLION DOLLARS LESS out of our economy.

"And a question was posed:

"In what way do the richest 1% deserve these extraordinary gains?

"This question was not posed in sarcasm.

"A factual answer is genuinely sought.

"It seems unlikely that 1% of the population worked three times harder than the rest of us, or contributed three times as much to American productivity.

"Money earned from tax cuts and minimally taxed financial instruments is not productive income."

Any takers, Cons?

The Question Conservatives Can't Answer | Common Dreams

This thread has most likely moved on from the OP now but I had to take a stab at it...

Your question is asking a generality but you said you wanted factual answers. Its like asking for a mathematical answer to why my kids leave their clothes in the bathroom floor..

You are forgetting one very important thing that your linked article and you overlooked. The 1% already were the richest 1% to begin with... Who do you think makes large corporations and companies which produce the products people buy and jobs they work? That 1%...

I find this kind of thing to be a hilarious bit of mathematical hucksterism. The richest 1% became richer... uh-huh... and thats a surprise how?

This world pretty much all of it anyway, runs on virtually the same kind of monetary/financial/banking structure. Even the world bank uses the same system we do (albeit on a broader scale). Now if you have people who manage to use this system to turn their billion dollars into 100 billion dollars, than why not ask the more pertinent questions about the system they used to do so?

Or even better if joe moneybags has 500 million and he uses half of it to start a new google and it becomes success. he has now become more wealthy. he had 500 mill and invested 250 mill, and say the company made his investment double he is now worth 750 mill. he takes that 750 mill and gets some good investments and bingo! hes now worth a billion. When he was worth 500 mill say he was taxed at standard rate. And then at 750 mill the same, and again at a billion standard rate. Now please explain to me at what point he deserved to be taxed at a higher rate? At what point did he go from being a guy with some money to invest and got lucky, to being a guy who was deserving a higher tax rate.. he made a company that made jobs for people to do, through the company paid taxes on all of his business dealings, paid licensing fees, paid for all the the usual things a large company would have to. Yet for all that you expect him to pay a higher rate than everyone else in addition to the taxes his company already pays...

When someone tells me the richest 1% made even more the last some odd number of years, its not a surprise nor is it relevant to a failing middle class or the plight of the lower classes. Its not like they are going to keep 500 billion in a mattress. Its gets invested, it gets put into the economy, or even used to create a business that will employ people. People that may be middle or lower class.

The actual separation of upper class vs the other classes is not just a left or right caused problem. Its a monetary/financial caused problem that is perpetuated on both extremes by those right and left political parties. Its an old problem, as old society. TO simply pretend a political party made it so is nonsense. There are rich and poor in every country and every age of advanced human. We used to have royalty and now we have banks that allow for the new royalty made from cash.

The system is designed to work for the wealthiest 1% the best. Who do you think made the investments to the banks in the first place? The more money you have to invest and risk the more you have to gain or lose.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

My first choice would be the one with cost-plus contracts.

A WPA-II program would be administered like the original with the military assuming operational command. Do you think it's possible over the next generation (at least) to put military and civilians to work rebuilding US infrastructure instead of bombing infrastructure on the opposite side of the planet?

State banks like the one in North Dakota could provide some of the financing without any help from Wall Street.

Why is a state bank superior?
Spell it out.

Let's ask Ellen!

"Cut spending, raise taxes, sell off public assets—these are the unsatisfactory solutions being debated across the nation, but the budget crises that nearly all the states are now suffering did not arise from too much spending or too little taxation.

"The crises arose from a credit freeze on Wall Street.

"In the wake of the 2009 financial market collapse, banks curtailed their lending more sharply than in any year since 1942, driving massive unemployment and causing local tax revenues to plummet."

State-Owned Banks: A Win-Win for State Budgets and Local Economies by Ellen Brown

Based on the North Dakota model, state banks don't invest in gambling.
Unlike Wall Street.

OMG! Ellen is a left-wing moron.
I repeat myself, I know.

 

[georgephillip]

"A state-owned bank on the BND model would not compete with community banks. Rather, it would partner with them and support them in making loans.

"The BND serves the role of a mini-Fed for the state. It provides correspondent banking services to virtually every financial institution in North Dakota and offers a Federal Funds program with daily volume of $330 million.

"It also provides check clearing, cash management services, and automated clearing house services.

"It leverages state funds into credit for local purposes, funds that would otherwise leave the state and be leveraged for investing abroad, drawing away jobs that could go to locals."

Any problem with state funds working for the benefit of state residents instead of Wall Street?

State-Owned Banks: A Win-Win for State Budgets and Local Economies by Ellen Brown

 

[Skull Pilot]

"The following fact was sent to numerous conservative pundits, politicians, and profit-seekers:

"Based on Tax Foundation figures, the richest 1% has TRIPLED its share of America's income over the past 30 years. Much of the gain came from tax cuts and minimally taxed financial instruments.

"If their income had increased only at the pace of American productivity (80%), they would be taking about a TRILLION DOLLARS LESS out of our economy.

"And a question was posed:

"In what way do the richest 1% deserve these extraordinary gains?

"This question was not posed in sarcasm.

"A factual answer is genuinely sought.

"It seems unlikely that 1% of the population worked three times harder than the rest of us, or contributed three times as much to American productivity.

"Money earned from tax cuts and minimally taxed financial instruments is not productive income."

Any takers, Cons?

The Question Conservatives Can't Answer | Common Dreams

The problem is 45% of the working American public pay no federal income tax what-so-ever and receive the same government benefits--off of other peoples backs. The top 10% in this country pay 70% of the entire tax base--and 45% of the public only pays 2.7%.

"Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance,and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery."Winston Churchill

The problem is 45% of working Americans don't earn enough to pay income taxes or drive 70% of US GDP:

"...the top 20% of the American populace holds roughly 93% of the country's financial wealth, and the top 1% of the country holds approximately 43% of the money in the U.S.

"Meanwhile, the middle 20% of the population -- what would, officially, be called the middle class -- holds only 6% of the country's total assets.

"While disturbing, even this minuscule share of the wealth pie dwarfs the bottom 40% of the country, who control less than 1%."

America has never been richer than it is today.
The distribution of that wealth has never been more unequal.
The solution does not require cutting Social Security.
It requires taxing the rich.

Disturbing Statistics on the Decline of America's Middle Class - DailyFinance

Punishing success to reward mediocrity. Yeah that's a good plan.

Just because my wife and I would be classified as the evil rich because of our AGI does not mean I should have to have a higher percentage of my income stolen from me by the fucking government.

Nothing I do in my business or personal life affects anyone's income but my own.

And did you ever think that the reason most of the so called middle class has no assets is that they spend more than they make just like the government does.

 

[edthecynic]

Did you bother reading the link?

"It seems unlikely that 1% of the population worked three times harder than the rest of us, or contributed three times as much to American productivity.

"Money earned from tax cuts and minimally taxed financial instruments is not productive income..."

The Question Conservatives Can't Answer | Common Dreams

What does that mean, "worked 3 times harder?" I can go get a tractor and move 5 yards of gravel and grade it out level in 2 hours or so... I can also do it with a shovel and wheel barrow... One is harder than the other, does that mean I should get paid more because I decided to take 3 days of busting my ass over sitting on a tractor and busting ass for 2 hours?

I’m not even sure how your logic works… Do you feel a doctor should make the same as someone working at Subway just because they both put in a 40 hour week?

Some people make poor investments or run their company into the ground… Some invest very well and run a company great. Why should someone that does great in their work/life be penalized more? I honestly don’t understand the logic… Imagine 30 or 40… maybe 50% of all the money you make simply being removed/taken by Government… And some people wonder why outsourcing is such a viable option.

Let's say you don't have a tractor but your neighbor does. He can let you use his tractor if you pay him some money. Now, you don't think it's fair that you pay him anything, since he's already rich and vote for thy guy who will take that tractor from him and give it to you. Now you do have a tractor, but no money to fuel it and repair it. You demand from guy you voted for to force your rich neighbor to pay fair share and give you money for gas and repairs, or you will not vote for him again. Is that a logic you understand?

That is a typical moronic analogy from a typical CON$ervative moron.

Let's say that the government protects your neighbor's right to private ownership of that tractor. CON$ say the person with no tractor should pay more to support the government that protects your neighbors right to privately own that tractor. And CON$ say that the person who has a tractor, yacht, private jet, Rolls Royce, a mansion in the country, a summer house at the beach and a villa on the French Riveria should pay nothing to support the government that protects his right to private ownership.

Libs say simply that the people who benefit most from the government protecting their right to private ownership should pay the most, after all, they have the most to lose without the government protecting that right.

 

[gslack]

What does that mean, "worked 3 times harder?" I can go get a tractor and move 5 yards of gravel and grade it out level in 2 hours or so... I can also do it with a shovel and wheel barrow... One is harder than the other, does that mean I should get paid more because I decided to take 3 days of busting my ass over sitting on a tractor and busting ass for 2 hours?

I’m not even sure how your logic works… Do you feel a doctor should make the same as someone working at Subway just because they both put in a 40 hour week?

Some people make poor investments or run their company into the ground… Some invest very well and run a company great. Why should someone that does great in their work/life be penalized more? I honestly don’t understand the logic… Imagine 30 or 40… maybe 50% of all the money you make simply being removed/taken by Government… And some people wonder why outsourcing is such a viable option.

Let's say you don't have a tractor but your neighbor does. He can let you use his tractor if you pay him some money. Now, you don't think it's fair that you pay him anything, since he's already rich and vote for thy guy who will take that tractor from him and give it to you. Now you do have a tractor, but no money to fuel it and repair it. You demand from guy you voted for to force your rich neighbor to pay fair share and give you money for gas and repairs, or you will not vote for him again. Is that a logic you understand?

That is a typical moronic analogy from a typical CON$ervative moron.

Let's say that the government protects your neighbor's right to private ownership of that tractor. CON$ say the person with no tractor should pay more to support the government that protects your neighbors right to privately own that tractor. And CON$ say that the person who has a tractor, yacht, private jet, Rolls Royce, a mansion in the country, a summer house at the beach and a villa on the French Riveria should pay nothing to support the government that protects his right to private ownership.

Libs say simply that the people who benefit most from the government protecting their right to private ownership should pay the most, after all, they have the most to lose without the government protecting that right.

Dam that was completely idiotic from start to finish..

First of all the people who don't own the tractor don't pay for the tractor owned by someone else. IN other words YOU do not pay for me or anyone else you pay for you. Got it? Or as most of you fail to realize the largest portion of you don't pay for you anyway the fella with the tractor does... You get a tax refund of what you did pay plus a bonus of what you could have made but didn't. Who pays for that shit? The tractor owner does..

Second, no one said the tractor owner shouldn't pay, they said he shouldn't pay a higher rate cause he owns the tractor. he is going to pay more thats a fact, but not a higher rate than you do.

Third. who can say who gets more from private ownership? You pay for the right to be protected. And that right is of equal value to all on its own. Say you win the lottery and can buy a tractor of your own, than your right was protected just like the tractor guy before you. Its the right you pay to be protected. That tractor can be stolen, broken or whatever and the government won't replace it.

 

[edthecynic]

Let's say you don't have a tractor but your neighbor does. He can let you use his tractor if you pay him some money. Now, you don't think it's fair that you pay him anything, since he's already rich and vote for thy guy who will take that tractor from him and give it to you. Now you do have a tractor, but no money to fuel it and repair it. You demand from guy you voted for to force your rich neighbor to pay fair share and give you money for gas and repairs, or you will not vote for him again. Is that a logic you understand?

That is a typical moronic analogy from a typical CON$ervative moron.

Let's say that the government protects your neighbor's right to private ownership of that tractor. CON$ say the person with no tractor should pay more to support the government that protects your neighbors right to privately own that tractor. And CON$ say that the person who has a tractor, yacht, private jet, Rolls Royce, a mansion in the country, a summer house at the beach and a villa on the French Riveria should pay nothing to support the government that protects his right to private ownership.

Libs say simply that the people who benefit most from the government protecting their right to private ownership should pay the most, after all, they have the most to lose without the government protecting that right.

Dam that was completely idiotic from start to finish..

First of all the people who don't own the tractor don't pay for the tractor owned by someone else. IN other words YOU do not pay for me or anyone else you pay for you. Got it? Or as most of you fail to realize the largest portion of you don't pay for you anyway the fella with the tractor does... You get a tax refund of what you did pay plus a bonus of what you could have made but didn't. Who pays for that shit? The tractor owner does..

Second, no one said the tractor owner shouldn't pay, they said he shouldn't pay a higher rate cause he owns the tractor. he is going to pay more thats a fact, but not a higher rate than you do.

Third. who can say who gets more from private ownership? You pay for the right to be protected. And that right is of equal value to all on its own. Say you win the lottery and can buy a tractor of your own, than your right was protected just like the tractor guy before you. Its the right you pay to be protected. That tractor can be stolen, broken or whatever and the government won't replace it.

Hey dumb ass, I didn't say the people who don't own the tractor pay for the tractor owned by someone else, I said the people who don't own the tractor pay to support the government that protects the right to privately own the tractor. The fact that you felt obligated to create a Straw Man proves even you know I'm right, but you are too dishonest to admit it.

And the people who benefit most from the government protecting their right to private ownership are the people who have accumulated the most private wealth!!! Nothing could be more obvious, but YOU can't see it at all!!!!

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

"A state-owned bank on the BND model would not compete with community banks. Rather, it would partner with them and support them in making loans.

"The BND serves the role of a mini-Fed for the state. It provides correspondent banking services to virtually every financial institution in North Dakota and offers a Federal Funds program with daily volume of $330 million.

"It also provides check clearing, cash management services, and automated clearing house services.

"It leverages state funds into credit for local purposes, funds that would otherwise leave the state and be leveraged for investing abroad, drawing away jobs that could go to locals."

Any problem with state funds working for the benefit of state residents instead of Wall Street?

State-Owned Banks: A Win-Win for State Budgets and Local Economies by Ellen Brown

"It leverages state funds into credit for local purposes"

Maybe you can explain what Ellen means here?

 

[gslack]

That is a typical moronic analogy from a typical CON$ervative moron.

Let's say that the government protects your neighbor's right to private ownership of that tractor. CON$ say the person with no tractor should pay more to support the government that protects your neighbors right to privately own that tractor. And CON$ say that the person who has a tractor, yacht, private jet, Rolls Royce, a mansion in the country, a summer house at the beach and a villa on the French Riveria should pay nothing to support the government that protects his right to private ownership.

Libs say simply that the people who benefit most from the government protecting their right to private ownership should pay the most, after all, they have the most to lose without the government protecting that right.

Dam that was completely idiotic from start to finish..

First of all the people who don't own the tractor don't pay for the tractor owned by someone else. IN other words YOU do not pay for me or anyone else you pay for you. Got it? Or as most of you fail to realize the largest portion of you don't pay for you anyway the fella with the tractor does... You get a tax refund of what you did pay plus a bonus of what you could have made but didn't. Who pays for that shit? The tractor owner does..

Second, no one said the tractor owner shouldn't pay, they said he shouldn't pay a higher rate cause he owns the tractor. he is going to pay more thats a fact, but not a higher rate than you do.

Third. who can say who gets more from private ownership? You pay for the right to be protected. And that right is of equal value to all on its own. Say you win the lottery and can buy a tractor of your own, than your right was protected just like the tractor guy before you. Its the right you pay to be protected. That tractor can be stolen, broken or whatever and the government won't replace it.

Hey dumb ass, I didn't say the people who don't own the tractor pay for the tractor owned by someone else, I said the people who don't own the tractor pay to support the government that protects the right to privately own the tractor. The fact that you felt obligated to create a Straw Man proves even you know I'm right, but you are too dishonest to admit it.

And the people who benefit most from the government protecting their right to private ownership are the people who have accumulated the most private wealth!!! Nothing could be more obvious, but YOU can't see it at all!!!!

Okay shithead, you just had to go and be an ass didn't you... FIne..

1. You said "CON$ say the person with no tractor should pay more to support the government that protects your neighbors right to privately own that tractor."

I assumed the fact I mentioned "you pay for the right to be protected" that you would get the point i was making but you're obviously going to try and be a semantic little shithead to cover up your BS is retarded. You can try and bod face what you want in my posts and try to make all the semantic excuses for your ignorance you want but it won't change anything.

The fact is YOU do not pay anything at all. YOU most likely got a refund and thats IF you even paid in anything at all. SO again no one said "CON$ say the person with no tractor should pay more to support the government that protects your neighbors right to privately own that tractor." YOU said that fool.

YOU made that claim retard. And NO ONE here said or implied any such thing, and further I even told you that no one expects you to pay for their tractor, and if it makes you feel better or you are too slow to get it, that means right to own the tractor you imbecile...

Now want to try a reading comprehension class? IDIOT!

Bottom line here is you obviously feel the world owes you something. YOU feel that rich people got that way on your back, well thats a BS cop-out. Want to be rich? Then go make yourself rich but don't punish people for being successful cause then everybody suffers. Dude you are completely pathetic....

 

[Oldstyle]

"This is one of the most bizzare posts I have ever seen. People won't save. You know they won't. It's human nature. Therefore, it is better to have a government program that takes care of the old and the sick. The richest country in the world should be able to take care of its old and sick. But modern day conservatism is the political codification of selfishness."

This post of yours had me shaking my head, Chris. People don't save now because they've come to expect that someone else will take care of them if they don't. THAT is human nature. Instead of having a government program that rewards bad behavior why don't we let nature take it's course? I think you'd rapidly find that people's "nature" would quickly change. As for conservatism being selfish? What's selfish...someone taking care of themselves and expecting others to do the same...or someone not taking care of themselves and expecting others to do it for them?

 

[edthecynic]

Dam that was completely idiotic from start to finish..

First of all the people who don't own the tractor don't pay for the tractor owned by someone else. IN other words YOU do not pay for me or anyone else you pay for you. Got it? Or as most of you fail to realize the largest portion of you don't pay for you anyway the fella with the tractor does... You get a tax refund of what you did pay plus a bonus of what you could have made but didn't. Who pays for that shit? The tractor owner does..

Second, no one said the tractor owner shouldn't pay, they said he shouldn't pay a higher rate cause he owns the tractor. he is going to pay more thats a fact, but not a higher rate than you do.

Third. who can say who gets more from private ownership? You pay for the right to be protected. And that right is of equal value to all on its own. Say you win the lottery and can buy a tractor of your own, than your right was protected just like the tractor guy before you. Its the right you pay to be protected. That tractor can be stolen, broken or whatever and the government won't replace it.

Hey dumb ass, I didn't say the people who don't own the tractor pay for the tractor owned by someone else, I said the people who don't own the tractor pay to support the government that protects the right to privately own the tractor. The fact that you felt obligated to create a Straw Man proves even you know I'm right, but you are too dishonest to admit it.

And the people who benefit most from the government protecting their right to private ownership are the people who have accumulated the most private wealth!!! Nothing could be more obvious, but YOU can't see it at all!!!!

Okay shithead, you just had to go and be an ass didn't you... FIne..

1. You said "CON$ say the person with no tractor should pay more to support the government that protects your neighbors right to privately own that tractor."

I assumed the fact I mentioned "you pay for the right to be protected" that you would get the point i was making but you're obviously going to try and be a semantic little shithead to cover up your BS is retarded. You can try and bod face what you want in my posts and try to make all the semantic excuses for your ignorance you want but it won't change anything.

The fact is YOU do not pay anything at all. YOU most likely got a refund and thats IF you even paid in anything at all. SO again no one said "CON$ say the person with no tractor should pay more to support the government that protects your neighbors right to privately own that tractor." YOU said that fool.

YOU made that claim retard. And NO ONE here said or implied any such thing, and further I even told you that no one expects you to pay for their tractor, and if it makes you feel better or you are too slow to get it, that means right to own the tractor you imbecile...

Now want to try a reading comprehension class? IDIOT!

Bottom line here is you obviously feel the world owes you something. YOU feel that rich people got that way on your back, well thats a BS cop-out. Want to be rich? Then go make yourself rich but don't punish people for being successful cause then everybody suffers. Dude you are completely pathetic....

It's you CON$ who are paying no income tax and the Libs who are more financially successful than you lazy CON$ervative slackers. get a fucking job and then you can afford a tractor like the Lib you envy!

 

[gslack]

Hey dumb ass, I didn't say the people who don't own the tractor pay for the tractor owned by someone else, I said the people who don't own the tractor pay to support the government that protects the right to privately own the tractor. The fact that you felt obligated to create a Straw Man proves even you know I'm right, but you are too dishonest to admit it.

And the people who benefit most from the government protecting their right to private ownership are the people who have accumulated the most private wealth!!! Nothing could be more obvious, but YOU can't see it at all!!!!

Okay shithead, you just had to go and be an ass didn't you... FIne..

1. You said "CON$ say the person with no tractor should pay more to support the government that protects your neighbors right to privately own that tractor."

I assumed the fact I mentioned "you pay for the right to be protected" that you would get the point i was making but you're obviously going to try and be a semantic little shithead to cover up your BS is retarded. You can try and bod face what you want in my posts and try to make all the semantic excuses for your ignorance you want but it won't change anything.

The fact is YOU do not pay anything at all. YOU most likely got a refund and thats IF you even paid in anything at all. SO again no one said "CON$ say the person with no tractor should pay more to support the government that protects your neighbors right to privately own that tractor." YOU said that fool.

YOU made that claim retard. And NO ONE here said or implied any such thing, and further I even told you that no one expects you to pay for their tractor, and if it makes you feel better or you are too slow to get it, that means right to own the tractor you imbecile...

Now want to try a reading comprehension class? IDIOT!

Bottom line here is you obviously feel the world owes you something. YOU feel that rich people got that way on your back, well thats a BS cop-out. Want to be rich? Then go make yourself rich but don't punish people for being successful cause then everybody suffers. Dude you are completely pathetic....

It's you CON$ who are paying no income tax and the Libs who are more financially successful than you lazy CON$ervative slackers. get a fucking job and then you can afford a tractor like the Lib you envy!

That's it when caught being a moron turn into a bigger moron...

 

[kaz]

They paid 90% on every dollar over the first $100,000 half-a-century ago.
They pay 15% on every dollar today

No one should ever pay more then 10% of a dollar they earned to a government that didn't, so we're almost there.

 

[thereisnospoon]

And the free market is incapable of using it in ways that dont rape cancer patients of their life savings or force the price of american labor down by demanding cheap foreign made goods.

We can get into semantics all day long. Why dont you answer the question in the first place.

Theres no reason that the top 1% should benefit three times more than the rest of the population. If they do, so be it. But then we shouldnt be arguing about giving them more tax cuts. The fact is the government is necessary to some extent. Someone has to pay for the police, and there is no reason an insurance company should be making money on someones medicine. So if the rich are already doing better than the rest of us, you'd be crazy to vote to give them more tax cuts now.

Ok, one who does not see the entire picture.
Look, businesses operate to turn a profit.
There is no doubt that the more a business produces, the more it needs labor to assist in that production.
Your argument is steeped in the progressive notion that "it just isn't fair that so few people have so much"...That notion is based on the false premise of a zero sum game. That is the perception that if one has more therefore another must have less. Or that because one is wealthy they must have "taken" from someone else. Georgephillip bleats out this in every thread in which he participates. He is blatant about it. He simply states that the wealthy have "stolen" from the rest of us. Nonsense.

BBLLEEEAATTT!

The progressive notion "it just isn't fair that so few have so much" comes from the feudal dependence upon military conquest to acquire wealth. (land, labor and capital) Today, finance capitalism serves the rich the same way military conquest established the Ulster plantation in 1609 or the Jewish state of Israel in 1948.

If conservatives weren't afraid to confront "legitimate" authority, Wall Street would be just as dead as Charles I or Avraham Stern.

Non sequitur.
It's none your business how much someone else has or earns.
Once you understand that concept, you'll be able to move on and do the right thing.
That is worry about yourself and take care of your needs.

 

[thereisnospoon]

That trillion dollars would not be going to the government.
It would be going to the other 99% of US taxpayers.

Now... crawl back into Hillary's nose.
And die.

Okay, stop the presses...this is the liberal person's flawed thinking in plain sight for all to see.

You seem to think if top earners made a trillion less, it somehow would go to other US taxpayers. You forget a small step, though - if the top earners made less, where would this trillion dollars come from? In truth, if top earners made a trillion less, our entire economy would be a trillion dollars smaller.

Of course, the rich would still get their percentage of this smaller pie - and so would you...but in point of fact, your slice would shrink too. it's not like there's money just floating around in search of a home. This is the sort of thinking that gets those on the left in trouble.

Truth is, you want more prosperity, you should be doing everything you possibly can to help those nasty rich people make every dime that they can, instead of opposing them at every turn.

This is why the lib/progressives want to use the threat of government sanctions to take it away AFTER it is earned.
What the Left doesn't want is the wealthy to earn less. If they do, they are talking pure shit.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Back to the patented CON$ervative dumb act.

Income is income, and to give special treatment to the main income of one class over another is "class warfare."
Get it????

It's not income until you realize it.

If you want to tax unrealized capital gains then you also have to allow a write off for unrealized losses.

And that is the loophole that allows wealth to grow tax free.

And just as realized losses are deductible, so would unrealized losses. No special treatment in any way.

What drives you to believe government is better qualified to manage the nation's finances?

 

[LibocalypseNow]

Deserves got nothing to do with it. That's why Socialists/Progressives don't have a clue on Economic issues. They should never be allowed to run the U.S. Economy. They just don't have the brains for it. Here's a bunch of sheep who whine about the 'Evil Rich' while at the same time condoning their Hopey Changey One having GE CEO Jeffrey Immelt as his "Jobs Czar." GE Pays no Taxes at all and Outsources Thousands of American Jobs. These people just can't be allowed to run the U.S. Economy. They're far too ignorant and inept. It's time for a correction. Hopefully this correction will happen in 2012. I hope so anyway.

 

[Conservative]

It's not income until you realize it.

If you want to tax unrealized capital gains then you also have to allow a write off for unrealized losses.

And that is the loophole that allows wealth to grow tax free.

And just as realized losses are deductible, so would unrealized losses. No special treatment in any way.

What drives you to believe government is better qualified to manage the nation's finances?

well, they've managed to balance the budg.... I mean, they've spent less than previ....um, I... uh..... aw crap. Never mind.

 

[thereisnospoon]

That trillion dollars would not be going to the government.
It would be going to the other 99% of US taxpayers.

Now... crawl back into Hillary's nose.
And die.

Okay, stop the presses...this is the liberal person's flawed thinking in plain sight for all to see.

You seem to think if top earners made a trillion less, it somehow would go to other US taxpayers. You forget a small step, though - if the top earners made less, where would this trillion dollars come from? In truth, if top earners made a trillion less, our entire economy would be a trillion dollars smaller.

Of course, the rich would still get their percentage of this smaller pie - and so would you...but in point of fact, your slice would shrink too. it's not like there's money just floating around in search of a home. This is the sort of thinking that gets those on the left in trouble.

Truth is, you want more prosperity, you should be doing everything you possibly can to help those nasty rich people make every dime that they can, instead of opposing them at every turn.

That's not necessarily true.

What he is saying is if that 1 trillion in profit was not pocketed by the rich and paid out in wages, the economy would grow more by the spending of the 1 trillion by the wage earners than by the banking of the 1 trillion by the rich. Money spent by the wage earners stimulated demand and growth, but money banked by the wealthy stimulates almost nothing. They are not going to invest in increased production if the public does not have the money to buy the extra production.

Not true. Fact...Wealth is created. So in order for the economy to grow, i.e. wages to be earned, the originator( wealthy) must invest or expand business. Without business, there are no jobs.
The notion that all profits are pocketed or simply banked away is patently false.

 

[edthecynic]

Okay shithead, you just had to go and be an ass didn't you... FIne..

1. You said "CON$ say the person with no tractor should pay more to support the government that protects your neighbors right to privately own that tractor."

I assumed the fact I mentioned "you pay for the right to be protected" that you would get the point i was making but you're obviously going to try and be a semantic little shithead to cover up your BS is retarded. You can try and bod face what you want in my posts and try to make all the semantic excuses for your ignorance you want but it won't change anything.

The fact is YOU do not pay anything at all. YOU most likely got a refund and thats IF you even paid in anything at all. SO again no one said "CON$ say the person with no tractor should pay more to support the government that protects your neighbors right to privately own that tractor." YOU said that fool.

YOU made that claim retard. And NO ONE here said or implied any such thing, and further I even told you that no one expects you to pay for their tractor, and if it makes you feel better or you are too slow to get it, that means right to own the tractor you imbecile...

Now want to try a reading comprehension class? IDIOT!

Bottom line here is you obviously feel the world owes you something. YOU feel that rich people got that way on your back, well thats a BS cop-out. Want to be rich? Then go make yourself rich but don't punish people for being successful cause then everybody suffers. Dude you are completely pathetic....

It's you CON$ who are paying no income tax and the Libs who are more financially successful than you lazy CON$ervative slackers. get a fucking job and then you can afford a tractor like the Lib you envy!

That's it when caught being a moron turn into a bigger moron...

That is obviously your tactic, but the fact remains that Libs are more financially successful than CON$, and rather than work as hard as Libs to achieve the same success, CON$ just pretend to be more successful which for them is a lot less work.