Elite War on Deplorables.

Discussion in 'Political Opinions & Beliefs' started by CCitizen, Aug 13, 2018.

  1. CCitizen

    CCitizen Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2014
    Messages:
    7,875
    Likes Received:
    1,875
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Many decamillionaires, hectomillionaires, billionaires, and decabillionaires are Liberal. I do not see any reason for Conservatives to support rich people. As I have said before, the State has a right to tax citizens. Scandinavia provides help for it's citizens by imposing high taxes on the very rich. Another way to tax the rich would be by taxing luxury items at the same rate as alcohol or tobacco.

    In USA, 27.2 million people have no medical insurance. These people's lives are at risk. About 44 million people in USA have mental disability and 10 million have severe mental disability. About 43 million people in USA live in poverty.
     
  2. Spooky

    Spooky Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2013
    Messages:
    31,814
    Likes Received:
    13,377
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Scandinavia taxes everyone very high, not just the rich.

    And unlike American where half our nation doesn't even pay taxes, they all do over there.

    Is that what you want?

    Well is it hmmmmmm?
     
  3. The Don

    The Don Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2018
    Messages:
    1,687
    Likes Received:
    803
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Pretty much every adult in the United States pays taxes. The "half the nation doesn't pay taxes" meme relates to federal income tax and is in any case, somewhat out of date.

    Included in that number are a very large number of senior citizens. You might like to portray them as spongers, I'd prefer to think of them as people who have worked hard their entire life and who are now enjoying the (meagre - given that they have modest retirement incomes) fruits of their labour.

    There are even a few exceptional cases where, due to the US' tax deductions on investments and so on, people earn over $1m and still pay no federal income tax - a few thousand families are like this.

    What the soundbite doesn't say is that even if someone isn't a net federal income tax payer, they likely pay some combination of payroll, property or sales taxes so while "half the country don't pay taxes" is an attractive slogan, like so many slogans it's as inaccurate as claiming that half of President Trump's supporters are deplorables...
     
    TomFitz and AZ. like this.
  4. Spooky

    Spooky Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2013
    Messages:
    31,814
    Likes Received:
    13,377
    Trophy Points:
    113
    What does that have to do with my point?

    You can justify our half not paying taxes but it doesn't matter because in Scandinavia they all pay taxes.

    So what you are saying is that we have a better system since we allow people not to pay taxes.

    That 80 year old widow in America gets to keep her whole check, in Scandinavia she doesn't.

    Is that what you want?

    Or are you saying you want to tax her like they do over there?

    What are you saying?
     
    Last edited: Aug 14, 2018
  5. The Don

    The Don Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2018
    Messages:
    1,687
    Likes Received:
    803
    Trophy Points:
    113
    All I'm saying that your claim that "half our nation doesn't even pay taxes" is factually inaccurate. If you want to make some kind of argument about different systems of taxation then it's probably best to portray both of them accurately.
     
    Meta777, ECA and AZ. like this.
  6. doombug

    doombug Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 19, 2012
    Messages:
    56,871
    Likes Received:
    22,778
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Here we go with another childish argument: Rich people are bad....wwwaaaahhhhhh!

    Adults know that taxing people is not the answer. Raising taxes kills incentive and causes the economy to shrink so less taxes are collected. Then taxes are raised even higher which kills incentive even more....and so forth and so on.

    How about coming up with a real policy and dropping these childish emotional arguments?
     
  7. Spooky

    Spooky Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2013
    Messages:
    31,814
    Likes Received:
    13,377
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Half don't pay federal taxes, which is the big one.

    That is just a fact.

    The top 1% pay half this nations taxes.
     
  8. The Don

    The Don Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2018
    Messages:
    1,687
    Likes Received:
    803
    Trophy Points:
    113
    ECA likes this.
  9. fmw

    fmw Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2009
    Messages:
    37,751
    Likes Received:
    14,562
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No, the state has the power to tax citizens.
     
    fencer likes this.
  10. Sanskrit

    Sanskrit Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2014
    Messages:
    17,082
    Likes Received:
    6,711
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No, it's reasonably accurate. Payroll taxes are supposed to be retirement trust accounts, not taxes per se, and local sales and property taxes apply locally with immediate benefit apparent for all in the locale. People regularly use "taxes" as shorthand for central "federal and state income taxes," and within that shorthand, it's reasonably accurate to claim X people don't pay them. The more accurate way to say it of course is that "X% of people don't pay federal and state income taxes."

    The reason this distinction is important is that for middle and upper earners, federal/state income taxes are far and away the biggest tax bite and return the least benefit, while tens of millions ride free entirely for the exact same benefit, as a part of Complex vote buying schemes. It is a necessary narrative to counter and offer context to all the gov-edu-union-contractor-grantee-trial lawyer-MSM Complex lie narratives on wealth, income inequality and the "failures of capitalism." Ironically, via public union dues that are originally tax revenue, taxpayers are forced to pay for advocacy against them.

    To the actual topic, sure, make the U.S. population numerically tiny, racially and culturally homogenous, resource rich per capita, remove multitier government, have other countries pay for defense, and socialism could work... for a while anyway until it inevitably fails. The OECD teeny socialist darlings are, and always have been, apples and oranges when compared to the U.S., wishful thinking to the contrary is just that.
     
  11. drluggit

    drluggit Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2016
    Messages:
    30,963
    Likes Received:
    28,434
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Of course, I suppose that it didn't occur to you that taking all of that money still won't pay for the support of all of the woes you have identified.... And then what? You've hated the rich, and underperformed in attempting to assuage what? your ego? Typical of the "at least you feel better about yourself" crowd...
     
  12. spiritgide

    spiritgide Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2016
    Messages:
    20,132
    Likes Received:
    16,079
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male

    While there are some very wealthy liberals, there are a lot more conservative ones. Much of what you are depends on how you have been raised and how you have come to succeed. If you grew up learning to accept responsibility for yourself, and the harder you had to work to succeed, the more likely you are to be conservative. On the other hand, if much of what you have came easily, for example you were one of the people who came up with a rather basic idea before anybody else and that blossomed into wealth somewhat automatically- you tend to be liberal. People who haven't had to make things happen the hard way think the easy way is how things work. They have less understanding and appreciation of the value of the skills and drive that the majority of wealthy people have brought to the table- and they are more ready to give the money away foolishly; easy come, easy go; easy to get more. It's much like spending daddy's money; you didn't actually earn it and you don't understand the value of earning it.

    Some of the very wealthy have made their money by manipulative means. George Soros for example amassed his fortune as one of the world's greatest speculators in the global financial markets. His famous bet against the British pound in 1992 generated more than $1 billion in profits in 24 hours and earned him the title of "the man who broke the Bank of England." Soros doesn't produce goods or services- he manipulates money markets. He became rich through the losses of other people without the contribution of value to society.

    I personally have no admiration for people who manipulate their way into wealth, in part because it tells me they have no real understanding of how that harms others. This is vastly different that people who invent or produce things and become wealthy because others chose to buy their products- and those people I do admire. Soros mentor was a economics professor who was very much a liberal, way back in the late 40's. Soros learned how to think as a liberal- and how to manipulate finances from the same man. Unfortunately, his character education seems to have been lacking.

    Point is we have both kinds of people in the world of wealth, and some are deserving, some are not. They already to pay the lions share of taxes- every bit their share. On the other hand, of those living in poverty- many are there for reasons difficult to control, and from bad choices made as the best they knew how to do. However a very large part of those people are there because they simply aren't willing to do better- they abhor work and responsibility. Many would not believe that a person who could easily be making $50 an hour would choose to live with his parents at age 50- and I know a couple of such people myself. The worst thing you can do for such people is to subsidize them and make it possible for them to continue to burden others, usually others far less capable than themselves. It's not the number of people whose income in in the poverty level that matters, it is the question of why there are there that should determine whether we should help them or not.
     
    Bridget likes this.
  13. RodB

    RodB Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2015
    Messages:
    22,358
    Likes Received:
    11,141
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    We did that before when a very high tax was placed on, for example, yacht purchases. The result: rich people quit buying; yacht builder owners went on the bigger and better things; thousands of middle class blue collar workers lost their job.
     
    Texas Republican likes this.
  14. CCitizen

    CCitizen Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2014
    Messages:
    7,875
    Likes Received:
    1,875
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Definitely, the taxes of poor and middle class should not be raised. Millionaires and billionaires should pay more taxes.
     
  15. CCitizen

    CCitizen Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2014
    Messages:
    7,875
    Likes Received:
    1,875
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Definitely, poor and middle class people should not have to pay more taxes.

    Taxing the very rich would benefit everyone.
     
  16. CCitizen

    CCitizen Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2014
    Messages:
    7,875
    Likes Received:
    1,875
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    They are not necessarily bad. They posses resources which they do not need. Others need these resources desperately.
     
  17. CCitizen

    CCitizen Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2014
    Messages:
    7,875
    Likes Received:
    1,875
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Taxing the very rich and cutting back military spending will provide enough money to help tens of millions of people.
     
  18. CCitizen

    CCitizen Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2014
    Messages:
    7,875
    Likes Received:
    1,875
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Most Social Media Giants are owned by Liberals.
     
  19. CCitizen

    CCitizen Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2014
    Messages:
    7,875
    Likes Received:
    1,875
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Exactly a century ago was a great year -- in Russia all of rich people's excess property was confiscated. Definitely such approach is very much over the top, but Scandinavia has a much more sensible approach to helping all the people in need.
     
  20. Bridget

    Bridget Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2017
    Messages:
    2,227
    Likes Received:
    1,702
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Who are you or any of us to say what resources others need and don't need? If the "resources" belong to someone, we should just take them because they are "needed" by someone else, who didn't earn them? I really hate socialism.
     
  21. CCitizen

    CCitizen Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2014
    Messages:
    7,875
    Likes Received:
    1,875
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I am no one. But the will of the majority is the law. If most Americans vote for Welfare State, then the State will enforce their will.
     
  22. spiritgide

    spiritgide Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2016
    Messages:
    20,132
    Likes Received:
    16,079
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male

    There is a huge caveat to helping anyone "in need".
    IF you help someone who is in need because they refuse to be responsible for themselves, you literally subsidize and encourage more of the same, exacerbating the problem, and inspiring others to join it. This is extremely destructive to a society- it's breeding dependence, destroying self-respect and self-determination.

    No matter what we do, there will always be people who do not want to stand up, who have no problems living off others.

    There are two kinds of help-
    The hand-up is much like the well-known story of farmers helping someone who is down, knowing that as soon as they are back on their feet, they will be willing to help others in the same way- it gets paid forward. The people who get the help benefit and see the character of those who help them. Those who do it see the benefits too- and everybody wins. In some cases, the person who is down never makes it back on his feet, but is never unaware of the generosity and kindness of those who helped.

    The hand-out is drastically different. It is simply subsidizes the lack of ambition, and is seen as a way to make a living- wait for somebody to take care of you. Generally, the more this happens the less likely they are to do for themselves. They rarely appreciate what is done, the act of helping is like telling them you are the one that owes it to them- and everybody loses. Bad deal for both sides, everybody loses.
     
  23. spiritgide

    spiritgide Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2016
    Messages:
    20,132
    Likes Received:
    16,079
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male

    The problem with that is welfare authorizes theft- taking money from some that will be given to others without the consent of the people it came from, nor their input on who or how it will be distributed. Combine that with the number of people whose character will allow them to take something for nothing, and you soon have a great many people voting for free money from the public treasury. When you have enough of that, if the attitude becomes majority, you destroy the economics of a nation and the nation collapses.

    From Alexander Tyler, history professor at the University of Edinborough in 1787, speaking about democracy over 2000 years:


    "A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse over loose fiscal policy, (which is) always followed by a dictatorship."


    "The average age of the world's greatest civilizations from the beginning of history, has been about 200 years. During those 200 years, these nations always progressed through the following sequence:


    From bondage to spiritual faith;
    From spiritual faith to great courage;
    From courage to liberty;
    From liberty to abundance;
    From abundance to complacency;
    From complacency to apathy;
    From apathy to dependence;
    From dependence back into bondage."


    The American republic and democratic nation is now 240 years old- and firmly moving toward individual dependency. .
     
  24. 61falcon

    61falcon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2018
    Messages:
    21,436
    Likes Received:
    12,227
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Norway has a ONE TRILLION DOLLAR sovereign fund invested for it's citizens!!The good old USA has approaching 23 TRILLION IN DEBT for it's citizens to share in????
     
  25. Spooky

    Spooky Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2013
    Messages:
    31,814
    Likes Received:
    13,377
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Wouldn't do very much, there simply isn't enough of them.

    What are you going to do, put a 99% tax rate on them?

    Even that wouldn't really help other than make you feel good.

    You guys think taxing the rich will pay for anything but none of you have actually taken the time to add up the numbers.

    That's funny.

    Your little talking point meme is extremely flawed but you don't care, it sounds good.
     

Share This Page