|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 176 responses total. |
cyklone
|
|
response 119 of 176:
| 
Mar 16 20:52 UTC 2006 |
Re #114: Do you have any idea who makes up those boards? It's in their own
best interests to approve excessive compensation packages to assist them when
the time comes for the them to negotiate. I posted about this previously. Did
you miss it?
|
keesan
|
|
response 120 of 176:
|
Mar 16 21:14 UTC 2006 |
A graduated income tax going up to 90% would help a lot to redistribute wealth
from millionaires to those of us who are making them rich.
|
twenex
|
|
response 121 of 176:
|
Mar 16 21:16 UTC 2006 |
Why should anyone pay 9/10ths of what they earn to anyone?
|
nharmon
|
|
response 122 of 176:
|
Mar 16 21:30 UTC 2006 |
I am all for a progressive income tax where higher wage earners pay a
higher percentage in taxes. But 90% is ridiculous.
|
twenex
|
|
response 123 of 176:
|
Mar 16 21:31 UTC 2006 |
A progressive income tax would result in job losses.
|
tod
|
|
response 124 of 176:
|
Mar 16 21:43 UTC 2006 |
re #122
Why should higher wage earners pay higher taxes? Are you an advocate of
socialism?
|
slynne
|
|
response 125 of 176:
|
Mar 16 21:45 UTC 2006 |
I also think that higher wage earners should pay higher taxes and yes,
I lean towards the socialist side of things. But I have to admit that
even though I am pretty much a pinko leftie, even I think 90% is too
high of an income tax.
|
nharmon
|
|
response 126 of 176:
|
Mar 16 22:54 UTC 2006 |
> Why should higher wage earners pay higher taxes?
My opinion is not socialist, and if you can ignore the trolling in
#123, I will tell you why: A progressive tax system is most beneficial
to the economy because lower wage earners put more of their income back
into the economy than the rich. So you see, its not so much that I
think rich people should pay more taxes, but that poorer people should
pay less taxes.
I am NOT saying that Sindi's opinion is in itself bad...because she is
entitled to it. But I do think people form a hatred for "rich people"
and as a result they say things they have not thought very much about.
If you can show me WHY a 90% income tax for top wage earners would be
feasible and helpfull, then please do.
|
nharmon
|
|
response 127 of 176:
|
Mar 16 22:55 UTC 2006 |
Another thing. I do not feel that government's role is to redistribute
wealth. I believe it violates the lockean foundation that our
government was based on.
|
twenex
|
|
response 128 of 176:
|
Mar 16 22:57 UTC 2006 |
Re: #126. Typical. When a liberal spouts bullshit, it's "trolling". When a
Republican spouts bullshit, he's "not communist" or "patriotic".
|
nharmon
|
|
response 129 of 176:
|
Mar 16 23:02 UTC 2006 |
You want cheese with that whine?
|
twenex
|
|
response 130 of 176:
|
Mar 16 23:06 UTC 2006 |
And when a liberal plays by Republicans' rules, he's "whining".
|
nharmon
|
|
response 131 of 176:
|
Mar 16 23:48 UTC 2006 |
And when a liberal is told to shut up, he's being "discriminated against".
|
twenex
|
|
response 132 of 176:
|
Mar 17 00:00 UTC 2006 |
I wasn't claiming discrimination; just drawing attention to hypocrisy.
|
nharmon
|
|
response 133 of 176:
|
Mar 17 00:09 UTC 2006 |
Whose attention?
|
naftee
|
|
response 134 of 176:
|
Mar 17 00:43 UTC 2006 |
it's funny how the americans have to play catchup to the canadian minimum wage
(due to currency value increases), when it used to be the other way around.
|
richard
|
|
response 135 of 176:
|
Mar 17 01:14 UTC 2006 |
re #127 nharmon said:
"Another thing. I do not feel that government's role is to
redistribute wealth. I believe it violates the lockean foundation that
our government was based on."
If the government does not play a role in this, who will? You think
the rich will re-distribute wealth on their own? Do you support a
PERMANENT division of the classes, where nobody can get rich but the
already rich, because there is nothing there to spur on any meaningful
redistribution of wealth?
I think someone who has $100 million has no need to ever have a dollar
more. If he has $200 million, what difference would it make to him or
his life? At some point, excess unneeded wealth must be redistributed.
Ask Bill Gates, who has given away many billions because he knows he
no longer needs to make any money. He *wants* his wealth re-
distributed.
|
nharmon
|
|
response 136 of 176:
|
Mar 17 01:23 UTC 2006 |
When I was a kid I had two bicycles because I took good care of them the
first lasted a long time. They stayed in the garage. One day this kid
broke into the garage (not really broke in, we lived in a neighborhood
where garages weren't locked all the time) and stole one of them.
The kid who took it justified that I didn't need TWO bikes, and he
didn't have ONE. Thus he fully believed that he was entitled to my
second bicycle. I've always thought that his attitude was due to his
immaturity, but perhaps I was mistaken. Maybe he was raised to believe that.
|
keesan
|
|
response 137 of 176:
|
Mar 17 01:57 UTC 2006 |
If someone making 21 million a year got taxed 90% on anything over 20 million,
how would it hurt them any or eliminate jobs? Obviously they are not working
1000 times as hard as someone making 20 thousand, rather thousands of other
people are working hard to make this one person rich, and ought to get
something back for it in the form of increased government services (or even
lower taxes on less-rich people). The super-rich could be taxed to pay for
national health care, which would help out a lot of businesses that are
currently having to outsource to avoid paying for health care for their
employees.
|
klg
|
|
response 138 of 176:
|
Mar 17 02:14 UTC 2006 |
I would like to hear someone try to explain what this means:
"lower wage earners put more of their income back into the economy
than the rich"
Of course, sindi's opinion is bad. Why should the lazy sponge off the
industrious? That is, to say the least, immoral. I don't get up at 5
a.m. five days a week because I enjoy it. If someone else wants to
sleep until 10, that's fine with me - just don't ask me to support him
in his chosen life-style.
(Someone please tell our resident economist that historically tax
receipts go up when tax rates go down. It happens every time.)
Once again, RW fails to see the light - even when he shines it:
(1) Who else but the government will redistribute the wealth?
(2) Bill Gates voluntarily gives his money away.
Think, RW. Think.
And, NH, did that boy who took your bicycle keep it in good condition,
as you did? Or did it rust from neglect because he had not earned it?
|
keesan
|
|
response 139 of 176:
|
Mar 17 02:18 UTC 2006 |
In recent history tax rates went way down and the deficit went way up, and
I don't see how someone making $20,000 a year is a lazy sponger working any
less hard than someone being paid 1000 times as much.
|
slynne
|
|
response 140 of 176:
|
Mar 17 02:28 UTC 2006 |
A lot of people have the notion that the amount of money one earns is in
direct perportion to the effort they expend. Unfortunately, that isnt
often the case. I know a lot of people who earn a lot less money than I
do who work much harder. I know people who earn a lot more money than I
do with almost no effort whatsoever. Granted, I could more money than I
do now if I worked harder but no matter how hard I worked, I doubt I
could ever earn millions of dollars a year.
|
klg
|
|
response 141 of 176:
|
Mar 17 02:38 UTC 2006 |
Someone tell John Maynard Keynes here that an increase in the deficit
does not necessarily result from a drop in tax receipts. It can also
occur because of federal spending increases.
And ask why she's so jealous of someone who is successful? How many
home runs did she hit last year?
And the peasant in Darfur are jealous of the guy who earns $1,000 a
year. So what good does being jealous do? In school did you cheat by
taking answers from people smarter than you? Each person should just do
his best to earn what he wants and be satisfied with whatever he
achieves instead of measuring his worth by what others earn. And if you
think that money can really buy you happiness, that is a real shame.
|
cyklone
|
|
response 142 of 176:
|
Mar 17 03:17 UTC 2006 |
Wow, even by your low standards, your last two posts are larded with BS.
Why don't you tell us all the difference between JFK's tax cuts and our
current chimp's tax cuts? You seem to have accidently on purpose left out
a real important fact in order to bolster your weak argument for tax cuts.
|
keesan
|
|
response 143 of 176:
|
Mar 17 03:23 UTC 2006 |
I would rather live in a world where people worked at jobs they enjoyed and
were good at, doing things that benefited other people, having been properly
trained (free education), rather than doing what made the most money (legal
or not).
|