[FONT="]"So we're at 3.3 percent GDP. I see no reason why we don't go to 4 percent, 5 percent, and even 6 percent."[/FONT][FONT="][/FONT][FONT="]-Donald Trump, President[/FONT]
Do You Think The Rich Should Be Taxed More?
- Thread starter PoliTalker
- Start date
[FONT="]"So we're at 3.3 percent GDP. I see no reason why we don't go to 4 percent, 5 percent, and even 6 percent."[/FONT][FONT="][/FONT][FONT="]-Donald Trump, President[/FONT]
Fuck no. Sanders was never close. I worked on his campaign and we were throwing monkey wrenches at hillary to move her left. Then when we won Michigan, we got twisted. Bernie decided he had a chance, but he really did not. No rigging. Bernie is not even Democrat, but he was allowed to debate many times on the Dems money. Bernie owes his national reputatiion to the Dems allowing him into the debates and to use the party.
Last edited:
I would favor a constitutional amendment that would limit you to making campaign contributions to candidates and issues that you can vote for. IOW, you could contribute to your representatives, but not to a congressman whose district you didn't live in.
Minister of Truth
Practically Perfect
It wouldn't shock me.
He was the one not just defining communism but also socialism. No doubt, the simplistic terming by Marx was delusional.
You cannot simply come out defining my notions as wrong and not supply anything to support your claim. Simply I don't need evidence to support what socialism is when there is a foundational definition etched in history by Karl Marx. I would provide evidence if there was no definition or if the definition was vague in nature but simply that is not the case.
I am unsure what you are getting at.
Simply because that that was what came up in previous conversations, hence I responded to the subject matter. Additionally it is the basis of any variation in socialism today and thus has validation.
I don't deny the notions, of course no bill, law or government would pass such principles, that is not what the discussion was regarding.
Once again if you read the previous discussions that I was having it would make much more sense, rather than just making comments based upon one of my posts. It was a substantial comparison in the context of my response. Additionally never said or implied it was. Of course it is not, it goes against the basic principles.
You wrote..."evidence is not needed" for your assertion.
Why are you telling me I need evidence for mine?
Your claim about the "definition" is wrong.
MAGA Is really MAER, Make America's Elite Richer, note how little is said about wages under Donald and the elite. Trickle down is coming children, just wait, still waiting. If you wanna make America great, buy American owned, made in the USA. Support wages that allow Americans to live and read 'The View From Flyover Country' by Sarah Kendzior much of it is online. Learn.
An old post - see bottom too.
Anyone at all would be better for working class Americans and American values. Consider that working class families with children helped by CHIP are passed over for taxes for the rich. This tax BS will cause short term improvement as it did in the thirties, then under Reagan and finally Bush Jr, but soon the economy will once again slump, that is history for anyone awake. The rich take they do not create. For us it doesn't matter but I do want to make sure when the next crash comes our investments are safe. Republicans play you conservatives and you perform the ball balance like a trained seal. Fooled again you'd think you'd learn? Donnie will laugh all the way to the bank and you fools will still miss the point. LOL
"There is no historical evidence that tax cuts spur economic growth. The highest period of growth in U.S. history (1933-1973) also saw its highest tax rates on the rich: 70 to 91 percent. During this period, the general tax rate climbed as well, but it reached a plateau in 1969, and growth slowed down five years later. Almost all rich nations have higher general taxes than the U.S., and they are growing faster as well."
Tax cuts spur economic growth
"For his part, Mr. Trump has repeatedly asserted with a straight face that the tax bill would hurt him. In fact, it will give him and his family a windfall. That’s because the Senate bill will provide a generous tax break for income that people earn through limited liability corporations, partnerships and other so-called pass-through businesses that do not pay taxes before passing on profits to owners. Under the Senate bill, the president will be able to claim a 23 percent deduction on profits he earns through his more than 500 pass-through businesses."
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/02/opinion/editorials/a-historic-tax-heist.html
https://slate.com/business/2017/11/steve-mnuchin-has-been-lying-about-the-tax-plan.html
House tax bill made kinda simple - https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...on-its-tax-bill-thursday-heres-what-is-in-it/
"I have to wonder how many know wealthy people who use their wealth to create jobs? In truth it is the struggling that create jobs as they want a bit of the wealth. The truly rich could give a crap, well maybe they care a bit about their portfolio. But wealth for corporations is another issue, they do sometimes create jobs here and abroad but they are privileged as Baker writes."
https://deanbaker.net/books/the-conservative-nanny-state.htm
An old post - see bottom too.
Anyone at all would be better for working class Americans and American values. Consider that working class families with children helped by CHIP are passed over for taxes for the rich. This tax BS will cause short term improvement as it did in the thirties, then under Reagan and finally Bush Jr, but soon the economy will once again slump, that is history for anyone awake. The rich take they do not create. For us it doesn't matter but I do want to make sure when the next crash comes our investments are safe. Republicans play you conservatives and you perform the ball balance like a trained seal. Fooled again you'd think you'd learn? Donnie will laugh all the way to the bank and you fools will still miss the point. LOL
"There is no historical evidence that tax cuts spur economic growth. The highest period of growth in U.S. history (1933-1973) also saw its highest tax rates on the rich: 70 to 91 percent. During this period, the general tax rate climbed as well, but it reached a plateau in 1969, and growth slowed down five years later. Almost all rich nations have higher general taxes than the U.S., and they are growing faster as well."
Tax cuts spur economic growth
"For his part, Mr. Trump has repeatedly asserted with a straight face that the tax bill would hurt him. In fact, it will give him and his family a windfall. That’s because the Senate bill will provide a generous tax break for income that people earn through limited liability corporations, partnerships and other so-called pass-through businesses that do not pay taxes before passing on profits to owners. Under the Senate bill, the president will be able to claim a 23 percent deduction on profits he earns through his more than 500 pass-through businesses."
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/02/opinion/editorials/a-historic-tax-heist.html
https://slate.com/business/2017/11/steve-mnuchin-has-been-lying-about-the-tax-plan.html
House tax bill made kinda simple - https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...on-its-tax-bill-thursday-heres-what-is-in-it/
"I have to wonder how many know wealthy people who use their wealth to create jobs? In truth it is the struggling that create jobs as they want a bit of the wealth. The truly rich could give a crap, well maybe they care a bit about their portfolio. But wealth for corporations is another issue, they do sometimes create jobs here and abroad but they are privileged as Baker writes."
https://deanbaker.net/books/the-conservative-nanny-state.htm
PoliTalker
Diversity Makes Greatness
Hello goldkam,
Why does Marx get to define socialism? Why can it not be an evolving thing just like capitalism?
Why does Marx get to define socialism? Why can it not be an evolving thing just like capitalism?
PoliTalker
Diversity Makes Greatness
The real purpose of the tax cut for the rich bill was not to spur the economy which did not need spurring. It was to make the rich richer.
At a dinner in Mar-A-Lago, just after signing the tax cut for the rich:
"You all just got a lot richer" - President Trump.
The Hill
And ya know? Most of those people already had all the money they need to have a wonderful life. More money, to many of them, is nice but not needed at all.
What do you get somebody who already has everything, including more money than most people?
More money?
Many were probably bored by Trump's comment.
At a dinner in Mar-A-Lago, just after signing the tax cut for the rich:
"You all just got a lot richer" - President Trump.
The Hill
And ya know? Most of those people already had all the money they need to have a wonderful life. More money, to many of them, is nice but not needed at all.
What do you get somebody who already has everything, including more money than most people?
More money?
Many were probably bored by Trump's comment.
PoliTalker
Diversity Makes Greatness
The economy is doing well. It was doing well before the tax cut for the rich act.
When the economy is doing well, that is the time to tax the rich more so the deficit can be reduced.
It would be entirely possible right now, while things are good, to eliminate the deficit completely and begin paying down the debt - just by taxing the rich more.
It won't hurt their lives. They have so much money they can pay more taxes and still live in luxury. I don't get why so many struggling middle class people want to protect the rich and pamper them.
We have to get our house in order. Giving the rich all these tax breaks is very irresponsible with America's budget.
You can't reduce the deficit during a recession. That is when extra government spending is needed. The only time you can really pay down the debt is during an economic boon. Now is the time to be paying down the debt we incurred during the Great Recession. We are being very foolish to give tax breaks to the rich who don't need it when we are starving the government which does. That is only going to force us all to pay more interest on the debt. Stupid!
When the economy is doing well, that is the time to tax the rich more so the deficit can be reduced.
It would be entirely possible right now, while things are good, to eliminate the deficit completely and begin paying down the debt - just by taxing the rich more.
It won't hurt their lives. They have so much money they can pay more taxes and still live in luxury. I don't get why so many struggling middle class people want to protect the rich and pamper them.
We have to get our house in order. Giving the rich all these tax breaks is very irresponsible with America's budget.
You can't reduce the deficit during a recession. That is when extra government spending is needed. The only time you can really pay down the debt is during an economic boon. Now is the time to be paying down the debt we incurred during the Great Recession. We are being very foolish to give tax breaks to the rich who don't need it when we are starving the government which does. That is only going to force us all to pay more interest on the debt. Stupid!
Last edited:
It's a common economic fantasy. If they hire fewer people, then they're doing less business, producing less, meaning less profits. And you're assuming that all rich people are direct employers. Not that many are. Most are rich because they run corporations, or are high-end management.
Stereotypes are all he has.
evince
Truthmatters
or mommy and daddy left it to them
not about giving the rich more money. It is about starving the beast. They want to crank the deficits up to the limit, where that can say we cannot pay for any social programs. They want to end Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security and any other programs that help the poor of frail. The wealthy don't need more money, but they will not refuse it. Most of them do not know what the long term plan is. http://theweek.com/articles/743367/dont-fall-scam-destroy-medicare-social-security
Last edited:
It was also characterized by a lower percentage of GDP going to government revenues and government spending.
They do (87%). That is the way progressive taxation is supposed to work. A lot of that 80% is not "profits" but salaries and other sources of income.
PoliTalker
Diversity Makes Greatness
Hello evince,
Stop making so much sense!
You're leaving conservatives with no argument at all.
Stop making so much sense!
You're leaving conservatives with no argument at all.