How Much of Your Wealth Should be Spread Around?

How much of your wealth is 'patriotic' to spread around?

  • 5% or less

    Votes: 3 25.0%

  • 10%-15%

    Votes: 1 8.3%

  • 15%-20%

    Votes: 3 25.0%

  • 20%-30%

    Votes: 2 16.7%

  • 30%-40%

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • 40%-50%

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • 50%-60%

    Votes: 1 8.3%

  • 60%-70%

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • 70%-80%

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • 80% or higher

    Votes: 2 16.7%
  • Total voters
    12
20% of the 800,000 who are in jail for pot possession we'd collect enought taxes to make conservatives look like the asswholes they are.
 
im ok with having those making over 250k giving back some of the bush tax cut so that people making under 150k can get a larger tax cut. I dont really view it as a redistribution of wealth, its more like an adjustment to the bush tax cut.
 
Chapdog said:
im ok with having those making over 250k giving back some of the bush tax cut so that people making under 150k can get a larger tax cut. I dont really view it as a redistribution of wealth, its more like an adjustment to the bush tax cut.
Click to expand...
Redistribution comes from people who pay no income tax getting a "cut" in the form of a "refund" check every year.

Seriously, his taxes aren't an issue for me. Giving some people some money to spend won't turn us all into communists.

I have more of a problem of 800 Billion dollars of promises with about 80 Billion dollars of increased revenue.

I am also against raising corporate taxes as that is basically a hidden consumption tax without regard to cost increases and that everybody will pay it. It is very not progressive, and in large part will harm those that he intends to 'help'.

Also, Protectionism didn't help at all during the beginning of the depression, why would we turn to it now?
 
Watermark said:
He's raising corporate taxes?
Click to expand...
He hides it under "closing the loopholes" and "taxing those who take jobs overseas and rewarding those who create new jobs" is the protectionist part.

Making things cost more is not a solution to jobs going overseas, nor does it help the little guy.
 
Damocles said:
He hides it under "closing the loopholes" and "taxing those who take jobs overseas and rewarding those who create new jobs" is the protectionist part.

Making things cost more is not a solution to jobs going overseas, nor does it help the little guy.
Click to expand...

And how are you so sure a coporate tax cut isn't part of that plan?
 
Watermark said:
Sweden has eliminated almost all poverty. Can you think of any more amiable goal for a society? No. I say, get rid of the military, and poverty as well.
Click to expand...

I don't think about "society goals" at all. Poverty is calculated by percent spent on food (and often housing), the American poor are often obese and own a higher percent of homes than in Europe. It's not comparable.

To me the best and most honest way of deciding how great a nation is, is to see how many people TRY and move there (whether they succeed or not) and substract how many TRY and leave (whether they succeed or not). Then average that over say 10 years and make sure to exclude those who are forced to come into a country because there's is at war or refugees. Highest number is the best.
And America would come out better than Europe.
 
Watermark said:
Sweden has eliminated almost all poverty. Can you think of any more amiable goal for a society? No. I say, get rid of the military, and poverty as well.
Click to expand...

If I didn't live here too I'd love to see you get rid of the military and then see what happens. I'm with you on decreasing poverty but unfettered socialism sure isn't the answer. And getting rid of the military just isn't logical.
 
I would hope the nukes are seen as a back up plan, use as a last ditch effort sort of thing. I think most people feel this way about them. Most of us never want to see one of the things actually deployed.
 
leaningright said:
I would hope the nukes are seen as a back up plan, use as a last ditch effort sort of thing. I think most people feel this way about them. Most of us never want to see one of the things actually deployed.
Click to expand...


From what I heard from the cons about Iraq a few years ago....
 
I know it is a scary deal and none (and I do mean none......as in our politicains) seem to be trustworthy but I cannot see one actually being for "getting rid of" the military
 
Watermark said:
And how are you so sure a coporate tax cut isn't part of that plan?
Click to expand...
Because we must make them "pay their fair share", etc.

That isn't cutting words, nor is it smart. It is popular because too many will believe they will be unaffected by a corporate tax and those "rich bastiges" haven't been paying enough, but the reality is corporations do not pay taxes, they simply pass the cost on to the consumer without regard to how much the consumer makes or what it is they are purchasing.

Corporate taxes simply are inflationary and are effectively a consumption tax.
 
Jarod said:
Who said it was patirotic to spread the wealth around?
Click to expand...

I think that's a perversion of Joe Biden's statement that it was patriotic to pay taxes (presumably those that have been levied). How else would we pay for roads, bridges, military, schools, etc., etc. ?
 
Thorn said:
I think that's a perversion of Joe Biden's statement that it was patriotic to pay taxes (presumably those that have been levied). How else would we pay for roads, bridges, military, schools, etc., etc. ?
Click to expand...

How would we invade Iraq if it were not for tax dollars?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top