Should we allow the rich to get richer?

[riser]

Your well off because nobody loves you hence you don't need to spend any money past your internet account and the trailer you live in with your mom.

Lets get real riser ... you sold your granny to the knacker yard for glue.

I checked your IP and its registered to St Vinny De Pail so you probably hacked them for free wifi.

I daw you last week getting burgers out of the McDonalds skip bin out the back.

I saw your prison hooch recipe on the tube.

That was you spamming the forums with that fake Nigerian Princess ransom scam.

I agreed to be your parole officer after the last pyramid scheme you cooked up with those mums at the daycare centre you infiltrated with a fake baby in your pram ... but your letting me down.

Did you take those photos of Mitt Romney and the donkey?

I'm concerned with the things you do and the places you go.

 

[Reynod]

I hope other people here realise we are close friends and you donated the sperm ... wait ... wrong person.

 

[musical marv]

Didnt Romney give his money away?

To who his rich friends. Romney is selfish and cares about his own kind the rich! he is a pathetic man to be a leader of this great country.

 

[musical marv]

Maybe it is true, and in that case I ought to call America's entire society of welfare earners as greedy and evil. Maybe they ought to be tossed in jail?

In modern day society, you need money to live a healthy and happy life. As much as you may disagree with me valiantly due to some religious or implanted idea from childhood, its true. To make money, you need an education and effort.

Have you ever heard people saying, "Don't feed the animals at the zoo, because then they will depend to be fed by humans instead of hunting for themselves and die"? Same analogy works for humans. If you keep giving money to the poor, they'll be more dependent as generations pass by. Liberals have a very difficult time grasping this concept and have been systematically destroying the United States for decades now. Perhaps because most liberals are the ones receiving handouts, and the ones in congress need to serve the poor to keep getting re-elected. Either way, if it doesn't stop soon, REAL soon, then there will be even worse issues.

Why do Republicans always put down the Liberals which is complete crap that we are receiving handouts where as you people are more corrupt and money hungry than we are you state.The republicans care about getting us into wars, screwing our students with these higher interest rates, and getting the rich more richer that is their goal all these years.They are in bed with banks and oil companies all the way!

 

[JAYDEEJOHN]

OOOPs marv
You just messed up there
Besides the needed responses, WW1, WW2, 911, lets look at Vietnam, or Korea

As for corruption, explain the housing bubble?
That helped put the entire world into a spin.
Or Spain, or Italy, or Greedce?

 

[Reynod]

I have failed to make anyone laugh.

/wanders off

 

[wanamingo]

http://www.cracked.com/blog/6-things-rich-people-need-to-stop-saying/

 

[wanamingo]

I read an interesting article that I cant seem to find.

It basically said we need the rich to fund business. And this makes sense, the rich have so much money they can only save it and reinvest it. Capitalism would not work without a small population of "Rich" individuals putting up the capital. The issues come back down to when the wealthy establish a business how should the money that a business makes be re-proportioned to the people that work there?

 

[wanamingo]

Yeah, when was the last time you got a job from a poor person.

Probably like twice lol. Once from a self employed friend (started a diner) and from community service. Neither payed very well...... meh(one not at all).

From my point of view the reward system is messed up. Why should you give money to someone who makes 3.5 million a year and then give them a bonus when they run a company into the ground? Because they deserve it? What about the people who worked hard for that company 60 hour weeks did they work 1/500th as hard as the CEO?

I get an awesome bonus where I work and that make me feel like I have a stake in the company (Seriously it was like 20% of my yearly pay). Ive also worked at places like best buy and staples where no matter how hard you work you get an hourly wage and a 1.2% increase in pay. That type of practice deters people from actually trying. And rewards those who just have money and no effort involved, except from the people who actually work on the floor and actually make the money. They are rewarded the least.

 

[blackhawk1928]

I read an interesting article that I cant seem to find.

It basically said we need the rich to fund business. And this makes sense, the rich have so much money they can only save it and reinvest it. Capitalism would not work without a small population of "Rich" individuals putting up the capital. The issues come back down to when the wealthy establish a business how should the money that a business makes be re-proportioned to the people that work there?

A salary...

Why do Republicans always put down the Liberals which is complete crap that we are receiving handouts where as you people are more corrupt and money hungry than we are you state.The republicans care about getting us into wars, screwing our students with these higher interest rates, and getting the rich more richer that is their goal all these years.They are in bed with banks and oil companies all the way!

I'm not Republican, there are a lot of view that I disagree with them with. I agree on Republicans with Economic issues mainly. Its absolutely true that liberals are the ones that are receiving handouts...the majority of working class are conservative. Republicans are not anymore corrupt or money hungry than any Democrat.

Also, its everybody's goal to get richer, and this mainly shows the biggest difference between Republicans and Democrats. Republicans are smart enough to figure out how to get richer, while the Democrats envy them in jealousy and then demand handouts.

 

[JAYDEEJOHN]

Whats more greedy?
Those that can work, but choose not to(and thus have nothing to share)
or those that do, work extremely hard, are successful, and dont share?

 

[blackhawk1928]

Whats more greedy?
Those that can work, but choose not to(and thus have nothing to share)
or those that do, work extremely hard, are successful, and dont share?

Agreed 100%! You said it exactly.

Now wait and for the responses saying:
"Its not the poor's fault that they are poor" and
"Its all the Rich's fault" and
"Bush killed the economy"

I personally think that those who work hard and are successful already pay enough in taxation and contribute enough into the system. The Rich pay taxes AND they create jobs which thereby stimulates the economy which thereby increases tax revenue due to more tax paying people. However, somehow that's not enough, because the hand-out earners who do ZERO to contribute to the system, merely suck the blood and life out of the people who actually do.

 

[JAYDEEJOHN]

Heres the problem
Currently, things suck
The amounts of people in need are high, some good, some not, and alot thats always ridden the system.
If we make dramatic changes right now, for this period, to help everyone, then what happens when things get good?
I just watched someone showing off billions of dollars of empty federal buildings, millions of square feet, all being heating and maintained and...empty
Many of these properties sit in some of the highest taxes areas in the country, all over the country, and instead of selling or leasing, they sit.
Now some rich guy, some big corp, here there and everywhere were allowed to rent these buildings on the cheap, it would eliminate maintenace costs, and heating costs etc, and also would create a taxable scenario, turning this billions of dollar losses to a profit for us, and the government.
The republicans would, and are willing to do such things, wheres the dems on this?
If its some socialized ideal holding them back, they need to learn a few things, like number 1, it takes money to make money.
Instead of hating and demanding more of the rich, why not bolster them in avenues such as this, and everyone wins?

 

[musical marv]

OOOPs marv
You just messed up there
Besides the needed responses, WW1, WW2, 911, lets look at Vietnam, or Korea

As for corruption, explain the housing bubble?
That helped put the entire world into a spin.
Or Spain, or Italy, or Greedce?

Do you blame Obama for this also?

 

[riser]

I hope other people here realise we are close friends and you donated the sperm ... wait ... wrong person.

I gave you the necklace. winkwink

 

[riser]

Do you blame Obama for this also?

Actually it was Clinton's policy in late '99 that started the issue with the housing bubble. Hear me out. In 99 he made the ARM loan available to the vast majority with intent to increase minority owned homes. The policy took official effect in 9/2000 if I recall correctly. The average ARM loan is 5 years.

When did the housing market collapse? 2005/2006? When everyone's new ARM loan expired.. the first 4-5 years under Bush were good after coming out of the dotcom bust and 9/11. I'm sure the excessive amounts being tossed around in the housing market assisted with that and Clinton did a great job in setting up the next Republican president to fail. Had Gore won, I wonder how it would have been handled and what the fallout would have looked like?

 

[blackhawk1928]

If Gore won, they would find a away to put the blame somehow on Republicans. Clinton's Administration perhaps had great intentions, but they forced Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to single-handledly destroy the entire United States Economy, by forcing private banks to give out loans and then buying them off to themselves soon after. This process continued for years.

Only somebody who mis-understands the economy and current events in that era would blame President Bush for "causing" the crisis, or blame private banks/investors for "causing" the housing market crisis.

 

[JAYDEEJOHN]

And further, look to the authors, Im sure they didnt vote for Bush

 

[dogman_1234]

Economics 202:

The reason one of many that the rich do not pay as much taxes as those in a lower bracket is so they can invest in business, enterprise, and resources (land, labor, capital, entrepreneurship.)

That is the principle. Now, given the state of the current economy in the United States, there seems to be an idea that if I were to invest...my return would be lover than my initial investment, or my investment would disappear due to volatility in the market.

now, take it form those in a lower bracket. They need to capital to start a business, to create jobs, or to get a job. If there is no initial investment, there is not initial creation of a sector in the economy. Mitt Romney knows this. I am surprised he has said nothing of the sort. Back to the lower bracket. They see this as a threat to their wealth security. A sort of 'class warfare.' This is political while it should remain a-political.

The problem is not taxes really. They are a burden. The reason is continuous instability in the market brought upon natural cycles in the economy. we have stepped in the lower bound of the cycle and altered the function of the equation. Result: We have a system of greater instability caused by the public and private sector.

The solution: That is for the individual person to decide.

 

[JAYDEEJOHN]

By not taxing investments, and defering taxes, as those investments pays off, they will be taxed, but taxing them does a couple things, it slows investment, it slows growth, it penalizes growth, investment itself.
How anyone can claim this as unfair, or even put it into such a construction of thought is a fool.
Todays economy needs?
Investment, and growth.

To reach for those monies now, and then put it in terms of "fairness" is greedy, doesnt set for the future, where that growth will pay off handsomely.
The only reason someone one go such a route would be if they needed alot of money immediately, like they were broke, probably from spending too much money to begin with, and it had then better be pretty darn expedient

 

[musical marv]

Uhh, dog? The top 1% pay 40% of all income tax to the feds. Your first sentence is a bit "off".

They can afford it.

 

[musical marv]

A salary...



I'm not Republican, there are a lot of view that I disagree with them with. I agree on Republicans with Economic issues mainly. Its absolutely true that liberals are the ones that are receiving handouts...the majority of working class are conservative. Republicans are not anymore corrupt or money hungry than any Democrat.

Also, its everybody's goal to get richer, and this mainly shows the biggest difference between Republicans and Democrats. Republicans are smart enough to figure out how to get richer, while the Democrats envy them in jealousy and then demand handouts.

Yes by getting us into senseless wars for nothing.I am a Liberal and I never asked for a handout in my life in 68 years sir.wasting millions of dollars for these stupid campaign ads by putting down the Liberals and Romney loved every moment of it.I hate ROMNEY!

 

[blackhawk1928]

They can afford it.

Yes, they can. However, you are only hurting yourself. Scrutinizing and pummeling the rich is an analogy to how a dependent hits his caregiver and the caregiver simply stops giving them money or is unable to. If you tax the rich more:

-They will invest less
-They will spend less (thereby paying less taxes on sales tax)
-They will lay off workers in their business (decreasing tax revenue, which is our ultimate goal in increasing)
-They will stop giving to charity/donate
-They will stop stimulating the economy
-Once the revenue goes down, the poor will demand more taxes on the rich in order to pay for all the new jobless unemployment.

This unfortunate process will continue until its unsustainable and at that point the rich will simply get out of the country and "find a way". At that point, the country will not be able to sustain itself and WILL implode. How do I know thats what going to happen?...well because history has shown it. Socialism doesn't work. The Soviet Union PROVED it. Unfortunately it took 70 years and 40million+ lives to understand its failure. Now its been 20 years since its gone and everybody "forgot"...And secondly, if I were part of this elite group of uber rich...I would the EXACT SAME THING.

So to answer your claim...yes...they can afford. However, it will be at YOUR cost.

Yes by getting us into senseless wars for nothing.I am a Liberal and I never asked for a handout in my life in 68 years sir.wasting millions of dollars for these stupid campaign ads by putting down the Liberals and Romney loved every moment of it.I hate ROMNEY!

I said majority. There are some honest to heart liberals out there who work. Most probably work easy jobs for unions though.

 

[dogman_1234]

Uhh, dog? The top 1% pay 40% of all income tax to the feds. Your first sentence is a bit "off".

Uhh, oldman? That is not what I was implying.

I was stating both Classical and Keynesian principles of investment.

 

[riser]

Yeah, there is a famous video of Bush pleading to Congress... the republican Congress at the time, to make changes to fend off the issue. No one wanted to make a move in a good economy. Repub Congress got knocked out, the Dems didn't want to do anything about it either and everything came crashing down.