It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Progressive idea 80% tax - income over $500K doesn't go far enough to fix income inequality

page: 13
11
<< 10  11  12    14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 28 2014 @ 02:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
All backed by.....
NOTHING.


Which has not been relative since the amount of wealth created has outstripped currency being backed by any tangible/easily acquired commodity for some time. This in and of itself proves that wealth creation is not finite.

Wealth creation is more than just paper money or transactionary banking. It often happens on a much simpler and baser level. Something as mundane as real estate retention and resultant equity accumulation leads to wealth creation.

There is much more to it than the actual medium used to transfer the wealth.





edit on 28-4-2014 by AugustusMasonicus because: networkdude has no beer




posted on Apr, 28 2014 @ 02:56 PM
link   
a reply to: MarlinGrace


No sorry I didn't, being honest NPR and Salon are places I just can't bring myself to go.

Well, that's just sad.

If you'd give a listen to the other side, and not just Fox and Beck, you'd have a more balanced view. I check both sides, every day.
What I see sickens me. I tried to get my brother (a Limbaugh/Hannity fan) to agree to read the 'other side of the coin' for a week, and he hasn't talked to me since.
THAT is also just sad.

Your wife is right. In any case, again, thanks for easing your attack.

edit on 4/28/2014 by BuzzyWigs because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 28 2014 @ 03:34 PM
link   
a reply to: macman

The rich and the government are so intertwined, that to change one you need to change the other.

The revolving door

campaign donations

two party system

placing lobbyist in gov office

There is so much corruption that just taxing the rich will not fix it, but it would remove some of the motivation for being corrupt.



posted on Apr, 28 2014 @ 03:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs


Dude. I have said I don't appreciate big government. I have said that corporations are not "people" and should not have the right to contribute unlimited amounts to BUY CONGRESS.

All of the efforts you back are driven by Big Govt.
1+1 does in fact equal 2.


originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
You think my 'choice of career' was lame.....

You really need to start reading what I state, and stop projecting what you want it to say. I never stated it was lame.



originally posted by: BuzzyWigs

"if I wanted to make money." I DON'T CARE ABOUT THE MONEY.

Then it wouldn't be an issue as to how much you earn for the job.



originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
I care about the corporate welfare and destitute, struggling people who are the backbone of this country.

All are receiving Govt handouts.



originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
I am more interested in the collective than being extremely wealthy.

Except here is your hypocrisy. The wealthy are part of the collective, in your statement.
This collective mentality only pulls people down to a sub standard level.
When the individual is left alone, to either succeed or fail, people will rise to the levels of others they see.


originally posted by: BuzzyWigs

There is NO REASON that CEOs should be paid 1200x the wage of the workers that make that Corruptoration profits.

Why, because you said so?



posted on Apr, 28 2014 @ 03:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: AlaskanDad


The rich and the government are so intertwined, that to change one you need to change the other.

Well, at least that is correct.
Bring the Govt back to what it is bound by law, and this crap will dwindle.


originally posted by: AlaskanDad

The revolving door

campaign donations

two party system

placing lobbyist in gov office

Yep


originally posted by: AlaskanDad

There is so much corruption that just taxing the rich will not fix it, but it would remove some of the motivation for being corrupt.

No it won't. Taxing he evil rich has done nothing. It never will.
Even the Progressive Tax model we use today, which was created to stop the railroad people and robber barons hasn't worked.

It hasn't worked yet. What on God's green earth makes you or anyone else think it will work now?



posted on Apr, 28 2014 @ 03:56 PM
link   
a reply to: macman




No it won't. Taxing he evil rich has done nothing. It never will. Even the Progressive Tax model we use today, which was created to stop the railroad people and robber barons hasn't worked. It hasn't worked yet. What on God's green earth makes you or anyone else think it will work now?


Until the people have representation, nothing can or will change. As long as vast amounts of money is available to our politicians we're screwed. Those taxes would hit them (the politicians) and their friends, they would live a wee bit more of a fiscally conservative life style, yet they would never go hungry.

When the third richest man Warren Buffet says he need to pay more taxes, I tend to pay attention.






edit on 28-4-2014 by AlaskanDad because: typos and clarification



posted on Apr, 28 2014 @ 04:19 PM
link   
a reply to: macman


Except here is your hypocrisy. The wealthy are part of the collective, in your statement.
This collective mentality only pulls people down to a sub standard level.
When the individual is left alone, to either succeed or fail, people will rise to the levels of others they see.


You can refuse to hear me all you want, macman. Yes, the wealthy are part of the collective, and NOT ONE OF THEM
needs to earn $7.8 million dollars in 6 weeks. Nor $31 Million for a year. Nor any of the other numbers that the sources I provided you express.

People would LOVE to rise to the levels of others they see......
whether they WILL, or not, is the part of the hypocrisy that is YOUR THINKING. With the system the way it is, THEY WILL NOT. Good lord. Your rhetoric + your avatar are kinda, well, unnerving.



Peace, macman.


originally posted by: macman

Sounds like you made a poor decision on employment, if you wanted to make money.

This whole idea you pitch is based on envy and jealousy.


Just to answer your evasion. ^^
edit on 4/28/2014 by BuzzyWigs because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 28 2014 @ 04:29 PM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

This is just one example of why I said the the FED is a tool for earning;
*the italics were for sarcasm





The Real Housewives of Wall Street

Why is the Federal Reserve forking over $220 million in bailout money to the wives of two Morgan Stanley bigwigs?




Most Americans know about that budget. What they don't know is that there is another budget of roughly equal heft, traditionally maintained in complete secrecy. After the financial crash of 2008, it grew to monstrous dimensions, as the government attempted to unfreeze the credit markets by handing out trillions to banks and hedge funds. And thanks to a whole galaxy of obscure, acronym-laden bailout programs, it eventually rivaled the "official" budget in size — a huge roaring river of cash flowing out of the Federal Reserve to destinations neither chosen by the president nor reviewed by Congress, but instead handed out by fiat by unelected Fed officials using a seemingly nonsensical and apparently unknowable methodology.

source

I consider this the creation of debt err ummm money, or was it debt? or money?

I think that depends on if which end of the stick you got.

edit on 28-4-2014 by AlaskanDad because: added the articles tittle



posted on Apr, 28 2014 @ 04:35 PM
link   
a reply to: BuzzyWigs

You do realize that the richest demographic in this country is not static? Most people are only there for maybe a year or a few at most before falling out? 39% of Americans can expect to hit the top 5% for at least one year of their professional lives. And a pretty good chunk can expect to climb even higher than that for a short time.

Yes, that means that a majority won't get to the top, but 39% is 1 in 3 territory verging on 1 in 2. Those are still pretty good odds for success.

And you can carp all you want about what someone "needs," but then you start getting into the territory of sounding like a shrill, covetous person. Why do you care if someone else has more than you? If they earned it, it's frankly none of our business. You sound no better than Michelle Obama telling children that they only "need" a few hundred calories for their lunch at school. No one made you the "need" police. Mind your own business.



posted on Apr, 28 2014 @ 04:38 PM
link   
a reply to: macman

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
You think my 'choice of career' was lame.....


You really need to start reading what I state, and stop projecting what you want it to say. I never stated it was lame.

I challenge you, sir, to go back to
THIS POST OF YOURS
Wherein you said:

Sounds like you made a poor decision on employment, if you wanted to make money.

And then you said:

All of the efforts you back are driven by Big Govt.
1+1 does in fact equal 2.


originally posted by: macman

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs

All backed by.....
NOTHING.

It's nothing more than an algorithm that moves at inconceivable speed - and if there were a run on the banks....


fiat currency is disgraceful, fake, and nothing more than 'ink on paper.' Or rather 'binary digits in a program'.

And then you turned it around and agreed with me, and denied ever saying my career choice was 'my fault.' 'Lame.' Whatever you want to call it. 'Poor choice.' And said this:




Well, we agree.

Seems again though, that Big Govt has delivered this to the people.


So....
DO WE AGREE? Or do we not? DID YOU say my 'career choice' was "poor" (or pick a synonym), or not???


edit on 4/28/2014 by BuzzyWigs because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 28 2014 @ 04:45 PM
link   
Out of everything in this thread the most interesting to me was Wrabbits reference to the loto players never going for this, hmm I see:

$656 million 30 March 2012 Mega Millions

Really? rolls eyes



posted on Apr, 28 2014 @ 05:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: AlaskanDad
This is just one example of why I said the the FED is a tool for earning;


I think you know that this is not what I was referring to and is an entirely different situation altogether. Corruption, bailouts and welfare are not what I am referencing when I am talking about wealth creation.



posted on Apr, 28 2014 @ 06:19 PM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Financial Rescue Nears GDP as Pledges Top $12.8 Trillion


The Fed's $16 Trillion Bailouts Under-Reported

While this may not be what you wish to talk about, but it is certainly it is the creation of cash, wealth and power for the few in high places.

47 trillion US dollars have been put in offshore banks over the last 5 yrs. and the national debt is 17 trillion. You still on board with your PARTY in this two PARTY dictatorship out to destroy your country and impoverish your family?
source

Not saying the two are connected or anything, just kind of interesting reading.







edit on 28-4-2014 by AlaskanDad because: a t should of been a y

edit on 28-4-2014 by AlaskanDad because: typos uhg



posted on Apr, 28 2014 @ 06:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: AlaskanDad
While this may not be what you wish to talk about, but it is certainly it is the creation of cash, wealth and power for the few in high places.


It has nothing to do with me not wanting to talk about it, corporate welfare is not wealth creation, they are two entirely different subjects. You do not create wealth by shifting it from the left pocket to the right pocket and this is not what I am referring to as you are now obviously aware.



posted on Apr, 28 2014 @ 06:37 PM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Now back to topic; I ask if you can not see how such taxes would discourage such grand thefts?

If money is taxed that heavily, stealing more is less tempting, after two million it should be 99%.

I mean it's not like we would be leaving them without food and shelter, is it?



posted on Apr, 28 2014 @ 06:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: AlaskanDad
Now back to topic; I ask if you can not see how such taxes would discourage such grand thefts?


I am not seeing the corollary at all between raising marginal tax rates and the mismanagement of our taxes when used for corporate welfare. These are two mutually exclusive topics.

If money is taxed that heavily, stealing more is less tempting, after two million it should be 99%.


I think it would be quite the opposite. What are people more prone to steal, that which they have in abundance or that which is restricted to them?



posted on Apr, 28 2014 @ 06:46 PM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

We could tax Harry Reid too!

And Bill Gate's, I use linux

Soros

Koch

Al gore

the clintons

the bushs

and I would love to see henry kissinger taxed

But I really wonder why the people allowed them to acquire so much at the tax payers societies detriment.


edit on 28-4-2014 by AlaskanDad because: strike through clarification

edit on 28-4-2014 by AlaskanDad because: a space



posted on Apr, 28 2014 @ 06:55 PM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus




I think it would be quite the opposite. What are people more prone to steal, that which they have in abundance or that which is restricted to them?


I think thefts would become easier to spot when incomes are limited to under 2 million a year, the new Lear jet would scream for an investigation by the irs,



posted on Apr, 28 2014 @ 07:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: AlaskanDad
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus




I think it would be quite the opposite. What are people more prone to steal, that which they have in abundance or that which is restricted to them?


I think thefts would become easier to spot when incomes are limited to under 2 million a year, the new Lear jet would scream for an investigation by the irs,



This is the way thieves think, if you didn't have anything I wouldn't want to steal it. A thief is a thief rather it's a quarter or a quarter of a million. Taxation of which you claim would fix things if thievery plain and simple. Limiting income to two million is a serious fantasy, the bigger fantasy would be expecting government to redistribute the money evenly.

It's no wonder you want a pirate for a president. They didn't last very long in world history, the idea of killing everyone and taking their money, makes you a criminal. Having read a few books on piracy, Charles Manson would have made a good pirate.

I think to grasp the idea of taxation from a corrupt government and it redistributive ideas, you should take everything you own for your entire life establish a value, and let ATS decide on what you keep, and how much we should give away. Of course you have nothing to say about it, and by the way we will appoint some members to verify your numbers and they better be to the way our thinking is or you will be keelhauled. Some people survive keelhauling, I am sure it's based on barnacle build up and sharks. You could survive. Maybe.

Who could afford a Lear with a 2 mil income? They would be out of business. Of course you could give everyone in the US man woman and child 48K if the government didn't over spend by 17 trillion. Unfunded is supposed to about 100 trillion but who knows for sure, but that would make it about 250K per person. Just saying...



posted on Apr, 28 2014 @ 07:44 PM
link   



Pirate Party is a label adopted by political parties in different countries. Pirate parties support civil rights, direct democracy and participation in government, reform of copyright and patent law, free sharing of knowledge (open content), information privacy, transparency, freedom of information and network neutrality.

source


edit on 28-4-2014 by AlaskanDad because: typo



new topics

top topics



 
11
<< 10  11  12    14 >>

log in

join