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.

 

So rich going to have to accept less or have it taken from them?

page: 18
19
<< 15  16  17    19 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 12 2016 @ 08:19 AM
link   

originally posted by: Bearack

originally posted by: pexx421
I don't really understand most of you here. Sanders claims to want to take money out of politics. To break up too big to fail institutions. To use our taxes to support the majority rather than the wealthy elite. What do his opponents want? To wage more war. To continue to cater to the powerful corporations at your expense. To create a Christian theocracy. And this is OK how?


The thing that is not understood, however, is his policy will force all (even the poor) to take a substantial tax burden hit. Not only through our income, but through your wallet as well.

Yes, if you increase taxation on the businesses, we will pay the difference... through higher prices for goods, and layoffs.




posted on Feb, 12 2016 @ 08:20 AM
link   
a reply to: pexx421


How can people have the right to accumulate a resource by making it more scarce to all others?

Why should they not? Who confers these rights and restrictions? Who gave you (or me, or anyone else) the right to exist?


The native Americans had it right....resources should equally be shared by all who live in the area.

Should according to whom? And what are you going to do about all the people moving into the area to share the resource? What if there isn’t enough of it to go around, and you happen to be sitting on top of the only source?


I would fully support expropriatary taxes on high income brackets.

But (if you’re American) you can’t get your fellow-countrymen to do so. Why is that, do you think? After all, it seems such an obvious solution, and it has worked in other countries.


They don't let citizens own bombs, tanks, or missiles. Why?

Because the basic bargain a state makes with its citizens is that it will protect them from external and internal enemies in exchange for an undertaking by the citizens not to engage in violent acts on their own initiative.


Excessive wealth accumulation is equally dangerous.

Possibly, but the bargain there is different. The state allows you to get as rich as you can so long as you do it according to the law, and pay your taxes. Are you saying that is wrong? If so, explain why.



posted on Feb, 12 2016 @ 08:31 AM
link   
a reply to: pexx421



The native Americans had it right....resources should equally be shared by all who live in the area.

Where do you get this idea from?

Many tribes raided other tribes for resources. They stole them from others because they didn't have any and they needed it. Oftentimes, they killed, kidnapped and raped in the course of their raids.
The pre-columbian native americans were not mystical beings, they were human just like everyone else.

I remember people on kick saying that the native americans never wasted anything. They used to stampede bison over cliffs and butcher the ones lying at the top of the pile... the rest rotted.



posted on Feb, 12 2016 @ 08:34 AM
link   
a reply to: TheBandit795


income taxes, capital gains, property taxes etc

Why do you object only to these forms of taxation? If you call taxation theft, then all taxation must be equally larcenous.

Ah, but wait a minute. Income, capital-gains and property taxes tend to fall more heavily upon the rich, don’t they?

We can’t have that, can we? Can’t allow the rich to be parted from their precious money. So you favour sales taxes, where the burden of a sales tax falls proportionately on everybody, and trade tariffs that simply distort markets and preserve the status quo.

There are two groups of people who think in this vein: the rich, and the ‘aspirational poor’ who have swallowed the capitalist line together with the hook and sinker, and already think like the billionaires they one day hope to be. Lambs who think they’re going to grow up to be shearers.

Which group do you belong to, I wonder


edit on 12/2/16 by Astyanax because: it’s allowed to wonder.



posted on Feb, 12 2016 @ 08:42 AM
link   
a reply to: Astyanax

I actually don't like any form of taxation. I don't favour any form of it. All of it distort the market, not just trade tariffs and sales tax. It's still mandatory action. The least amount of taxation in any form forces the government to stay small and gives more economic freedom.

As for the rich being parted with their genuinely earned (not stolen) money. (Other than that to me it's a crime and a different story) I'll refer back to what I said about the golden rule earlier. Do not impose your will on others if you don't want other people to do the same to you.



posted on Feb, 12 2016 @ 08:43 AM
link   

originally posted by: butcherguy

originally posted by: Bearack

originally posted by: pexx421
I don't really understand most of you here. Sanders claims to want to take money out of politics. To break up too big to fail institutions. To use our taxes to support the majority rather than the wealthy elite. What do his opponents want? To wage more war. To continue to cater to the powerful corporations at your expense. To create a Christian theocracy. And this is OK how?


The thing that is not understood, however, is his policy will force all (even the poor) to take a substantial tax burden hit. Not only through our income, but through your wallet as well.

Yes, if you increase taxation on the businesses, we will pay the difference... through higher prices for goods, and layoffs.


Don't forget his policy he speaks about adding a 10% tax on speculation trading. All he means by speculation trading is is all trading as it's all speculative. For those who invest for their retirement know this will only slow our retirement investments to a stagnant crawl.



posted on Feb, 12 2016 @ 08:53 AM
link   
a reply to: Bearack



our retirement investments

I am surprised that we still have them under our control. I don't think it will be long before we don't.



posted on Feb, 12 2016 @ 09:01 AM
link   

originally posted by: Bearack

originally posted by: butcherguy

originally posted by: Bearack

originally posted by: pexx421
I don't really understand most of you here. Sanders claims to want to take money out of politics. To break up too big to fail institutions. To use our taxes to support the majority rather than the wealthy elite. What do his opponents want? To wage more war. To continue to cater to the powerful corporations at your expense. To create a Christian theocracy. And this is OK how?


The thing that is not understood, however, is his policy will force all (even the poor) to take a substantial tax burden hit. Not only through our income, but through your wallet as well.

Yes, if you increase taxation on the businesses, we will pay the difference... through higher prices for goods, and layoffs.


Don't forget his policy he speaks about adding a 10% tax on speculation trading. All he means by speculation trading is is all trading as it's all speculative. For those who invest for their retirement know this will only slow our retirement investments to a stagnant crawl.


Most of these progressive numbnuts don't realize it is there money that will be affected by such bull headed policies. They have no idea that the funds being traded are their pensions, 401ks, etc. They can't connect the dots that it is the wider public who are the shareholders of these corporations that would be hurt.

Because the general public is so uneducated on finance, most have no idea that these hedge funds, private equity funds, etc are tasked with increasing the returns of their investors. Their investors are usually pension funds, university endowments, etc and other large institutional investors. These are the people who ensure your 401k is getting a good return. That your pension can continue to payout annually.

The little guy will see their returns cut drastically.



posted on Feb, 12 2016 @ 09:08 AM
link   
a reply to: TheBandit795


I actually don't like any form of taxation.

But you prefer those that don’t target the rich. You already said so.


The least amount of taxation in any form forces the government to stay small and gives more economic freedom.

Why do you regard economic freedom as a good thing? Is it equally good in all circumstances?

Anyway, liberty is not derived from small governments, which in any case are a fantasy in this day and age, but from good laws.


I'll refer back to what I said about the golden rule earlier. Do not impose your will on others if you don't want other people to do the same to you.

Is that some kind of a threat? The rich will crush the poor if they are taxed too hard?



posted on Feb, 12 2016 @ 09:19 AM
link   
a reply to: Astyanax

Where did I specifically say that I prefer those that don't target the rich? Income taxes and property taxes also target the poor or middle class.

I have a recent thread about economic freedom which gives data and explanation here.

As for the golden rule. No threat at all. I hate imposition of will. I hate when people force other people (rich or poor) to do things against their will.



posted on Feb, 12 2016 @ 10:59 AM
link   
a reply to: stosh64

(in the US?)
thats like 2 1/2 people
youre telling me 2 1/2 people orchestrated all of this?

lrn2math

millions are complicit including yourself
edit on 12-2-2016 by fartlordsupreme because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 12 2016 @ 11:01 AM
link   
a reply to: butcherguy

put a cap on profits and you wont
it would also serve to allow more competition within the market (as well as restricting the kind of rampant unchecked "growth" that allows the formation of monopolies)
edit on 12-2-2016 by fartlordsupreme because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 12 2016 @ 11:08 AM
link   
a reply to: Bearack

no hes talking about the derivatives market
which needs regulated very badly (the US alone has hundreds of trillions of dollars of exposure.... far more than even exists across the globe)

www.businessinsider.com...

but yeah thats not a problem right?
as long as they have the "freedom" to tank the worlds economies were good



posted on Feb, 12 2016 @ 11:40 AM
link   
a reply to: fartlordsupreme

Thank governments for that. For encouraging big banks to engage in reckless gambling knowing full well they will be bailed out if things go south. If it wasn't for that guaranteed government protection they would've never have a derivatives casino that large.



posted on Feb, 12 2016 @ 11:44 AM
link   
a reply to: TheBandit795

and they wouldnt have those protections if they didnt buy them
so whos more to blame?
the guy who came up with these policies and ideas then used his immense capital to buy politicians to legislate it for him?
or the politicians offering their services for a profit like any good capitalist would?

(so you blame the government for "not doing their job" and then claim it will get better if you get rid of them entirely?
thats some ackbasswards cockamamie right there)
edit on 12-2-2016 by fartlordsupreme because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 12 2016 @ 11:46 AM
link   
a reply to: fartlordsupreme

Both. But this is something that's been going on for centuries. International bankers like the Rothschild's and Rockefellers have controlled governments for a long time.



posted on Feb, 12 2016 @ 11:54 AM
link   
a reply to: TheBandit795

the difference is one is creating a problem while the other is merely facilitating the creation of that problem
one is enacting their will while the other is simply doing their job (albeit not in the way most of us would hope for)



posted on Feb, 12 2016 @ 01:57 PM
link   
a reply to: Kangaruex4Ewe

If I knew my wealth came from the sweat, labor and was built on the backs of the "lesser classes" of people, I would do all I could to inject my wealth back into the system. It's not only the right thing to do, it's also a smart investment.

When you put your wealth to work by putting it back into the economy, you are helping to create a more conducive business environment with more potential customers. The more stable an economy is with more people that have money -- the more folks that will buy/use your product or service. Its pretty simple.

Right now, however, there is a fine balancing act being done. The question the wealthiest business owners are asking is, "How much can we take before people stop buying from us? How much money can we squeeze out of the economy before sales start to slow?"

IMO, that's a really ass-backwards and short-sighted way of doing things. I'd want as many people doing as well as they can, earning as much as they can so they can afford my products/services.

When more people have more money, innovation and new ideas are able to blossom. New products and technologies can be marketed and sold when people have the money to spend on them.
edit on 12-2-2016 by MystikMushroom because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 12 2016 @ 02:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: fartlordsupreme
a reply to: Bearack

no hes talking about the derivatives market
which needs regulated very badly (the US alone has hundreds of trillions of dollars of exposure.... far more than even exists across the globe)

www.businessinsider.com...

but yeah thats not a problem right?
as long as they have the "freedom" to tank the worlds economies were good


It wasn't solely on derivatives. Bonds were at 1% and 5% on all stock trades. They tried this in Sweden which slowed trading exponentially and damaged portfolios.



posted on Feb, 12 2016 @ 02:08 PM
link   
a reply to: Bearack

i have no problem with that
trade needs to slow and automated trading needs banned
the market is far too easily manipulated by quick pump and dump schemes
and at those rate of taxation no one can claim they arent still profitable investments




top topics



 
19
<< 15  16  17    19 >>

log in

join