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: 6
19
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 10 2016 @ 11:16 AM
link   
a reply to: DBCowboy

Like I said, it comes down to how percentages work.




posted on Feb, 10 2016 @ 11:16 AM
link   

originally posted by: Logarock
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

We who?



We the people who support him.



posted on Feb, 10 2016 @ 11:16 AM
link   
a reply to: Xeven

have fun watching all our job providers leave this nation, thus turning this nation into a third world country.



posted on Feb, 10 2016 @ 11:17 AM
link   

originally posted by: the owlbear

originally posted by: Logarock
a reply to: the owlbear


Who do you suppose is paying for his campaign?



Considering he has millions of donations and still has yet to come close to the Clinton coffers...
Quite a few people of all economic levels that believes in his message.



Well you know the big bankers love socialism.



posted on Feb, 10 2016 @ 11:17 AM
link   

originally posted by: neo96

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: DBCowboy

Flat taxes penalize the poorer people more than the richer people. That is an aspect of percentages that I'm not sure you understand completely.


Why not abolish the income tax altother.

Would that be so bad?

People actually NOT working 6 months out a year to pay their 'tax' bill before they start working for themselves?

The income tax needs to go the way of the dodo.


Ok. so how do you propose the government recoop that lost tax money? Because you and I know DAMN well that the government isn't going to reduce spending if it loses tax income any.



posted on Feb, 10 2016 @ 11:20 AM
link   

originally posted by: peter_kandra
So what happens when we tax (or take) the wealth of the people labeled as rich? What happens when that one-time cash infusion is spent (pissed away)? Who will decide what income or wealth level is too much? Do we start at a billion dollars? As other posters have stated, that will barely put a dent in any deficits nor go anywhere towards the desired equalization.

It's the old give a man a fish vs. teach a man to fish ideology. Taking wealth from the rich is like giving a person a fish. Now paying for job training or school I would fully support, and is teaching a person to fish.


And where will these people work?

All that would do is make highly educated fastfood workers.

60% of the jobs don't pay crap, no matter the education level, there are still the same amount of crap paying jobs.



posted on Feb, 10 2016 @ 11:23 AM
link   

originally posted by: Open_Minded Skeptic

The system is FUBAR and needs to be modified. The alternatives currently under discussion may also not be the really right solution, but it is clear to anybody with two active brain cells that what is in place now is a disaster waiting, and not much longer, to happen.


I can go with that. Changing the system so there's give back to the needs of the country. "Old Money" used to think it was their duty/responsibility.

Attacking the system? Yes! Attacking those who are wealthy? NO!

How do people become wealthy? OK, some inherit it - - but, most work their asses off and give up time with family, etc.

What are you willing to give up to become wealthy?



posted on Feb, 10 2016 @ 11:23 AM
link   
a reply to: the owlbear

Sanders is a one percenter.



n August of 2015, Bernie Sanders reported net worth assets at a minimum of $187,026 and a max of $759,004.


moneynation.com...



posted on Feb, 10 2016 @ 11:23 AM
link   

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic

originally posted by: Logarock
a reply to: the owlbear


Who do you suppose is paying for his campaign?



WE are! Willingly. Freely.

Oh, and he has NEVER asked us for more money. NEVER.


I respect you, always have, and I'll be the first to admit I'm not completely up to speed on all of Bernie's proposals. But I've heard a lot of big talk from him and I don't see how it's affordable with or without tax rate changes.



posted on Feb, 10 2016 @ 11:25 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t




Ok. so how do you propose the government recoop that lost tax money?


Same way it makes it now.

OTHER taxes.

The more money a person has the more they spend RIGHT ?

The entire ARGUMENT for robbing from the rich, and giving to the poor.

The difference being.

The STATE stop robbing EVERYONE via the income tax.



posted on Feb, 10 2016 @ 11:25 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: neo96

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: DBCowboy

Flat taxes penalize the poorer people more than the richer people. That is an aspect of percentages that I'm not sure you understand completely.


Why not abolish the income tax altother.

Would that be so bad?

People actually NOT working 6 months out a year to pay their 'tax' bill before they start working for themselves?

The income tax needs to go the way of the dodo.


Ok. so how do you propose the government recoop that lost tax money? Because you and I know DAMN well that the government isn't going to reduce spending if it loses tax income any.


Taxes on buying and selling stock. Taxes on luxury cars. Taxes on any purchase over $5000 other than the usual ones on home or vehicle. Taxes on top shelf booze. Taxes on nationally legalized marijuana. I could go on. But those wealthy enough to afford these things would be able to circumvent the system in their purchases just like they circumvent paying taxes...so yeah, other than going balls out Roosevelt, the über rich will never pay up.



posted on Feb, 10 2016 @ 11:27 AM
link   

originally posted by: Kitana
a reply to: Xeven

have fun watching all our job providers leave this nation, thus turning this nation into a third world country.


Which job providers again? The ones who have already shipped most manufacturing type jobs out of the country?

I've seen this kind of response several times in this thread, and other places. Seems to be the standard assumption that the top percent or so don't give a diddly damn about anybody but themselves, and will do anything to hold on to a bunch of money they can't spend anyway... ANYTHING but contribute to the country that provided the environment that helped them become wealthy in the first place (speaking of US-origin types).

The top economic class has made more than the bulk of the population pretty much forever. And that's OK... but they have taken it too far.

Analogy:
Let's say wine represents wealth. It's not a bad thing to be interested in wine, and have a glass of it now and then (barring religious objections, but this is an analogy). But the current crop of the top economic class, all they ever do, from the time they wake up until they go to sleep, is drink wine and obsess over storing wine and do everything they can to make sure that they and only they have enough wine. That ain't so good, culturally speaking.



posted on Feb, 10 2016 @ 11:28 AM
link   

originally posted by: Annee
What are you willing to give up to become wealthy?


Who said he wants to become wealthy?



posted on Feb, 10 2016 @ 11:32 AM
link   

originally posted by: Xeven
I mean it is silly to allow the wealthy to have so much while people working 8 hours a day cannot pay for shelter and food.
Who are these people? How in the world are they working 8 hours a day, but cant support themselves? Why are these people's bad choices in life the fault of people who made good choices?



posted on Feb, 10 2016 @ 11:32 AM
link   

originally posted by: Logarock
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

We who?


Count me in on that one!

I too, give freely to Bernie's campaign.



posted on Feb, 10 2016 @ 11:34 AM
link   

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic

originally posted by: Annee
What are you willing to give up to become wealthy?


Who said he wants to become wealthy?


No, No, No - - - I meant people who complain about the wealthy - - - don't realize what they would have to give up to accomplish that.

Its about the system - - - not individuals.

I'm a socialist at heart, actually. OK, a Globalist Socialist - - but, still a socialist.



posted on Feb, 10 2016 @ 11:34 AM
link   
a reply to: the owlbear




Taxes on buying and selling stock.


How about NO.

Why give the Government a sure thing when the investor doesn't ?

The state already makes a killing off the capitol gains tax.

Which they recently RAISED.

That wasn't enough they created the medicare capitol gains surtax because people weren't paying enough in to medicare.

That wasn't enough they created the alternative minimum tax. Even though people fall in to a specific tax bracket.

Left wingers like Sanders says oh hell no, and say I have to pay MORE.

I guess people learned nothing from the so called 'financial' crisis.

A tax on nothing is NOTHING.

Trillions wiped out in an instant.

PS thats more money out of the middle class's pocket via their 401ks,IRA's and pensions.

Increasing that 'wealth' gap.
edit on 10-2-2016 by neo96 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 10 2016 @ 11:34 AM
link   

originally posted by: Annee
What are you willing to give up to become wealthy?


I decided many years ago that the price of becoming wealthy in the US is too high. Exactly the things you mention, giving up time with family and what is important to me. Plus it seems to suck the soul out of people...

We do have to be careful here with generalizations... we are talking about "the wealthy" as if they are a monolithic block, like people talk about "black" or "latino". And while generalizations are useful shortcuts, we must retain the recognition that not all "wealthy" are part of the problem. But enough are that the generalization is close enough to use. With caution.



posted on Feb, 10 2016 @ 11:35 AM
link   

originally posted by: Xeven

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
I don't mind Social programs that give a hand to people struggling because their pay is below the poverty line or they are unemployed, but straight up redistributing wealth is a no go for me. People should always have the opportunity to succeed and get ahead. That is where innovation comes from.


I do not disagree, am just pointing out the obvious change that is happening. It IS happening weather capitalism is the best way forward or not, it is going to be modified by the people to more equitably distribute wealth.


Whats your plan if people take up arms to stop you? Will you be first through the door to forcibly take what another person has earned?



posted on Feb, 10 2016 @ 11:37 AM
link   

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: the owlbear

Sanders is a one percenter.



n August of 2015, Bernie Sanders reported net worth assets at a minimum of $187,026 and a max of $759,004.


moneynation.com...


Well, damn...the cutoff for 1%er in 2012 was earning $340,000/yr.
Thanks for that...

Of course, with everything he is saying it calls for higher taxes on himself, which he doesn't seem to be shying away from paying his share and asking others in positions much higher than his own to do the same.




top topics



 
19
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join