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.

 

SOCIALISM: The Federal Government needs a bailout

page: 1
1

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 11 2012 @ 12:33 PM
link   
Ok, first things first I do not make $250,000 a year or anything close so for those of you who are undoubtedly going to accuse me of being a lover if crony capitalism or corporatist America just go ahead and back off.

This thread of course is to discuss the extension of Bush tax cuts to all those who make less then $250,000 a year, which by the way democrats blocked. But the key to this issue is that Obama proposes that those making over $250,000 a year to be taxed to help pay off the national debt, which last time I checked, wasn't it like 15 trillion or some ridiculous number?

Ok, but making over $250,000 dollars a year does not mean you created the national debt. If the most successful people in America are taxed to pay off the national debt, wouldn't that essentially mean that they are to be expected to help prop up the labor unions who make unrealistic promises and wages which WERE a major contributor to the national debt. The failed bailouts which resulted in many of those receiving the bailout money FAILING AGAIN.

And now the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT NEEDS A BAILOUT. Go figure. So let's penalize the most successful Americans so that no one in America can be succesful. When the Federal Government owns everything and the countries industries are all essentially owned and operated by the Federal Government, isn't that by definition, Communism?

Is that our future America? Soon we can all work at sweat shops and make prison wages just like communist China.




posted on Jul, 11 2012 @ 12:44 PM
link   
The same old lets tax the wealthy cry. People who own corporations that pay virtually no taxes should be taxed the same as everyone else in this country. A flat tax should be established where everyone pays the same amount on all the money they make. These so called job creators who have been getting a tax cut and not creating jobs should be charged with fraud.

And if you knew anything about taxes of the past people paid as much as 80% in taxes and still became wealthy. So this if we tax people more no one will become wealthy is just a load of BS.
edit on 11-7-2012 by buster2010 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 11 2012 @ 12:47 PM
link   
Just as we should have allowed the banks that were to big to fail.. fail.. we should allow the federal government to fail.. No more bail outs on the backs of americans while these people make up 50 percent of americas millionares.

Every congressman and woman and those of the senate past and present should have all their moneys confiscated and put in jail and on trial.

Then we should tie the politicans yearly salary to the salary of teachers. That would make them work hard to get teachers paid more and things would balance a little better.



posted on Jul, 11 2012 @ 12:49 PM
link   
reply to post by buster2010
 


I agree there should be a tax that the wealthy pay. However making $250,000 does not qualify as being the creator of debt. Small business owners can make that money in a year. Essentially this would punish successful small business owners, but the middle class would still suffer the brunt, dividing into just two classes, the super wealthy and the poor, no more middle class.



posted on Jul, 11 2012 @ 12:51 PM
link   
For the majority of the time, people who earn that much money do so by using tax havens/avoiding tax in the first place, so i don't see how this could actualy work in practice.



posted on Jul, 11 2012 @ 12:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Doalrite
 


I agree, we should let them fail. And while were at it we can fire just about everyone in congress and let those members of congress who are cheating the American people while making record profits pay off the national debt. That and the failed policies that created this mess and accumulated wealth at the expense of taxpayers pay it off.



posted on Jul, 11 2012 @ 12:52 PM
link   
One standard question that always trips up Socialists:

What percent of your salary are you willing to give up?

Because it seems to me that if they expect the wealthy to give up 95% of their wealth and salary, then those people should have to give up the same 95% of theirs.

But they always balk at this and never give a direct answer.

Because it's all about taking the money away from the wealthy for themselves so they can have the power and nobody else have any power or rights of any sort.

That's what Socialism is truly about. Of course they'll deny and dismiss this, but in the end, it's all about controlling the money under the guise of the greater good for the people.

Anything else is a lie, and I certainly won't believe any other claims.



posted on Jul, 11 2012 @ 12:53 PM
link   
reply to post by Trolloks
 


Good point.




posted on Jul, 11 2012 @ 01:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by EvilSadamClone
One standard question that always trips up Socialists:

What percent of your salary are you willing to give up?



The problem with such a question is that the answer is highly dependent on the services provided. it's safe to assume that the more government services available that will benefit the individual, the more they will be willing to pay. Also, their ability to pay for services without those services being socialized will change how much they are willing to give up. So, more or less, the more they benefit, the greater they will be willing to give up.

So, if you ask a socialist how much they are willing to give up for huge bailouts to Wallstreet, not may would give up much. On the other hand, they may be willing to give up more for things such as universal health care, national mass transportation, and low cost continuing education if such services would improve their lives.

Of course this ignores the freeloaders which exist at all income levels, Those than want socialized services such as the military and police without paying taxes. They will throw off any results.



posted on Jul, 11 2012 @ 02:26 PM
link   
reply to post by Kaploink
 


Actually, no they wouldn't. At least every socialist I've ever asked. It's only for the wealthy to give up their properties and wealth for the greater good because somebody else deserves it more than they do.

After all, so the buzz words say, the rich contribute and produce nothing for society.

Nope, it's all about taking money away from people and punishing them just for being successful, more successful than other people.



posted on Jul, 11 2012 @ 05:35 PM
link   
really the simplist solution to the whole tax issue is a flat fair tax which can be raised in certain brackets but not have any loop holes or returns.

This would save money because the downsizing of the IRS.. take the money and go.. don't make me file all the crap each year. Take a certian percent and leave me the F alone and then they wouldn't be able to raise the taxes every year.

It would be so simple even the dumbest american could understand I pay 11 percent of my paycheck and thats that no matter what



posted on Jul, 11 2012 @ 06:02 PM
link   
reply to post by Doalrite
 


Both you and Mr. Clone forget to grasp is why the rate is a progressive rate to begin with. It isn't as simple as saying ok you make this and owe us this equally. Because the disparity in income has an effect itself. Which is why you have to apply relativity to the tax code. The guy making 25,000 a year is going to feel the pain of 2,500 more than the guy making 250,000 would losing 25,000. Yes on paper it looks fair even and square but in reality it isn't and would have an accumulative effect that actually slows the economy down.

Does the tax code need to be addressed and simplified? Certainly but flat and sales taxes are not the solution. As far as letting the above 250k/year bracket expire. I don't see why we shouldn't it isn't like the decade the reductions have been in place did anything to create an economic job making powerhouse. Throughout Bush's term the economy was slow, anemic and entirely dependent on housing sales to keep it moving.



posted on Jul, 11 2012 @ 06:05 PM
link   
reply to post by thehoneycomb
 


No actually that would be fascism.



posted on Jul, 11 2012 @ 06:12 PM
link   
Reply to post by thehoneycomb
 


Im sorry this post seems to be all over the place. How do we get from we have a national debt....to it labor unions fault we have that debt......to america needs a bailout from people who earn over 250,000? This has to be a troll thread.


 
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
 



posted on Jul, 11 2012 @ 06:24 PM
link   
Tax the Friggin Planet!! I frankly have grown weary of our Foreign policy post WW-2 !
Nation building, planetary law enforcement, blowin stuff up just so we can rebuild it, Building schools, roads, Billion dollar embassys all over the planet, while our infrastructure rots into the ground, and manufacturing happens seemingly everywhere except here at home. Democrats love pushing and enabling Socialism here at home, but both parties support planetary Socialism as outlined above.

Jeezus pleezus we really are pathetic at Empire! At least prior Empires demanded tribute from the nations they conquered, what do we do? We tax the hell out of our people to pay for our adventures all over the Planet!


So for gods sake, lets tax the god damn planet, and give our citizens a break!!!




top topics



 
1

log in

join