Discussion Forums > Politics
Democrats want to separate the rich, from the very rich.
vicious796:
--- Quote from: kyanwan on July 22, 2009, 07:24:00 PM ---
--- Quote from: vicious796 on July 22, 2009, 02:24:08 PM ---No, it's gay to compare standards of living as a whole from a country/countries with populations less than that of one of our major cities.
--- End quote ---
QFT.
--- End quote ---
But, no matter how many times you or I state this, it's always disregarded by those in lower population countries. I'm waiting for Ace to pop up and give us a catchy phrase like "That's my momma!"
mrjpark:
Word. No matter what, the bottom stays poor and the top will stay rich. And honestly, taxing the rich more won't "squeeze" them. They're already earning hundreds of thousands of dollars a year at the very minimum. If they complain that we take a bit more to help out our country in need, they can go fuck themselves. The reason it's come to this is that their "reinvesting into the economy" hasn't been working because honestly, they're human beings. A CEO, before being a dedicated American citizen, is a CEO. His premiere interest is to make money. Sometimes this leads to good things, sometimes not. Throughout history, we can see that most CEO's will do what's necessary to make more money even if it hurts the American economy. So even if we're letting them keep this money instead of taxing them heavier in hopes that they'll use it wiser, chances are it's not going to happen.
"Even if they only care about themselves, it would tarnish their reputation and potentially exorcise them from the workforce if they were to destroy the lives of thousands of Americans by making a wrong move."
Unfortunately, like I've already said, tarnishing their reputation isn't really an issue. You have to do what you have to do. America's not kind to businesses in this sense and countless jobs that Americans could have are lost to outsourcing and/or cheaper labor. Does this make the CEO a demon? No, he's just doing what's best for his company. If I remember correctly, it's been like a year or two since Levis, the American brand, finally closed down their last plant in America in order to find cheaper labor elsewhere in the world.
I'm not completely disagreeing with your post. I find the trickle-down theory to be kind of like Communism; it would work in an ideal situation/nation, but in the end it's an idealist theory that will never work due to human nature. In most cases, more money kept means higher bonuses for the board. Hell, look at what happened to the tax payers' money with AIG. Even if they do try to reinvest into their own company, the choices that these men make don't really trickle down because majority of their workers don't even live in America (at least for the major corporations) or they just can't afford to keep the workforce that existed in the 90's (like Intel). Intel is one of the better companies, though, in this sense. They are trying, at the very least, to hire as many Americans as possible and are spending their money in upgrading their American facilities.
Either way, this direct tax on the rich will be much more effective and greatly increase tax revenue. Maybe I'm too cynical, but the less money we "give" them to misuse, the happier I am. If they earn that money, it's all theirs, but in a case like this where we forgo taxing them in hopes that they'll try to help us back, I lack the faith. In short - I like this tax.
mgz:
--- Quote from: mrjpark on July 24, 2009, 04:59:37 AM ---Word. No matter what, the bottom stays poor and the top will stay rich. And honestly, taxing the rich more won't "squeeze" them. They're already earning hundreds of thousands of dollars a year at the very minimum. If they complain that we take a bit more to help out our country in need, they can go fuck themselves. The reason it's come to this is that their "reinvesting into the economy" hasn't been working because honestly, they're human beings. A CEO, before being a dedicated American citizen, is a CEO. His premiere interest is to make money. Sometimes this leads to good things, sometimes not. Throughout history, we can see that most CEO's will do what's necessary to make more money even if it hurts the American economy. So even if we're letting them keep this money instead of taxing them heavier in hopes that they'll use it wiser, chances are it's not going to happen.
"Even if they only care about themselves, it would tarnish their reputation and potentially exorcise them from the workforce if they were to destroy the lives of thousands of Americans by making a wrong move."
Unfortunately, like I've already said, tarnishing their reputation isn't really an issue. You have to do what you have to do. America's not kind to businesses in this sense and countless jobs that Americans could have are lost to outsourcing and/or cheaper labor. Does this make the CEO a demon? No, he's just doing what's best for his company. If I remember correctly, it's been like a year or two since Levis, the American brand, finally closed down their last plant in America in order to find cheaper labor elsewhere in the world.
I'm not completely disagreeing with your post. I find the trickle-down theory to be kind of like Communism; it would work in an ideal situation/nation, but in the end it's an idealist theory that will never work due to human nature. In most cases, more money kept means higher bonuses for the board. Hell, look at what happened to the tax payers' money with AIG. Even if they do try to reinvest into their own company, the choices that these men make don't really trickle down because majority of their workers don't even live in America (at least for the major corporations) or they just can't afford to keep the workforce that existed in the 90's (like Intel). Intel is one of the better companies, though, in this sense. They are trying, at the very least, to hire as many Americans as possible and are spending their money in upgrading their American facilities.
Either way, this direct tax on the rich will be much more effective and greatly increase tax revenue. Maybe I'm too cynical, but the less money we "give" them to misuse, the happier I am. If they earn that money, it's all theirs, but in a case like this where we forgo taxing them in hopes that they'll try to help us back, I lack the faith. In short - I like this tax.
--- End quote ---
the biggest argument for massive taxing of the right =if i make 80k a year and get taxed 245k a year and get taxed 40% but make 275k a year and get taxed 50% i now make less money then i did when i was making 30k less. If you tax the wealthy to much then people stop trying to become wealthy since there is little gain. Its easier to be upper middle class then rich if you tax the wealthy to much.
sdedalus83:
Aside from a handful of high profile exceptions, anyone who cannot maintain a lifestyle indicative of affluence without earning a salary is inherently not a member of the upper class.
By restricting the tax to only a few percent, they hope to avoid driving even more exectives away from direct compensation; however, there has never been a better time to accept stock in lieu of pay.
The potential revenue was never all that great, but should it act as the catalyst for an exodus toward stock as compensation, it will be disastrous as those multimillion dollar salaried execs won't just be avoiding the new tax, they'll bypass all income tax.
vicious796:
--- Quote from: sdedalus83 on July 24, 2009, 02:23:52 PM ---however, there has never been a better time to accept stock in lieu of pay.
--- End quote ---
Tell me, Vegeta, where did the Dow Jones close at yesterday?
Thank you, Vegeta.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version