|
Post by paulus on Jul 10, 2019 9:24:27 GMT -5
Please tell me how he has acted as a dictator? I'll step in while Warwick Todd prepares for the drubbing the English cricket team will dish out tomorrow Just a few indicators... Nepotism - Trump has filled many top posts and key advisory positions with completely unqualified family members & friends. Intolerance to Dissent - Trump has pretty much abolished White House press briefings. He's revoked access to media outlets that are critical of him and his policies. Labelled journalists the enemy of the people, incited and praised violence against them. Threatens to jail political opposition. Openly joked with despots from other countries that the free press should be got rid of. Self Interest - many of the economic policies enacted by Trump with regard to tax law benefit him personally. Forcing foreign leaders to meet at his properties. Many of those foreign dignitaries and lobbyists stay at Trump hotels to curry favour. His golfing holidays alone have cost the US taxpayer a hundred million. Executive Control - Trump's rate of Executive Orders exceeds any other President. Falsely invoking a state of emergency in attempt to get funds for his political goals. Resistance to Oversight His efforts to frustrate and subvert the Mueller probe are well documented. Instructed top aides to ignore congressional subpoenas. Refused to release tax returns. Filed lawsuits against the committee chairman in attempt to block the release of financial records. Divide & Rule - Trump has consistently made scapegoats of immigrants + foreign nationals when discussing America's problems. Displays of Military Power - when was the last time you had an ostentatious military parade for 4th of July? I suspect I've missed some real obvious ones....
|
|
|
Post by TarheelGolfer on Jul 10, 2019 9:50:19 GMT -5
Considering Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden "leftists" is flat-out wrong. They are not. These are pro-corporation centrists. They're generally conservative on economic issues and generally liberal on social issues. Progressives like Bernie Sanders, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Ilhan Omar and Rashida Tlaib are, in fact, leftists. They are liberal economically and socially. They still aren't so far left that they're pushing for outright socialism. They are pushing for the government to subsidize the gaps between the rich and the poor. They are pushing for policy that forcefully redistributes wealth towards the consumers and working class (and small business owners too!), fully understanding that some people will still be rich. They just will have to work a little harder, and be granted fewer inheritances. I still don't understand what principles or misinformation you need to hold in order to not want this - to not want as many people as possible to be a part of this. People - Americans in particular - draw this false equivocation between hard work and earnings/wealth. But there is almost no connection. You cannot, in all seriousness, argue that someone like Paris Hilton or Nicole Ritchie - people who inherited enormous wealth - work harder than I do. No, they were afforded a great opportunity by virtue of who their parents are. They could take business risk with impunity because of their massive wealth that they did not earn themselves. Most people are barely scraping by, living paycheck-to-paycheck. There's no cushion. There's enormous risk in starting a business. These people almost have to work for someone else. As economist Richard Wolff explains, if you are working for someone else, you are necessarily paid less than the value of what you produce. So the system, as a matter of course, collects money at the top. The farther up towards the top you are, the more you're reaping rewards quasi-willingly forfeited by those beneath you. And that is why increased marginal tax - and not a flat tax rate - is the fairest method of taxation. You are correct about Clinton and Biden. I don't consider them leftist at all. I am not arguing that Hilton or Ritchie work harder than you do. That doesn't mean their parents didn't (or their parents). I will answer your question if you answer mine. What is the principle or misinformation you have that says you should take taxes (I am assuming this is how we are going to redistribute their wealth) out of a dollar twice? It is where you are placing the blame. Like the rich are to blame for ALL the ills of people living paycheck - paycheck. I just read this: www.cnbc.com/2017/08/24/most-americans-live-paycheck-to-paycheck.html . The last paragraph is what disturbs me a bit. I make far less than that as a household. Own a house (my only true debt) and still am able to tuck away money for retirement. Now granted I have no kids (which is a factor, but I also don't participate in the "benefits" as well). So there is where I struggle. Even those making over six figures said they struggle to make ends meet, the report said. Nearly 1 in 10 of those making $100,000 or more said they usually or always live paycheck to paycheck, and 59 percent of those in that salary range said they were in the red. There is nothing quasi-willingly it is willingly. I can go with pseudo contract. If you want to argue the value of the worker is more important than the CEO than fine. I don't necessarily agree with that statement for various reasons and I also think in some instances things are overpaid. But, I am not willing to go and "flip the script" so to speak. Lastly, I think you make my objections clear. You said "forcefully redistributes wealth towards". I don't believe in double taxation of the same dollar. It is one reason why I have a hard time with dividends being taxed? Those dividend dollars are taxed at the corporate level and at the shareholder level. So effectively lets say right now it is short term capital gains, $1 of dividends is taxed @ 21% (Corporate Tax) and another $1 of dividends is taxed at (20%). So the government takes (41%) of that same dollar. Is that high enough for you? I do think that your version of fair regarding marginal and flat is reflected on how you view the extra dollar earned in wages? I do think that flat is more fair because for every dollar earned a certain percentage would come out. Also, would you agree that for every Paris Hilton out there, there is also a Joe Schmoo that takes advantage of the government?
|
|
|
Post by LKeet6 on Jul 10, 2019 10:05:22 GMT -5
Please tell me how he has acted as a dictator? I'll step in while Warwick Todd prepares for the drubbing the English cricket team will dish out tomorrow Just a few indicators... Nepotism - Trump has filled many top posts and key advisory positions with completely unqualified family members & friends. Intolerance to Dissent - Trump has pretty much abolished White House press briefings. He's revoked access to media outlets that are critical of him and his policies. Labelled journalists the enemy of the people, incited and praised violence against them. Threatens to jail political opposition. Openly joked with despots from other countries that the free press should be got rid of. Self Interest - many of the economic policies enacted by Trump with regard to tax law benefit him personally. Forcing foreign leaders to meet at his properties. Many of those foreign dignitaries and lobbyists stay at Trump hotels to curry favour. His golfing holidays alone have cost the US taxpayer a hundred million. Executive Control - Trump's rate of Executive Orders exceeds any other President. Falsely invoking a state of emergency in attempt to get funds for his political goals. Resistance to Oversight His efforts to frustrate and subvert the Mueller probe are well documented. Instructed top aides to ignore congressional subpoenas. Refused to release tax returns. Filed lawsuits against the committee chairman in attempt to block the release of financial records. Divide & Rule - Trump has consistently made scapegoats of immigrants + foreign nationals when discussing America's problems. Displays of Military Power - when was the last time you had an ostentatious military parade for 4th of July? I suspect I've missed some real obvious ones.... Pretty comprehensive...
|
|
|
Post by TarheelGolfer on Jul 10, 2019 10:19:30 GMT -5
Please tell me how he has acted as a dictator? I'll step in while Warwick Todd prepares for the drubbing the English cricket team will dish out tomorrow Just a few indicators... Nepotism - Trump has filled many top posts and key advisory positions with completely unqualified family members & friends. Intolerance to Dissent - Trump has pretty much abolished White House press briefings. He's revoked access to media outlets that are critical of him and his policies. Labelled journalists the enemy of the people, incited and praised violence against them. Threatens to jail political opposition. Openly joked with despots from other countries that the free press should be got rid of. Self Interest - many of the economic policies enacted by Trump with regard to tax law benefit him personally. Forcing foreign leaders to meet at his properties. Many of those foreign dignitaries and lobbyists stay at Trump hotels to curry favour. His golfing holidays alone have cost the US taxpayer a hundred million. Executive Control - Trump's rate of Executive Orders exceeds any other President. Falsely invoking a state of emergency in attempt to get funds for his political goals. Resistance to Oversight His efforts to frustrate and subvert the Mueller probe are well documented. Instructed top aides to ignore congressional subpoenas. Refused to release tax returns. Filed lawsuits against the committee chairman in attempt to block the release of financial records. Divide & Rule - Trump has consistently made scapegoats of immigrants + foreign nationals when discussing America's problems. Displays of Military Power - when was the last time you had an ostentatious military parade for 4th of July? I suspect I've missed some real obvious ones.... Nepotism - Hmm while I can agree with you on this one to a certain extent. Does that make him a dictatorship? Intolarance to Dissent - He revoked Acosta right. Who if you want to be honest was grandstanding and continues to do so. Where has he threatened to jail political opposition? Self Interest - He didn't create the Tax Relief. He was one small cog. Now do I think he objected to it no. I didn't either? That doesn't make me a dictator now does it? Executive Control - Flat out wrong - I know it is wikipedia but it seems to jive - en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_federal_executive_orders. Wait but is it a crisis now? The wall is one of his campaign promises. You can be against it but it isn't dictatorship qualities. Legally Done. Now we can agree that most executive orders are a bunch of horsecrap. Especially, ones where laws are made. But some of these executive orders are powers defacto granted to the position of the United States. DACA isn't one of them. Resistance to Oversight - When is releasing tax returns: 1) a dictatorship property 2) even a requirement here in the US. What you should be concerned (although you aren't a US citizen) is that the house wants to subpoena the tax returns directly from the IRS. You talk about opening up flood gates. Mueller report. We have a thing here that we don't have to make it easy for the prosecution. I will assume you have that over there as well? Divide & Rule - Scapegoats is a broad word. Some of the stuff in the beginning is cringe worthy. I have said that before. Do I think it is dictatorship? No. I do wish he would just keep his mouth shut. IMO, Democrats have done more to divide this country over the last 20 years or so then before. It is called identity politics. This is what is going to get Trump elected. For better or worse this is it. Plus the economy. Displays of Military Power - Good Lord. You hanging your hat on that one. Don't the French do that every Bastille Day? If you want to say Trump has an ego problem then fine. It was one of the traits I contemplated on election day. But to say this administration is a dictatorship doesn't make any sense to me.
|
|
|
Post by gregfordyce on Jul 10, 2019 10:19:51 GMT -5
Please tell me how he has acted as a dictator? I'll step in while Warwick Todd prepares for the drubbing the English cricket team will dish out tomorrow Just a few indicators... Nepotism - Trump has filled many top posts and key advisory positions with completely unqualified family members & friends. Intolerance to Dissent - Trump has pretty much abolished White House press briefings. He's revoked access to media outlets that are critical of him and his policies. Labelled journalists the enemy of the people, incited and praised violence against them. Threatens to jail political opposition. Openly joked with despots from other countries that the free press should be got rid of. Self Interest - many of the economic policies enacted by Trump with regard to tax law benefit him personally. Forcing foreign leaders to meet at his properties. Many of those foreign dignitaries and lobbyists stay at Trump hotels to curry favour. His golfing holidays alone have cost the US taxpayer a hundred million. Executive Control - Trump's rate of Executive Orders exceeds any other President. Falsely invoking a state of emergency in attempt to get funds for his political goals. Resistance to Oversight His efforts to frustrate and subvert the Mueller probe are well documented. Instructed top aides to ignore congressional subpoenas. Refused to release tax returns. Filed lawsuits against the committee chairman in attempt to block the release of financial records. Divide & Rule - Trump has consistently made scapegoats of immigrants + foreign nationals when discussing America's problems. Displays of Military Power - when was the last time you had an ostentatious military parade for 4th of July? I suspect I've missed some real obvious ones.... Very good list. Don't forget.. Inciting his followers to violence against his opponents - during his rallies he did/does this frequently. Everyone recalls how he offered to pay the legal bills of any of his followers for beating up his opponents or dissenters. He still does it today - recall a couple of months ago how in an interview he said he has the "police and the military on his side," and hinted not-so-subtlely that they would not "play nice" much longer. His refusal to condemn the right-wing terrorist who was arrested for threatening to kill a long list in his possession of Democrat politicians, celebrities, and other of Trump's opponents. I.e., tacit approval and encouragement.
|
|
|
Post by gregfordyce on Jul 10, 2019 10:31:45 GMT -5
Right-wingers are by their very nature authoritarians (They all score very high on the RWA Scale). What most non-RWA's consider shocking and authoritarian - like Trump's behavior - is a big shrug to right-wingers. They just don't see it. CAN'T see it, because by their very nature they approve of such behavior, and consider it quite acceptable (unless done by a Democrat, of course).
|
|
|
Post by TarheelGolfer on Jul 10, 2019 10:36:21 GMT -5
I'll step in while Warwick Todd prepares for the drubbing the English cricket team will dish out tomorrow Just a few indicators... Nepotism - Trump has filled many top posts and key advisory positions with completely unqualified family members & friends. Intolerance to Dissent - Trump has pretty much abolished White House press briefings. He's revoked access to media outlets that are critical of him and his policies. Labelled journalists the enemy of the people, incited and praised violence against them. Threatens to jail political opposition. Openly joked with despots from other countries that the free press should be got rid of. Self Interest - many of the economic policies enacted by Trump with regard to tax law benefit him personally. Forcing foreign leaders to meet at his properties. Many of those foreign dignitaries and lobbyists stay at Trump hotels to curry favour. His golfing holidays alone have cost the US taxpayer a hundred million. Executive Control - Trump's rate of Executive Orders exceeds any other President. Falsely invoking a state of emergency in attempt to get funds for his political goals. Resistance to Oversight His efforts to frustrate and subvert the Mueller probe are well documented. Instructed top aides to ignore congressional subpoenas. Refused to release tax returns. Filed lawsuits against the committee chairman in attempt to block the release of financial records. Divide & Rule - Trump has consistently made scapegoats of immigrants + foreign nationals when discussing America's problems. Displays of Military Power - when was the last time you had an ostentatious military parade for 4th of July? I suspect I've missed some real obvious ones.... Very good list. Don't forget.. Inciting his followers to violence against his opponents - during his rallies he did/does this frequently. Everyone recalls how he offered to pay the legal bills of any of his followers for beating up his opponents or dissenters. He still does it today - recall a couple of months ago how in an interview he said he has the "police and the military on his side," and hinted not-so-subtlely that they would not "play nice" much longer. His refusal to condemn the right-wing terrorist who was arrested for threatening to kill a long list in his possession of Democrat politicians, celebrities, and other of Trump's opponents. I.e., tacit approval and encouragement. you mean this quote ""If you see somebody getting ready to throw a tomato, knock the crap out of them, would you? Seriously, OK? Just knock the hell ... I promise you I will pay for the legal fees. I promise, I promise," A little strong for me but I guess the guy throwing the tomato has justification. I have also seen much much worse said. And here is the full quote: “So here’s the thing—it’s so terrible what’s happening,” Trump said when asked by Breitbart News Washington Political Editor Matthew Boyle about how the left is fighting hard. “You know, the left plays a tougher game, it’s very funny. I actually think that the people on the right are tougher, but they don’t play it tougher. Okay? I can tell you I have the support of the police, the support of the military, the support of the Bikers for Trump – I have the tough people, but they don’t play it tough — until they go to a certain point, and then it would be very bad, very bad. But the left plays it cuter and tougher. Like with all the nonsense that they do in Congress … with all this invest[igations]—that’s all they want to do is –you know, they do things that are nasty. Republicans never played this.” So you left at the Bikers for Trump . But where in there is that an incitement to violence? As far as Charlottesville. Yes he did condemn them a little too late for my taste. I have to admit that I am a little unfamiliar with your last one. If you would be so kind to show me a link so I can read it that would be great? But initially tacit approval seems like an overreach.
|
|
|
Post by TarheelGolfer on Jul 10, 2019 10:41:02 GMT -5
Right-wingers are by their very nature authoritarians (They all score very high on the RWA Scale). What most non-RWA's consider shocking and authoritarian - like Trump's behavior - is a big shrug to right-wingers. They just don't see it. CAN'T see it, because by their very nature they approve of such behavior, and consider it quite acceptable (unless done by a Democrat, of course). Hmm so all Democrats are altruistic? Approval of behavior and thinking the world is going to end and a dictatorship are two totally different things. I also think you equate all right-wingers as what is called alt-right? Or do you think all people who lean to the right have this same feelings?
|
|
|
Post by LKeet6 on Jul 10, 2019 10:48:28 GMT -5
Right-wingers are by their very nature authoritarians (They all score very high on the RWA Scale). What most non-RWA's consider shocking and authoritarian - like Trump's behavior - is a big shrug to right-wingers. They just don't see it. CAN'T see it, because by their very nature they approve of such behavior, and consider it quite acceptable (unless done by a Democrat, of course). Hmm so all Democrats are altruistic? Approval of behavior and thinking the world is going to end and a dictatorship are two totally different things. I also think you equate all right-wingers as what is called alt-right? Or do you think all people who lean to the right have this same feelings? You've accused me, and others, of being very "victimy" quite a few times in this thread, and yet you constantly seem to take these debates very personally. I said I didn't see you as authoritarian, you just ignored that. All during this debate about what right wing means, YOU personally weren't called anything?! Neither was it said ALL right wingers fall under EXACTLY the same definitions. I made the point right wingers in this thread have been "pro" (or not "against") homosexuality and drug taking. But you ignored that too. It's also CLEARLY been said all democrats are NOT the same. So, er, stop playing the victim
|
|
|
Post by gregfordyce on Jul 10, 2019 10:55:55 GMT -5
Very good list. Don't forget.. Inciting his followers to violence against his opponents - during his rallies he did/does this frequently. Everyone recalls how he offered to pay the legal bills of any of his followers for beating up his opponents or dissenters. He still does it today - recall a couple of months ago how in an interview he said he has the "police and the military on his side," and hinted not-so-subtlely that they would not "play nice" much longer. His refusal to condemn the right-wing terrorist who was arrested for threatening to kill a long list in his possession of Democrat politicians, celebrities, and other of Trump's opponents. I.e., tacit approval and encouragement. you mean this quote ""If you see somebody getting ready to throw a tomato, knock the crap out of them, would you? Seriously, OK? Just knock the hell ... I promise you I will pay for the legal fees. I promise, I promise," A little strong for me but I guess the guy throwing the tomato has justification. I have also seen much much worse said. And here is the full quote: “So here’s the thing—it’s so terrible what’s happening,” Trump said when asked by Breitbart News Washington Political Editor Matthew Boyle about how the left is fighting hard. “You know, the left plays a tougher game, it’s very funny. I actually think that the people on the right are tougher, but they don’t play it tougher. Okay? I can tell you I have the support of the police, the support of the military, the support of the Bikers for Trump – I have the tough people, but they don’t play it tough — until they go to a certain point, and then it would be very bad, very bad. But the left plays it cuter and tougher. Like with all the nonsense that they do in Congress … with all this invest[igations]—that’s all they want to do is –you know, they do things that are nasty. Republicans never played this.” So you left at the Bikers for Trump . But where in there is that an incitement to violence? As far as Charlottesville. Yes he did condemn them a little too late for my taste. I have to admit that I am a little unfamiliar with your last one. If you would be so kind to show me a link so I can read it that would be great? But initially tacit approval seems like an overreach. Oh for God's sake. You're being selective. There are tons of quotes out there by the Fuhrer espousing violence, and being blatant about it. His vulgarity and thugishness are legendary. You want to start a quotation battle, there are a million of them out there I could find and list to prove the point that he is a thug and a dictator-wanna-be and if not constrained (such as he is) by the failing guardrails still in effect in this failing pseudo-democracy he would be an all-out totalitarian despot, if left to his own vile nature. But I'm not going to bother - I know how every argument against right-wingers goes. You must score a perfect 100 on the RWA scale. And while I respect your right to express your viewpoints - and I'm assuming you respect mine - I'm not going to waste my time. As if you will suddenly "see the light" about your Dear Leader. Or as if you will suddenly convince me that he isn't a moronic half-wit vulgar fascist with the intelligence and temperament of a coffee-table. It is an exercise in futility.
|
|
|
Post by ErixonStone on Jul 10, 2019 10:56:16 GMT -5
I am not arguing that Hilton or Ritchie work harder than you do. That doesn't mean their parents didn't (or their parents). I am certain that their ancestors did not work 1,000 times harder than my ancestors. That's the point. There is a very low limit to the influence that hard work has on one's success. It's not nothing, but it certainly isn't the driving factor. Opportunity is the driving factor. Let's face it, heiresses have way more opportunity than most people. Most people have very little. People with big ideas are stifled because they lack the capital or luck to create opportunity. I will answer your question if you answer mine. What is the principle or misinformation you have that says you should take taxes (I am assuming this is how we are going to redistribute their wealth) out of a dollar twice? Dollars are not taxed. Entities are taxed based on their income. The principle guiding my thinking is this: I recognize that wealth accumulates exponentially, not linearly. That means that people who have more will earn more and should contribute more (higher percentage). Government has a responsibility to foster the best community possible, and the best community possible is one where all members can participate. Therefore, the government should be active in helping the people who need it the most, whether they, subjectively "deserve it" or not. Jeff Bezos has so much excess money that he's sending rockets into space because he can't think of anything else to do with his money. I have an idea. How about Amazon pay its fulfillment center employees more? How about Amazon hire more of them so they don't have to avoid bathroom breaks to keep their "rating" above the 25th percentile? They made $40,000,000,000 in profit in 2018. How about they give some of that to the people who were actually responsible for it? It is where you are placing the blame. Like the rich are to blame for ALL the ills of people living paycheck - paycheck. I just read this: www.cnbc.com/2017/08/24/most-americans-live-paycheck-to-paycheck.html . The last paragraph is what disturbs me a bit. I make far less than that as a household. Own a house (my only true debt) and still am able to tuck away money for retirement. Now granted I have no kids (which is a factor, but I also don't participate in the "benefits" as well). So there is where I struggle. Even those making over six figures said they struggle to make ends meet, the report said. Nearly 1 in 10 of those making $100,000 or more said they usually or always live paycheck to paycheck, and 59 percent of those in that salary range said they were in the red. People are struggling with mountains of debt. They've got bills that were unexpected. Maybe they were injured. Maybe they were laid off. Maybe they just survived during those times by accumulating debt. Somehow, we just assume that people are irresponsible, but that isn't generally the case. There is nothing quasi-willingly it is willingly. I can go with pseudo contract. If you want to argue the value of the worker is more important than the CEO than fine. I don't necessarily agree with that statement for various reasons and I also think in some instances things are overpaid. But, I am not willing to go and "flip the script" so to speak. When given the choice between working a job where you contribute more value than you are paid, and not being able to eat or have a place to live, that isn't really doing something completely willingly. Yes, I am willing to work for someone because I cannot afford not to. I would, however, prefer to do something else with my life and open my own business, but the risk of failing is much too great. So I am quasi-willingly reporting to work every day, spending an hour with my family at night before it's bedtime. It's not that I think CEOs don't work hard or sacrifice a lot of themselves. It's not like I think a CEO shouldn't be compensated for that. But an average CEO made 183 times what I make. Do you think making my yearly salary in 2 days is commensurate with being a CEO? I do not. Lastly, I think you make my objections clear. You said "forcefully redistributes wealth towards". I don't believe in double taxation of the same dollar. It is one reason why I have a hard time with dividends being taxed? Those dividend dollars are taxed at the corporate level and at the shareholder level. So effectively lets say right now it is short term capital gains, $1 of dividends is taxed @ 21% (Corporate Tax) and another $1 of dividends is taxed at (20%). So the government takes (41%) of that same dollar. Is that high enough for you? It depends on how much you earn. If you earned $10,000,000, then no, I don't. If you earned $100,000, then I think that's fine. Entities are taxed, not dollars. A corporation is an entity. You are a separate entity. A dividend is basically money you "earn" for doing nothing but having excess money. I do think that your version of fair regarding marginal and flat is reflected on how you view the extra dollar earned in wages? I do think that flat is more fair because for every dollar earned a certain percentage would come out. I disagree. Entities are taxed, not dollars. As entities earn more, their responsibility to society - without which they could not operate - increases exponentially, the same way their earnings increase exponentially. Also, would you agree that for every Paris Hilton out there, there is also a Joe Schmoo that takes advantage of the government? I would not agree. I think there are way more privileged people who inherit lots of wealth than people who are both poor and taking advantage. Most people getting government assistance are in need and have legitimate reasons for needing help. Furthermore, determining who deserves help is quite subjective, and society would be much better off if everyone just got the help they need, even if they "didn't deserve it."
|
|
|
Post by TarheelGolfer on Jul 10, 2019 11:05:37 GMT -5
Hmm so all Democrats are altruistic? Approval of behavior and thinking the world is going to end and a dictatorship are two totally different things. I also think you equate all right-wingers as what is called alt-right? Or do you think all people who lean to the right have this same feelings? You've accused me, and others, of being very "victimy" quite a few times in this thread, and yet you constantly seem to take these debates very personally. I said I didn't see you as authoritarian, you just ignored that. All during this debate about what right wing means, YOU personally weren't called anything?! Neither was it said ALL right wingers fall under EXACTLY the same definitions. I made the point right wingers in this thread have been "pro" (or not "against") homosexuality and drug taking. But you ignored that too. It's also CLEARLY been said all democrats are NOT the same. So, er, stop playing the victim I don't understand how you made this leap? Yes you might have said those things. Are you upset that I didn't acknowledge it? Well here is your acknowledgement. So now what does this have to do with this post? First off Am I not allowed to defend myself? Or is that victimhood? Second, I was asking questions in this post? Do you just hate me? Do you just want me to go away to have your own echo chamber? I don't get your response to what we are talking about. The points I have been making is in response to Trump's administration is a dictatorship? Do I just go back to my little hole and let stuff like this go unchallenged? If that is what people want here is a "safe space" then fine. You do realize that I have been wrong on several occasions in here and have admitted so when presented with facts. The fact you made this about you does show me that you have the same tendencies that Trump does. How is that for drawing some conclusions. And yes you can't challenge me on that fact because I will say that you are playing the victim card. Geesh.
|
|
|
Post by TarheelGolfer on Jul 10, 2019 11:06:58 GMT -5
So I guess it is time for me to head out of here again since I have been put in my place.
Keep up your echo chamber.
|
|
|
Post by gregfordyce on Jul 10, 2019 11:08:57 GMT -5
I am not arguing that Hilton or Ritchie work harder than you do. That doesn't mean their parents didn't (or their parents). I am certain that their ancestors did not work 1,000 times harder than my ancestors. That's the point. There is a very low limit to the influence that hard work has on one's success. It's not nothing, but it certainly isn't the driving factor. Opportunity is the driving factor. Let's face it, heiresses have way more opportunity than most people. Most people have very little. People with big ideas are stifled because they lack the capital or luck to create opportunity. I will answer your question if you answer mine. What is the principle or misinformation you have that says you should take taxes (I am assuming this is how we are going to redistribute their wealth) out of a dollar twice? Dollars are not taxed. Entities are taxed based on their income. The principle guiding my thinking is this: I recognize that wealth accumulates exponentially, not linearly. That means that people who have more will earn more and should contribute more (higher percentage). Government has a responsibility to foster the best community possible, and the best community possible is one where all members can participate. Therefore, the government should be active in helping the people who need it the most, whether they, subjectively "deserve it" or not. Jeff Bezos has so much excess money that he's sending rockets into space because he can't think of anything else to do with his money. I have an idea. How about Amazon pay its fulfillment center employees more? How about Amazon hire more of them so they don't have to avoid bathroom breaks to keep their "rating" above the 25th percentile? They made $40,000,000,000 in profit in 2018. How about they give some of that to the people who were actually responsible for it? It is where you are placing the blame. Like the rich are to blame for ALL the ills of people living paycheck - paycheck. I just read this: www.cnbc.com/2017/08/24/most-americans-live-paycheck-to-paycheck.html . The last paragraph is what disturbs me a bit. I make far less than that as a household. Own a house (my only true debt) and still am able to tuck away money for retirement. Now granted I have no kids (which is a factor, but I also don't participate in the "benefits" as well). So there is where I struggle. Even those making over six figures said they struggle to make ends meet, the report said. Nearly 1 in 10 of those making $100,000 or more said they usually or always live paycheck to paycheck, and 59 percent of those in that salary range said they were in the red. People are struggling with mountains of debt. They've got bills that were unexpected. Maybe they were injured. Maybe they were laid off. Maybe they just survived during those times by accumulating debt. Somehow, we just assume that people are irresponsible, but that isn't generally the case. There is nothing quasi-willingly it is willingly. I can go with pseudo contract. If you want to argue the value of the worker is more important than the CEO than fine. I don't necessarily agree with that statement for various reasons and I also think in some instances things are overpaid. But, I am not willing to go and "flip the script" so to speak. When given the choice between working a job where you contribute more value than you are paid, and not being able to eat or have a place to live, that isn't really doing something completely willingly. Yes, I am willing to work for someone because I cannot afford not to. I would, however, prefer to do something else with my life and open my own business, but the risk of failing is much too great. So I am quasi-willingly reporting to work every day, spending an hour with my family at night before it's bedtime. It's not that I think CEOs don't work hard or sacrifice a lot of themselves. It's not like I think a CEO shouldn't be compensated for that. But an average CEO made 183 times what I make. Do you think making my yearly salary in 2 days is commensurate with being a CEO? I do not. Lastly, I think you make my objections clear. You said "forcefully redistributes wealth towards". I don't believe in double taxation of the same dollar. It is one reason why I have a hard time with dividends being taxed? Those dividend dollars are taxed at the corporate level and at the shareholder level. So effectively lets say right now it is short term capital gains, $1 of dividends is taxed @ 21% (Corporate Tax) and another $1 of dividends is taxed at (20%). So the government takes (41%) of that same dollar. Is that high enough for you? It depends on how much you earn. If you earned $10,000,000, then no, I don't. If you earned $100,000, then I think that's fine. Entities are taxed, not dollars. A corporation is an entity. You are a separate entity. A dividend is basically money you "earn" for doing nothing but having excess money. I do think that your version of fair regarding marginal and flat is reflected on how you view the extra dollar earned in wages? I do think that flat is more fair because for every dollar earned a certain percentage would come out. I disagree. Entities are taxed, not dollars. As entities earn more, their responsibility to society - without which they could not operate - increases exponentially, the same way their earnings increase exponentially. Also, would you agree that for every Paris Hilton out there, there is also a Joe Schmoo that takes advantage of the government? I would not agree. I think there are way more privileged people who inherit lots of wealth than people who are both poor and taking advantage. Most people getting government assistance are in need and have legitimate reasons for needing help. Furthermore, determining who deserves help is quite subjective, and society would be much better off if everyone just got the help they need, even if they "didn't deserve it." Very, very well stated.
|
|
|
Post by TarheelGolfer on Jul 10, 2019 11:11:12 GMT -5
I am not arguing that Hilton or Ritchie work harder than you do. That doesn't mean their parents didn't (or their parents). I am certain that their ancestors did not work 1,000 times harder than my ancestors. That's the point. There is a very low limit to the influence that hard work has on one's success. It's not nothing, but it certainly isn't the driving factor. Opportunity is the driving factor. Let's face it, heiresses have way more opportunity than most people. Most people have very little. People with big ideas are stifled because they lack the capital or luck to create opportunity. I will answer your question if you answer mine. What is the principle or misinformation you have that says you should take taxes (I am assuming this is how we are going to redistribute their wealth) out of a dollar twice? Dollars are not taxed. Entities are taxed based on their income. The principle guiding my thinking is this: I recognize that wealth accumulates exponentially, not linearly. That means that people who have more will earn more and should contribute more (higher percentage). Government has a responsibility to foster the best community possible, and the best community possible is one where all members can participate. Therefore, the government should be active in helping the people who need it the most, whether they, subjectively "deserve it" or not. Jeff Bezos has so much excess money that he's sending rockets into space because he can't think of anything else to do with his money. I have an idea. How about Amazon pay its fulfillment center employees more? How about Amazon hire more of them so they don't have to avoid bathroom breaks to keep their "rating" above the 25th percentile? They made $40,000,000,000 in profit in 2018. How about they give some of that to the people who were actually responsible for it? It is where you are placing the blame. Like the rich are to blame for ALL the ills of people living paycheck - paycheck. I just read this: www.cnbc.com/2017/08/24/most-americans-live-paycheck-to-paycheck.html . The last paragraph is what disturbs me a bit. I make far less than that as a household. Own a house (my only true debt) and still am able to tuck away money for retirement. Now granted I have no kids (which is a factor, but I also don't participate in the "benefits" as well). So there is where I struggle. Even those making over six figures said they struggle to make ends meet, the report said. Nearly 1 in 10 of those making $100,000 or more said they usually or always live paycheck to paycheck, and 59 percent of those in that salary range said they were in the red. People are struggling with mountains of debt. They've got bills that were unexpected. Maybe they were injured. Maybe they were laid off. Maybe they just survived during those times by accumulating debt. Somehow, we just assume that people are irresponsible, but that isn't generally the case. There is nothing quasi-willingly it is willingly. I can go with pseudo contract. If you want to argue the value of the worker is more important than the CEO than fine. I don't necessarily agree with that statement for various reasons and I also think in some instances things are overpaid. But, I am not willing to go and "flip the script" so to speak. When given the choice between working a job where you contribute more value than you are paid, and not being able to eat or have a place to live, that isn't really doing something completely willingly. Yes, I am willing to work for someone because I cannot afford not to. I would, however, prefer to do something else with my life and open my own business, but the risk of failing is much too great. So I am quasi-willingly reporting to work every day, spending an hour with my family at night before it's bedtime. It's not that I think CEOs don't work hard or sacrifice a lot of themselves. It's not like I think a CEO shouldn't be compensated for that. But an average CEO made 183 times what I make. Do you think making my yearly salary in 2 days is commensurate with being a CEO? I do not. Lastly, I think you make my objections clear. You said "forcefully redistributes wealth towards". I don't believe in double taxation of the same dollar. It is one reason why I have a hard time with dividends being taxed? Those dividend dollars are taxed at the corporate level and at the shareholder level. So effectively lets say right now it is short term capital gains, $1 of dividends is taxed @ 21% (Corporate Tax) and another $1 of dividends is taxed at (20%). So the government takes (41%) of that same dollar. Is that high enough for you? It depends on how much you earn. If you earned $10,000,000, then no, I don't. If you earned $100,000, then I think that's fine. Entities are taxed, not dollars. A corporation is an entity. You are a separate entity. A dividend is basically money you "earn" for doing nothing but having excess money. I do think that your version of fair regarding marginal and flat is reflected on how you view the extra dollar earned in wages? I do think that flat is more fair because for every dollar earned a certain percentage would come out. I disagree. Entities are taxed, not dollars. As entities earn more, their responsibility to society - without which they could not operate - increases exponentially, the same way their earnings increase exponentially. Also, would you agree that for every Paris Hilton out there, there is also a Joe Schmoo that takes advantage of the government? I would not agree. I think there are way more privileged people who inherit lots of wealth than people who are both poor and taking advantage. Most people getting government assistance are in need and have legitimate reasons for needing help. Furthermore, determining who deserves help is quite subjective, and society would be much better off if everyone just got the help they need, even if they "didn't deserve it." Points noted.
|
|