Serious question for you die hard OWS supporters who want to eat the rich.

Let me speak up on behalf of the left. At least until Ricter shows up. LOL. What the left wants is not to pay down the debt. They want income equality. These are two very different subject matters. The left wants to bring the poor up through income re-distribution and that is accomplished through a very progressive tax system in which the top 1% to 5% pay a majority of the taxes. The government will simply hand over the money to the poor.

Of course we all know, Ricter included, that real long term prosperity cannot be bought, it has to be attained and earned. This goes into a long and involved conversation about what exactly prosperity is and how do we define quality of life.
 
Quote from peilthetraveler:

I might not get too many liberals answer this question and I might have to go to an OWS rally to really get it answered, but here is the question.

Lets say tommorrow night, you find out you won $100 million dollars in the lottery. Out of that $100 million that you just won, how much do you think the government should get of that? What percentage?

(dont get sidetracked with the payments over 30 years and losing so much for the cash option...for the sake of argument, the pre-tax check is for $100 million) So how much should uncle sam get? 20%? 35%? 50% 75%...? Name what you think is a "fair share".
More...

Private lottery or state-run?

If state-run (most lotteries) the tax is already priced in.
 
Quote from Maverick74:

Let me speak up on behalf of the left. At least until Ricter shows up. LOL. What the left wants is not to pay down the debt. They want income equality. These are two very different subject matters. The left wants to bring the poor up through income re-distribution and that is accomplished through a very progressive tax system in which the top 1% to 5% pay a majority of the taxes. The government will simply hand over the money to the poor.

Of course we all know, Ricter included, that real long term prosperity cannot be bought, it has to be attained and earned. This goes into a long and involved conversation about what exactly prosperity is and how do we define quality of life.
More...

Or in other words... as my Grandpa told me 40 years ago... "The world doesn't owe you a living... make something of yourself".

Grandpa worked for a railroad and raised 8 children.

I take his words to mean... "Nobody is ENTITLED TO ANYTHING except what they earn for themselves". It's (or USED TO BE) the "American way".

All of these OWS whiners and tit-suckers should either buck-up and get to work or put a bullet through their brain... stop being a drain on others. SOCIETY DOES NOT BENEFIT FROM PARASITIC TIT-SUCKERS, REGARDLESS OF HOW MUCH THEY GREEDILY WHINE!
 
They comprise many different groups wanting different things.
But a central theme seems to be the unfair rewards to the mostly already rich for a days' work, compared to the peanuts paid to someone at the bottom of the ladder e.g. the pathetic minimum wage that isn't enough to pay the rent on a fleapad !

Every so often the rich have to be reined in and forced to pay for others not so well off.
 
Quote from Humpy:

They comprise many different groups wanting different things.
But a central theme seems to be the unfair rewards to the mostly already rich for a days' work, compared to the peanuts paid to someone at the bottom of the ladder e.g. the pathetic minimum wage that isn't enough to pay the rent on a fleapad !

Every so often the rich have to be reined in and forced to pay for others not so well off.
More...
That can't be it. They cheered Michael Moore at the Oakland OWS and he has tens of millions in the bank and sued for more.
 
Quote from Humpy:

....Every so often the rich have to be reined in and forced to pay for others not so well off.
More...
To me it depends on HOW they got "rich".
 
My goodness...you've all missed the entire point of this topic.

I'm trying to get individual people to say what they think they should pay in a tax if its THEIR money and then I was planning to compare it to what they think other rich people should pay when its not their money and see how wide the difference is.

All im getting is people want to pay what other rich people are paying (as little as possible).

What i wanted was in a percentage, how much would be "fair" and I only wanted OWS supporters to answer. I wanted to see if any would say 70% tax is fair, if its their money, but I'm guessing not one would say that.
 
I really can't understand what the rich are bitching about. A bit of tax and they still won't have to give up anything. It's just the thought of paying a bit more than the other folks not so lucky that really riles them. They certainly show what a mean spirited lot most of them are.
Just for that reason I would make the ex-bums pay an extra 10%
Up the minimum wage to $20 per hour which is still low
let the immigrants in
legalise drugs - prohibition of drugs only benefits organised crime.
etc.
 
Quote from Humpy:

I really can't understand what the rich are bitching about. A bit of tax and they still won't have to give up anything. It's just the thought of paying a bit more than the other folks not so lucky that really riles them. They certainly show what a mean spirited lot most of them are.
Just for that reason I would make the ex-bums pay an extra 10%
More...
I thought it was the OWS who were bitching and moaning. So, what do they have to bitch about. They get 3 gourmet squares a day and get to sleep in the park and have random sex with strangers. What more do they need?

Because they seem to like it so much, we should just intern them in camps.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top