Agree or disagree?

[CynicalC]

Not a trick question.

[CynicalC]

Thread has 22 views. Poll should have 22 votes. Don't be scared...

[LoD575]

I do not agree.

If I was to manufacture a product which was a success and made millions I am not responsible for anyone else.

There is no underlying social contract. To take a chunk of personal wealth which I earned in which no one is entitled to but myself and spread it around for others is socialism.

The taxes paid is what supports the infrastructure.

Employee's of the factory earn a wage which is also taxed to further support the infrastructure.

[Agger]

As stated before- taxes. All sales of said product and earnings are taxed- thus going back in to support infrastructure. So I guess agree really, but not in the way that it seems like she is implying.

[FrugalNinja250]

Originally Posted by CynicalC

Thread has 22 views. Poll should have 22 votes. Don't be scared...

It's not fear, it's just fatigue from trying to show the light to the typical clueless gits who just don't get it. At some point in time it becomes obvious they're just not worth the trouble.

[Liquidtoon]

And this is why most of our factories are moved to other countries.

[almost40]

I own a vehicle that burns gasoline, therefore I pay a tax for those very roads I am using. If i use trucks to ship my products they pay taxes for those very roads. On top of that I pay at the toll booth and I pay a city and county tax that in part pays for those very roads.
I own a home (more than one) I pay part of my property taxes to educate those people that work for me. (in 2 counties no less, with 2 kids that dont attend either school in any city or county. Dont forget college comes out of my pocket.)
I pay income and property taxes to fund the police and fire departments. None of this takes into account the taxes on the buisness and property itself which pays for all of the above.
Could it even be possible to not fund any of the services she claims owners owe for? Even if they tried?

Funny how here in Illinois all the school districts are crying foul when the large and small company owners ask to have a reassesment of their property taxes because of over evaluation.

Now, guess whats the first 3 things the city claims will have to be cut due to the declining tax revenue.
You guessed it......teachers, police, and firefighters.

[eddiekay]

I agree with the premise that we accomplish nothing on our own.
I agree with the conclusion that we should put back some of what we take out...but...the fact is that taxes do little more than inflate an already inflated government.
That drone that crashed last month ....coulda sent my kid to an ivy league school for 4 years with that money
That senators pension ( pick whoever you want)....maybe 10 kids in community college for each year
Oh, yeah...the Hubbell telescope...the one that sends the nice pictures that get photoshoppped.....we could put the whole country on FI ninjettes with a full tank of gas and sticky tires fior what that costs us!
Freedom is not free...unless you work for the government....IMHO, of course.

[shiroganeshinobi]

Originally Posted by Liquidtoon

And this is why most of our factories are moved to other countries.

So what's the difference if their factory is in a third world country vs being in the US? The difference is obviously cost of paying the workers. That's fair wage huh? What contribution do financial companies make to our economy vs tech or manufacturing.

Taxes aren't the reason why companies moved their operation overseas. It was to exploit globalization.

While the conservatism has become so perverse to what it originally stood for, their agenda to "keep their money" has hidden effect they don't like to share. The reality is the middle class is paying more of the burden due to their lack of paying a fair share to the point it is nonexistent, although I wish this link has the linked the census data.

Too bad, you all have no patience to learn why our country is dying.

Link to original page on YouTube.

[massacremasses]

disagree with the last part. I dont like the "pay it forward" language. "paying it forward" should be a choice, not something forced.

Paying tax's for roads, school, safety, etc. duhh thats what tax's are for. Honestly they arent even to help other. We should choose to help others. No one should make you or anyone.

[revstriker]

Originally Posted by CynicalC

Not a trick question.

While maybe not a trick question, it is also not a singular question. Do I agree that taxes pay for the things she mentioned? Yes. But the whole point of this speech was to argue in favor of taxing those individuals and businesses which have success even more. This I don't agree with.

[kyrider]

It is all about percentages and waste that is not being addressed. You all know what happens if you disagree and don't pay your taxes don't you? A guy shows up at your door with a gun.

[massacremasses]

Originally Posted by kyrider

It is all about percentages and waste that is not being addressed. You all know what happens if you disagree and don't pay your taxes don't you? A guy shows up at your door with a gun.

lots of companies are "based" somewhere else in order to avoid these taxes, so thats not always the case. So thats not always the case

[kyrider]

Originally Posted by massacremasses

lots of companies are "based" somewhere else in order to avoid these taxes, so thats not always the case. So thats not always the case

I agree that is why we need to lower the corporate rate.

[revstriker]

Originally Posted by shiroganeshinobi

So what's the difference if their factory is in a third world country vs being in the US? The difference is obviously cost of paying the workers.

Wages have always been lower in some other countries. But this is not the only thing that is considered. But there is also property costs, machinery costs, materials costs, employee benefits costs and taxes. Lots of reasons why companies relocate part or all of their business oversees, and why companies source out manufacturing abroad rather than in the US.

While the conservatism has become so perverse to what it originally stood for, their agenda to "keep their money" has hidden effect they don't like to share. The reality is the middle class is paying more of the burden due to their lack of paying a fair share to the point it is nonexistent, although I wish this link has the linked the census data.

Too bad, you all have no patience to learn why our country is dying.

I always love the "fair share" argument as it relies on someone's definition of what "fair" is. If the "rich" (another objective term) were paying 99% of their income, and the middle class was paying 0%, some would still argue that this is not their "fair share". Another term I like is "middle class". Depending on who's data you are quoting, it can mean different groups of people. The term can be defined in many different ways depending on the message that you want your data to tell.

That said, when you look at what an average household with income in excess of $1 million will be paying in taxes for 2011(total taxes), it is estimated to be about 29%, where someone with a household income of $45K will be paying around 12%. Make between $20 and $30k and you'll pay around 6%.

So back to the term "fair". I looked up the word on Dictionary.com and there were 12 definitions. Probably the ones people think about when using the word as an adjective in this way are:

• Having or exhibiting a disposition that is free of favoritism or bias; impartial: a fair mediator. Just to all parties; equitable
• Consistent with rules, logic, or ethics

So what is a "fair share" of your income, or of your wealth?

[greg737]

She's just another liberal who's gotten her head so far up her own ass that she can't see the big picture.

Across the history of complex human societies (i.e. post hunter-gatherer societies) the middle class is always the last class to develop during the rise of that society and the first to disappear in the eventual collapse of that society (and yes, every complex human society since the dawn of agriculture has either collapsed or has been conquered after entering a downward slide).

If you watch the video you'll see that she's totally unaware of the larger picture, that is to say the "nature" of our society. She just goes on and on about what things cost or where people are spending their money, but she never mentions the fact that we Americans are not citizens any more. Instead of citizens we are "consumers" and everything in our society depends and is interdependant upon every one of us (men, women and children) staying engaged in a constant cycle of consumption. That's the real difference, it's how we spend our time not how we spend our money.

[almost40]

Originally Posted by shiroganeshinobi

Too bad, you all have no patience to learn why our country is dying.

Is there even a middle class in DC?

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-1...on-valley.html

[Liquidtoon]

My biggest problem here is the original quote. YOU did this with what WE paid for, thats not really accurate. If this is accurate then that is to say all rich people have never paid any taxes. Only the non-rich have paid for roads, public education, law enforcement, ect.

All in all I find her separatist tone a little troubling she sides her self with the middle class while clearly she is part of the wealthy class.

With that in mind I have never agreed with the tax breaks for "job-creators" but think corporate taxes and restraints should be lowered.

My simple point that this is why companies take their business out of country was more to the point that the regulations and taxes in other countries are far more lax. This feeling of entitlement to a companies wealth simply because they exist in a relative proximity to us is core problem, imho.

[shiroganeshinobi]

Originally Posted by greg737

She's just another liberal who's gotten her head so far up her own ass that she can't see the big picture.

Across the history of complex human societies (i.e. post hunter-gatherer societies) the middle class is always the last class to develop during the rise of that society and the first to disappear in the eventual collapse of that society (and yes, every complex human society since the dawn of agriculture has either collapsed or has been conquered after entering a downward slide).

If you watch the video you'll see that she's totally unaware of the larger picture, that is to say the "nature" of our society. She just goes on and on about what things cost or where people are spending their money, but she never mentions the fact that we Americans are not citizens any more. Instead of citizens we are "consumers" and everything in our society depends and is interdependant upon every one of us (men, women and children) staying engaged in a constant cycle of consumption. That's the real difference, it's how we spend our time not how we spend our money.

Warren used to be a republican that believed a majority of those who went bankrupt, intentionally did so to take advantage of the law. What she found was the reality our media does not talk about. greg737, what is the big picture you seem to know so much about?

revstriker, keep talking about income taxes then switch it back to taxes in general. If you want to talk fair share take it back the occupy thread and tell me about that 1% which I doubt you could.

Here's a little fun video for everyone. Proof of how perverse conservatism is today.

Link to original page on YouTube.

[greg737]

Originally Posted by shiroganeshinobi

greg737, what is the big picture you seem to know so much about?

You obviously didn't even read my post, although you quoted it in your reply.

My guess is you stopped reading my post when you hit your "trigger" word that I used in my post, which is to say you probably didn't get more than 4 words into my post before you stopped reading and started formulating your little t!t-for-tat liberal vs. conservative argumentative follow-up post. That's how you managed to be completely unaware that I did explain what I meant when I said that she couldn't see the big picture.

Yes, I used the word "liberal" and you immediately knee-jerked into confrontational retoric.

So you assumed that I would want to argue politics, but you're mistaken. I could care less who gets elected. All politicians are essentially the same type of person. It doesn't matter if they call themselves liberal or conservative. That's why I don't care who gets elected.

I'm not here to argue politics with you.

[CynicalC]

Originally Posted by greg737

You obviously didn't even read my post, although you quoted it in your reply.

My guess is you stopped reading my post when you hit your "trigger" word that I used in my post, which is to say you probably didn't get more than 4 words into my post before you stopped reading and started formulating your little t!t-for-tat liberal vs. conservative argumentative follow-up post. That's how you managed to be completely unaware that I did explain what I meant when I said that she couldn't see the big picture.

Yes, I used the word "liberal" and you immediately knee-jerked into confrontational retoric.

So you assumed that I would want to argue politics, but you're mistaken. I could care less who gets elected. All politicians are essentially the same type of person. It doesn't matter if they call themselves liberal or conservative. That's why I don't care who gets elected.

I'm not here to argue politics with you.

That's what you get for putting the trigger word at the beginning of your post. You can't expect anyone to read past that.

[shiroganeshinobi]

Originally Posted by greg737

You obviously didn't even read my post, although you quoted it in your reply.

My guess is you stopped reading my post when you hit your "trigger" word that I used in my post, which is to say you probably didn't get more than 4 words into my post before you stopped reading and started formulating your little t!t-for-tat liberal vs. conservative argumentative follow-up post. That's how you managed to be completely unaware that I did explain what I meant when I said that she couldn't see the big picture.

Yes, I used the word "liberal" and you immediately knee-jerked into confrontational retoric.

So you assumed that I would want to argue politics, but you're mistaken. I could care less who gets elected. All politicians are essentially the same type of person. It doesn't matter if they call themselves liberal or conservative. That's why I don't care who gets elected.

I'm not here to argue politics with you.

Well actually, I started off merely clarifying her background to your liberal remark. Then I wanted you to talk about the big and larger picture you mentioned twice because you seem to have an interesting view which you briefly mentioned.

You talk about the nature of a society is consumption. Are you confusing psychology with economics? I was trying to get your take but you seemed to have taken my response attack which is fine.

Here's another fun video.

Link to original page on YouTube.