Obama - What is your opinion so far on his Presidency

[captain morgan]

We have that in AB and the rich get richer -

So, your problem is that some people have more than you? Fine, set the maximum allowable income rate to be equal to what you make and anything more than that is confiscated.

That'll be great, right?

Removes any incentive? That is rubbish. Canada and many other nations have progressive tax rates, and that hasn't stopped any children from becoming engineers, doctors, inventors, entrepreneurs, or lawyers. .

Good point.. Too bad that if you need to go see one of those doctors, you have to travel to the US.

The reason is, that the higher taxes aren't as punitive on high incomes earners as even lower tax rates for lower income earners.

Ever asked a high income earner that question? I'm guessing that you based that on what you want to believe.

Nah, flat tax 15% for everyone making over $25,000 or so.

That wouldn'd be fair ironsides, at least not in Canada. You see, here everyone is supposed to be treated equally and that means that no one can have more than the next person.

It's no wonder that anyone with ideas leaves for the USA.

 

[Avro]

So, your problem is that some people have more than you? Fine, set the maximum allowable income rate to be equal to what you make and anything more than that is confiscated.

That'll be great, right?

That wasn't his problem at all.

Good point.. Too bad that if you need to go see one of those doctors, you have to travel to the US.

That would mean something if it were true...it's not...so it dosen't.

Ever asked a high income earner that question? I'm guessing that you based that on what you want to believe.

Go ahead Tonn, ask me.;-):lol:

That wouldn'd be fair ironsides, at least not in Canada. You see, here everyone is supposed to be treated equally and that means that no one can have more than the next person.

No one is saying that.

It's no wonder that anyone with ideas leaves for the USA.

Again, not true. Some do leave and some come here from other countries, nothing new.

 

[ironsides]

What has Obama spent money on that wasn't necessary under the economic circumstances?

How about bailing our Chrysler and GM for starters. If they went under Ford would have picked up the slack, but I don't think that GM would have folded, major restructuring but it would have survived.


Bank bailouts could be argued against also, banks still have not made it easier for the average person to get a loan. The banks are drowning in reposed homes because of their wanting to hold onto them. So called short sales are almost impossible to get, repossessions usually aren't worth anything. (some people do get good buys but not many)

 

[TenPenny]

. He already contributes a lot to charitable funds, so good on him for that - but he should be giving more. I don't know exactly how it goes for the middle class, but the rich should probably be giving at least 20% of their annual income to those less fortunate.

Sure, the more you have, the less you deserve it.

Punish anyone who has anything, make sure everyone is brought down to average.

That's the idea - no matter how much a rich person does, it's not enough.

 

[Avro]

How about bailing our Chrysler and GM for starters. If they went under Ford would have picked up the slack, but I don't think that GM would have folded, major restructuring but it would have survived.


Bank bailouts could be argued against also, banks still have not made it easier for the average person to get a loan. The banks are drowning in reposed homes because of their wanting to hold onto them. So called short sales are almost impossible to get, repossessions usually aren't worth anything. (some people do get good buys but not many)

....but but didn't Bush bail them out.

Sure, the more you have, the less you deserve it.

Punish anyone who has anything, make sure everyone is brought down to average.

That's the idea - no matter how much a rich person does, it's not enough.

Guys like you make me laugh.:lol:

I have friends that call people like you "good little plebs".

 

[Kreskin]

How about bailing our Chrysler and GM for starters. If they went under Ford would have picked up the slack, but I don't think that GM would have folded, major restructuring but it would have survived.


Bank bailouts could be argued against also, banks still have not made it easier for the average person to get a loan. The banks are drowning in reposed homes because of their wanting to hold onto them. So called short sales are almost impossible to get, repossessions usually aren't worth anything. (some people do get good buys but not many)

All the Chrysler and GM debt will be paid out.

If the entire banking system had gone under, getting a loan would be the least of worries.

 

[mentalfloss]

Sure, the more you have, the less you deserve it.

Punish anyone who has anything, make sure everyone is brought down to average.

That's the idea - no matter how much a rich person does, it's not enough.

No, the idea is the more you have the more you can give without suffering. If I made $100,000/year, giving away $20,000/year for a good cause wouldn't really phase me. I'd still have more than enough creature comforts to keep me happy. Moreover, being able to give that money to help those less fortunate would make me even happier.

 

[captain morgan]

No, the idea is the more you have the more you can give without suffering.

Volunteering it is one thing... What is being proposed here is that it is taken.

Guys like you and Avro will never understand that.

 

[JLM]

Quote by a wise man

"You cannot help the poor by destroying the rich. You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong. You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift. You cannot lift the wage earner up by pulling the wage payer down. You cannot further the brotherhood of man by inciting class hatred. You cannot build character and courage by taking away people's initiative and independence. You cannot help people permanently by doing for them, what they could and should do for themselves." --Abraham Lincoln

 

[Kreskin]

The more money one has the more likely they'll go on TV and ask everyone to donate for them.

 

[captain morgan]

Good quote JLM

 

[mentalfloss]

Volunteering it is one thing... What is being proposed here is that it is taken.

Guys like you and Avro will never understand that.

What's wrong with taking from the rich? They don't need it. By nature they should be happy to give it away freely. In a capitalist society, the rich clearly have more power. And the rich don't use that power to help those who need it unless it is to sell a product or service - to make them more rich. It's an inherently dangerous cycle.

They're not evil for that. They just don't realize they could be so much happier to help others. Anyway, this all just experimental thought and I don't think they should be razed 50% of their income or anything outlandish. A mere 20% would do - tis petty cash for them - they wouldn`t even feel it.

 

[JLM]

What's wrong with taking from the rich? They don't need it. By nature they should be happy to give it away freely. In a capitalist society, the rich clearly have more power. And the rich don't use that power to help those who need it unless it is to sell a product or service - to make them more rich. It's an inherently dangerous cycle.

They're not evil for that. They just don't realize they could be so much happier to help others. Anyway, this all just experimental thought and I don't think they should be razed 50% of their income or anything outlandish. A mere 20% would do - tis petty cash for them - they wouldn`t even feel it.

How many large charitable donations are made anonymously?

 

[captain morgan]

What's wrong with taking from the rich? They don't need it.

What is "rich" mentalfloss... I suppose that is the first question that must be answered before any assessment can be made regarding how much someone needs.

By nature they should be happy to give it away freely.

How much, in terms of the overall % of your income do you give?

In a capitalist society, the rich clearly have more power. And the rich don't use that power to help those who need it unless it is to sell a product or service - to make them more rich. It's an inherently dangerous cycle.

Well, there's your argument for establishing one single minimum income level (something small enough that everyone can achieve) and confiscate anything above that amount.... No more power struggles in society, right?

Anyway, this all just experimental thought and I don't think they should be razed 50% of their income or anything outlandish. A mere 20% would do - tis petty cash for them - they wouldn`t even feel it.

Do you work or earn an income? Enough to pay taxes that is.

 

[Tonington]

I'm guessing that you based that on what you want to believe.

No, it's based on standard economic principles. You've heard of marginal value?

Compare the investment strategies typical for a minimum wage earner, and a high income earner.

 

[ironsides]

....but but didn't Bush bail them out.



.

Sorry, should have said continuing to give money to GM and Chrysler.

 

[TenPenny]

....but but didn't Bush bail them out.



Guys like you make me laugh.:lol:

I have friends that call people like you "good little plebs".

I have friends that call guys like you "completely clueless about reality"
Your point is what?

What's wrong with taking from the rich? They don't need it.

So, your rationale is that society should be able to confiscate property from anyone who is deemed to have more than they need.

You have two cars? Don't need that, we'll take one.
How big is your house? Extra bedrooms? You don't need that, we'll move a welfare family in, you should be happy to give it away.

How many shoes do you have? More than one pair? Too bad, you can only wear one pair at a time, we'll take the extras.

Your whole justification is that society should be able to take other people's property/wealth because someone determines that they don't need it all, and they should be happy to give it away.

Which means that, in essence, your property is only yours as long as society decides that you don't have 'too much'.

 

[captain morgan]

I have friends that call guys like you "completely clueless about reality"
Your point is what?

So, your rationale is that society should be able to confiscate property from anyone who is deemed to have more than they need.

You have two cars? Don't need that, we'll take one.
How big is your house? Extra bedrooms? You don't need that, we'll move a welfare family in, you should be happy to give it away.

How many shoes do you have? More than one pair? Too bad, you can only wear one pair at a time, we'll take the extras.

Your whole justification is that society should be able to take other people's property/wealth because someone determines that they don't need it all, and they should be happy to give it away.

Which means that, in essence, your property is only yours as long as society decides that you don't have 'too much'.

Very well put Ten Penny

No, it's based on standard economic principles. You've heard of marginal value?

I've also heard of the marginal propensity to: buy or sell as a reflection of supply/demand... Add into this the marginal propensity for wage earners to: earn more or stop earning, invest or not.

Compare the investment strategies typical for a minimum wage earner, and a high income earner.

All investors' practices are influenced by many factors, particularly risk tolerance... But that is an aside. The fact is that everyone (damn near most everyone) had to start in the same place. Even among the "wealthy", the vast majority did not start with that wealth. Some are able/willing to accumulate it and others aren't.

 

[ironsides]

What's wrong with taking from the rich? They don't need it. By nature they should be happy to give it away freely. In a capitalist society, the rich clearly have more power. And the rich don't use that power to help those who need it unless it is to sell a product or service - to make them more rich. It's an inherently dangerous cycle.

You ask what is wrong with taking from the rich. Taking from anybody is wrong. In most cases those rich people earned every penny of what the made, and there is no reason why they should give anymore or less to support a corrupt goverment and believe me all countries are run by corruption. Politicians get rich off of broken promises and what they can steal. You take away the incentive to be rich and the middle and poorer classes will cease to exist because they work for the rich either directly or indirectly. We have to many grasshoppers in this world as it is.

 

[JLM]

You ask what is wrong with taking from the rich. Taking from anybody is wrong. In most cases those rich people earned every penny of what the made, and there is no reason why they should give anymore or less to support a corrupt goverment and believe me all countries are run by corruption. Politicians get rich off of broken promises and what they can steal. You take away the incentive to be rich and the middle and poorer classes will cease to exist because they work for the rich either directly or indirectly. We have to many grasshoppers in this world as it is.

Lots of truth spoken there. :smile: