Welcome, Guest
Pewter Report  >>  Boards  >>  Pirate's Cove (Moderators: 3rd String Kicker, PRPatrol)  >>  Topic: Michael Moore goes on a rant against the rich « previous next »
Page: 1 2 3 4

John Galt?

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 18831
Offline
#30 : March 04, 2011, 12:33:05 PM

^^^that is if things work out for the best which isnt always the case. Remember when Rockerfeller had a monopoly on all the oil, Carnegie owned all the steel, and Morgan owned all the railroads? It took Truman (trustbuster) to fix that mess....
Sherman Anti Trust Act?


Yes exactly. Truman signed the Sherman Anti-trust Act in 1890-55 years before he became president.

The laws of probability say that eventually, one day, Thomas/One Truth will actually get something right.


OneTruth

*****
Pro Bowler

Posts : 1867
Offline
#31 : March 04, 2011, 03:17:09 PM

at least the odds are with me

dbucfan

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 46029
Offline
#32 : March 04, 2011, 06:32:20 PM

at least the odds are with me
You have developed an almost obscene ability to beat the odds.  Not a threat mind you, simply a fact.

\"A Great Coach has to have a Patient Wife, A Loyal Dog, and a Great Quarterback. . . . but not necessarily in that order\" ~ Coach Bud Grant

kevabuc

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 2241
Offline
#33 : March 05, 2011, 11:40:48 AM

I do not share your opinion on that. I am all for someone keeping the money that is theirs...and for small government. But when the rules are slanted in your favor then I cry foul. Doesnt mean communism is the answer but I see capitalism is starting its decline...

When you have rules that are slanted in anyones favor then capitalism does not truly exist. Capitalism has been under assault for many decades as more and more government intervention is put in place, to the detriment of the individual.  Capitalism, just like religion, should be separated from governments for true freedom to exist. Just as laws exist to protect the individual's rights to practice their religion free from interference from others, laws should exist to keep indivuals economic freedom from unfair advantages from others.

It is not the fault of the rich man who has amassed wealth by using the rules that have been put in  place, even if those rules are corrupt, it is the fault of the system itself that allows for such rules to be put into place. The rich man may have complicity in influencing the establishment of those rules and laws, however, the true guilt rests with those governmental individuals who accept that influence for personal gain while rejecting their fiduciary responsibility to those that he rightfully owes his obigations, the voters.

Now if the voters themselves have elected those individuals for the purposes of installing more and more laws with the intention of controlling free competition in the name of the public good, then competition itself is restrained and the voters are the true fault in capitalism declining.

Comptition is the true regulator of capitalism.

\"The budget should be balanced; the treasury should be refilled; public debt should be reduced; and the arrogance of public officials should be controlled.\" -Cicero. 106-43 B.C.

Chief Joseph

User is banned from postingMuted
******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 4309
Offline
#34 : March 05, 2011, 11:58:33 AM

Capitalism, just like religion, should be separated from governments for true freedom to exist.

The 'Black Market,' ironically, capitalism in its truest form.

Illuminator is a good poster. He sticks to his guns and makes good points. Some don\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'t like that.

kevabuc

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 2241
Offline
#35 : March 05, 2011, 09:22:26 PM

Capitalism, just like religion, should be separated from governments for true freedom to exist.

The 'Black Market,' ironically, capitalism in its truest form.

Only if you include theft as a major component in capitalism.

\"The budget should be balanced; the treasury should be refilled; public debt should be reduced; and the arrogance of public officials should be controlled.\" -Cicero. 106-43 B.C.

Chief Joseph

User is banned from postingMuted
******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 4309
Offline
#36 : March 05, 2011, 09:30:31 PM


Or, if I don't restrict the definition of 'black market' as consisting entirely of stolen goods.

Illuminator is a good poster. He sticks to his guns and makes good points. Some don\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'t like that.

kevabuc

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 2241
Offline
#37 : March 05, 2011, 09:43:18 PM

Ok, then only if you include freedom from legal barriers to monopolies providing for unfair competitive advantage as a major component of capitalism.

\"The budget should be balanced; the treasury should be refilled; public debt should be reduced; and the arrogance of public officials should be controlled.\" -Cicero. 106-43 B.C.

tatmanfish

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 7519
Offline
#38 : March 06, 2011, 07:44:25 AM

why cant there just be a "fair tax"? everyone pays the same percentage, no matter what they make? Sounds crazy doesnt it?

Micheal Moore occasionally makes a valid point, then there are time where he goes off on a crazy rant. I see what hes saying as that money isnt in circulation of any type so it hurts the value of the US dollar, and that they are getting tax breaks out the wazoo. Its there money to do what they want with though, but they should be taxed the same as everyone else.

seems like a simple solution to me, but the rich have power in the government and would never agree to a fair tax.



Quote from: Illuminator
You were simply too smart for me.

Biggs3535

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 31382
Online
#39 : March 06, 2011, 09:21:54 AM

seems like a simple solution to me, but the rich have power in the government and would never agree to a fair tax.

Uh, what?

The rich are the only people in this country paying taxes.  They would have no problem with a fair tax.

Personally, I think taxing consumption (instead of earnings) is the best solution.  That way, you even receive money from folks who get money illegally like drug dealers and that solution greatly diminishes the IRS.  Win/win.


Snook

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 8992
Offline
#40 : March 06, 2011, 10:38:48 AM

seems like a simple solution to me, but the rich have power in the government and would never agree to a fair tax.

Uh, what?

The rich are the only people in this country paying taxes.  They would have no problem with a fair tax.

Personally, I think taxing consumption (instead of earnings) is the best solution.  That way, you even receive money from folks who get money illegally like drug dealers and that solution greatly diminishes the IRS.  Win/win.


Agreed.

And maybe the government could actually tax corporations, too.

Sadly, neither will ever happen.



Chief Joseph

User is banned from postingMuted
******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 4309
Offline
#41 : March 06, 2011, 10:54:46 AM

And maybe the government could actually tax corporations, too.

Since the corporations would then just pass these taxes on to the consumer, how do you see this shifting the overall tax burden?

Illuminator is a good poster. He sticks to his guns and makes good points. Some don\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'t like that.

John Galt?

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 18831
Offline
#42 : March 06, 2011, 03:52:07 PM

A few "misconceptions" about our tax structure.

1. the "rich" don't pay higher income taxes, people with high taxable earnings do. Example: Mary Walton inherits $500 million from daddy (after estate taxes). Mary puts $400 million of that in Muni bonds paying 4.5% yld and the rest stays in WMT paying a 2.3% yld. Her taxable income is $2.3 million all in qualified dividends (15%) so her total income tax is $345,000. OTOH, a married small business owner, that has a REALLY good year and his business earns $1.1 million will owe $370,273.11 in taxes, More than heiress Mary Walton even though his income is half of her's, and his wealth is about 1/25th of hers. Also, the business owner has to pay $912,000 in FICA matching, $184,600 in Medicare matching, and around another $250,000 in other payroll taxes on his employees. Mary has no employees so she pay nada.
business owner pays a total of $1.7 million in taxes on $1.1 million in earnings (over 100%) while the Heiress pays $345,000 on $20.3 million in income (1.7%).

2. Most (profitable) Corporations pay a ton in taxes. Over 99% of all US Corporations have under 500 employees http://www.census.gov/epcd/www/smallbus.html and don't get any benefits from outsourcing or any of the fancy loopholes the big boys get.

3. Large (over 500 employees) Corps. factor Income tax into their pricing structure. In other words, they don't pay the tax, the consumer does. Small Corporations are less likely to do this because they have to compete with the big boys who get much better price breaks on COGS and are already undercutting them.

4. Tax laws reward Baby creation but not Job creation. You get a $3,650 deduction for every dependent. But for every employee you hire, you must 1. match his FICA and Medicare, 2.pay unemployment comp., 3. pay workman's comp. 4. and coming soon-pay his HC costs for his entire family.

5. Taxing BIG Corps won't solve anything because there just aren't enough of them. in 2008, Individual income tax recpts totaled $1,031,512,000,000. If Corporate taxes were to equal individual taxes, since there are only around 18,000 corporations with more than 500 employees, you'd have to tax each one $57 million BUT since 11,600 of those18000 had revenues less than $57 million, you can't do that.  So now you start chasing your tail mathematically and it never adds up. 18,000 corporations just can't carry the burden of 139 million tax payers.

6. The High Earners already pay the bulk of Taxes In 2008, the top 1% of tax payers paid 38% of all taxes paid ($392 billion of the $1031 billion total taxes paid) and the top 5% paid 58.7% of all the taxes paid. http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/250.html


spartan

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 6893
Offline
#43 : March 06, 2011, 04:24:04 PM

Go slay the dragon JG. There I was thinking these "truths were self evident". Obviously not.

spartan

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 6893
Offline
#44 : March 06, 2011, 04:38:59 PM

I do not share your opinion on that. I am all for someone keeping the money that is theirs...and for small government. But when the rules are slanted in your favor then I cry foul. Doesnt mean communism is the answer but I see capitalism is starting its decline...

Which, if you love freedom, should be a great cause for concern.  Capitalism in it's purest form is the epitome of freedom. You are given the freedom to choose what you want to do and the manner in which you are going to do it. Everything else is the Govt in some shape or form dictating to you what it is you can or cannot do. The downside of capitalism is that it is very cut throat. Therefore, there does need to be rules and regulations. From that point it goes, and has gone, decidedly downhill. We have a political class that feels that it needs to do something about everything, and each and every "bad" situation that occurs, and prevent it from happening again. How about just write the laws and throw any bad boys in jail - for a long time. But no, they have to come up with some intricate system that will prevent it from happening again, regardless of the cost/benefit ratio.

I yearn for the day when a politician goes to Tallahasee/Washington with the single intent of realizing he has nothing to do other than to maintain the status quo.
Page: 1 2 3 4
Pewter Report  >>  Boards  >>  Pirate's Cove (Moderators: 3rd String Kicker, PRPatrol)  >>  Topic: Michael Moore goes on a rant against the rich « previous next »
:

Hide Tools Show Tools