Democrats officially the "party of the elite rich"

Author: Greyparrot
FJB

Posts

Total: 85
#31
WyIted
WyIted's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 5,492
3
4
9
WyIted's avatar
WyIted
3
4
9
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
Democrats are and should be looking to make the 1 percenters pay more. These are the people who got a big tax cut from Trump in 2017.
Why should they pay more? 

What would it accomplish is it just punishment for being rich or is there some sort of goal for the money? 

Nobody ever mentions a goal when talking of taxing the rich. It just sounds like punishment. 

I also would consider anyone making over 200k wealthy. 150k is what a high paid professional is making. Your lawyers and engineers for the most part. Some specialized nurses get 150k. 

If the wealthy is deriving most of their income from investments than things like capital gains tax are are really just something that are going to target elderly pensioners who need to stretch their money for the next 50 years while they wait to die. 

You also have the fact that the wealthy can just live a life without maintaining citizenship in any country. Perhaps they spend a few months in America then a few months in Paris then Belize etc. You are going to have a hard time targeting those people with taxes. 


#32
IwantRooseveltagain
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,597
3
3
6
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
IwantRooseveltagain
3
3
6
Lol! someone is unable to read a graph, apparently.
No dummy, it’s you who is unable to understand the data. Each blue and red dot represents a congressional district.

Each district is plotted on the graph based on the median income of that district.

If Democrats represent 9 of the top 10 districts by median income that doesn’t mean the richest individuals in America vote Democrat.

It means in areas that have high education, which leads to higher incomes, the people there support Democrats. But the 10 or 50 millionaires and billionaires who live in that District could still be voting Republican.

Topic's author
#33
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 26,051
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Dr.Franklin
The huge increase in self-improvement is actually a bad thing.

And the alternative is better? Where you rely on others to improve you?
#34
IwantRooseveltagain
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,597
3
3
6
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
IwantRooseveltagain
3
3
6
Why should they pay more? 
Ask your friend, GP, he’ll tell you.

What would it accomplish is it just punishment for being rich or is there some sort of goal for the money?
Taxes are not designed to be punishment. They are necessary and appropriate to fund the government. Administration and public services at all levels of government, including city, county, state and federal.

I also would consider anyone making over 200k wealthy
That’s because your poor and uneducated in economics 

Topic's author
#35
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 26,051
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@n8nrgim
 I think you'd struggle with that assignment, because it's pretty obvious that you lack objectivity. if you want to show you're capable, list five reasons to vote against bidden, and five reasons to vote for trump. 

That's really asking way too much for a person of that level.

The level of person who went to college right after high school, was a Captain in the Marines, has been married for over 30 years, raised 2 college educated children, owns 5 houses and is in the top 2 percent of household income?
This sounds like something Biden would say during "Storytime with the POTUS"

#36
IwantRooseveltagain
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,597
3
3
6
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
IwantRooseveltagain
3
3
6
-->
@WyIted
If the wealthy is deriving most of their income from investments than things like capital gains tax are are really just something that are going to target elderly pensioners who need to stretch their money for the next 50 years while they wait to die. 
Do you understand that most elderly derive the majority of their income from Social Security and money taken out of 401k and IRAs in retirement are taxed as ordinary income? ie not as capital gains.

You also have the fact that the wealthy can just live a life without maintaining citizenship in any country.
Yes the wealthy will do whatever they can, legal or illegal, to avoid taxes. It’s up to the leaders of the different countries to stop this tax fraud.
#37
Dr.Franklin
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 10,675
4
7
11
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Dr.Franklin
4
7
11
-->
@Greyparrot
And the alternative is better? Where you rely on others to improve you?
Yes, fuck individualism
Topic's author
#38
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 26,051
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Good luck rolling the dice on that one then!
#39
WyIted
WyIted's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 5,492
3
4
9
WyIted's avatar
WyIted
3
4
9
So when I asked why tax the wealthy. Does the policy actually help in some way or is it just a punishment. There was zero response so I assume tax the rich is just an emotionally driven thing to punish somebody the left is jealous of and not a sincere  attempt to improve society in some way
#40
IwantRooseveltagain
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,597
3
3
6
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
IwantRooseveltagain
3
3
6
-->
@WyIted
So when I asked why tax the wealthy. Does the policy actually help in some way or is it just a punishment. There was zero response…
AGAIN - Taxes are not designed to be punishment. They are necessary and appropriate to fund the government. Administration and public services at all levels of government, including city, county, state and federal.

#41
WyIted
WyIted's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 5,492
3
4
9
WyIted's avatar
WyIted
3
4
9
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
So why isn't the current level of taxes enough?
#42
IwantRooseveltagain
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,597
3
3
6
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
IwantRooseveltagain
3
3
6
So why isn't the current level of taxes enough?
Well for starters, taxes are low, very low on the rich. Their effective tax rate is lower than it is on the middle class. Some, many, like Trump, pay zero income taxes.

Some of it is cheating and lying, and some of it is legal. But their taxes are very low. How low? When Mitt Romney, a multimillionaire, ran for President and released his taxes, he was paying a 13% effective tax rate for federal income taxes. He thought that was a fair amount.


#43
WyIted
WyIted's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 5,492
3
4
9
WyIted's avatar
WyIted
3
4
9
So we just want to tax them out of fairness not because the government needs the extra money. Got it
#44
IwantRooseveltagain
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,597
3
3
6
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
IwantRooseveltagain
3
3
6
-->
@WyIted
So we just want to tax them out of fairness not because the government needs the extra money. Got it
The government definitely needs the money. In case you haven’t heard, the government has 35 trillion dollars in public debt. There’s nothing “extra” when you have 35 trillion dollars in debt.

It’s fair for the wealthy to pay more for lots of reasons starting with they are currently paying a very low rate or nothing at all.

#45
WyIted
WyIted's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 5,492
3
4
9
WyIted's avatar
WyIted
3
4
9
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/heres-why-us-doesnt-pay-035612736.html
#46
IwantRooseveltagain
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,597
3
3
6
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
IwantRooseveltagain
3
3
6
-->
@WyIted
I think highly of Paul Krugman and respect his opinions and commentary. I read his column regularly.

Did you read the article? Did you want to comment or make a point?
#47
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@Greyparrot
How do the elite rich benefit more under a Democrat economic progressive tax system than the much more lenient Republican one?

Could you please go ahead and name it unless the elite rich person is LGBTQ?

I think just about 0 ways exist.
#48
WyIted
WyIted's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 5,492
3
4
9
WyIted's avatar
WyIted
3
4
9
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
I doubt that you actually read him, you never give any of the arguments you get from him. The point I that increasing th tax on the rich is not going to cause the debt to be paid down faster or ever paid down for that matter. The debt payments will remain the same. You aren't even advocating for any social programs or anything here. It seems like you just want to tax the rich out of spite or something. 

It reminds me of those instances where people are pissed a coworker gets a raise and starts bitxhing that their raise is unfair instead of actually just arguing they deserve one as well. 

In both examples it isn't the lack of something that is an issue but jealousy over another's success. You don't want to tax the rich to better fund schools or to provide more food to the poor or to build nuclear power plants for clean energy. You seem to want to just because, and bringing up the national debt, especially after exposing yourself as a routine follower of at least one economist (it should be two one that disagrees with him s well if you want well rounded knowledge) . 

Do you think if Paul Krugman was asked why raise taxes on the rich he would answer with the equivalent of


"Fuck'em"

Or 

"Fairbess my brother"

He wouldn't cope with mentions of the national debt either. He would list very pragmatic reasons for his stance. Reasons I would most likely disagree with but at least he would be intellectually honest and have very good reasoning for his opinion. 

Hell if you run into those reasonings just copy and paste them below. No need to be original. Worst case scenario the reasoning is rebutted, best case you turn me into an allie on atleast one issue. 
#49
WyIted
WyIted's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 5,492
3
4
9
WyIted's avatar
WyIted
3
4
9
-->
@RationalMadman
How do the elite rich benefit more under a Democrat economic progressive tax system than the much more lenient Republican one?
Republicans are also for a progressive tax. We agree that the wealthy  should be taxed disproportionately. We do want a small government and one tool to hopefully get that done is lower tax rates for everyone, however the paradigm is shifting a bit to republicans openly being okay with bigger government because they see it as removing one tool from their system if the government is always being grown from liberal interests but never for conservative interests. 
#50
WyIted
WyIted's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 5,492
3
4
9
WyIted's avatar
WyIted
3
4
9
-->
@RationalMadman
I just noticed you were back. Glad you are here. I made a thread about you hoping g it would get your attention and cause you to re join us. 
#51
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@WyIted
I appreciate very little of what you post, least of all you linking to pure gore and implying something by tagging me into a completely irrelevant thread.

You are blocked now on your latest rendition alt as you should be. I am going to enjoy my time here whether you like it or not or go, whenever it suits me. I am not gonna be nearly as active as before.
#52
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@WyIted
How do the elite rich benefit more under a Democrat economic progressive tax system than the much more lenient Republican one?
Republicans are also for a progressive tax. We agree that the wealthy  should be taxed disproportionately. We do want a small government and one tool to hopefully get that done is lower tax rates for everyone, however the paradigm is shifting a bit to republicans openly being okay with bigger government because they see it as removing one tool from their system if the government is always being grown from liberal interests but never for conservative interests. 
I see nowhere in this lie you wrote where it covers a way the Democrats benefit the elite rich more, please guide my eyes.
#53
WyIted
WyIted's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 5,492
3
4
9
WyIted's avatar
WyIted
3
4
9
I appreciate very little of what you post, least of all you linking to pure gore and implying something by tagging me into a completely irrelevant thread.
It was on a live gore but if you actually watched the video is was less disturbing than your average R rated horror movie

I see nowhere in this lie you wrote where it covers a way the Democrats benefit the elite rich more, please guide my eyes
The democrats do because regulations make it harder for small businesses to comply which give large businesses more market share and more ROI for shareholders. 

If you take a look you see founders In New markets attempt to court politicians to establish an early monopoly. Just after open AI was released they sent a shitload of lobbiests to Washington to attempt to regulate the market so it would be too expensive for other companies to take any of their market share. The same happened with Sam Bankman, he immediately after starting his crypto exchange started lobbying several governments for immense regulation so he could position himself formerly all of the market share and take out other crypto exchanges

Economic interventionism is a tool for the wealthy elite. 
#54
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@WyIted
I appreciate very little of what you post, least of all you linking to pure gore and implying something by tagging me into a completely irrelevant thread.
It was on a live gore but if you actually watched the video is was less disturbing than your average R rated horror movie
It had absolutely 0 to do with me. You did not have a single valid reason to tag me in it, you know that and instead of apologising you double down.
#55
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@WyIted
The democrats do because regulations make it harder for small businesses to comply which give large businesses more market share and more ROI for shareholders. 
What are you talking about? You made that up. In fact every single thing is harder for smaller poorer business owners under Republican ideals, from getting healthcare, education, transport, mortgage you name it. It's all absolute fucking hell under their policies and much easier mobility-wise under Democrat policies but Democrats rarely get their way, that much has been proven true in backwards America, the least progressive of all nations to be called equally or more advanced than it.

If you take a look you see founders In New markets attempt to court politicians to establish an early monopoly. Just after open AI was released they sent a shitload of lobbiests to Washington to attempt to regulate the market so it would be too expensive for other companies to take any of their market share. The same happened with Sam Bankman, he immediately after starting his crypto exchange started lobbying several governments for immense regulation so he could position himself formerly all of the market share and take out other crypto exchanges
So because Biden and Democrats happen to be in power it's their doing? The founder would do the same if Trump was.

Economic interventionism is a tool for the wealthy elite. 
No, it isn't.
#56
WyIted
WyIted's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 5,492
3
4
9
WyIted's avatar
WyIted
3
4
9
What are you talking about? You made that up. In fact every single thing is harder for smaller poorer business owners under Republican ideals, from getting healthcare, education, transport, mortgage you name it. It's all absolute fucking hell under their policies and much easier mobility-wise under Democrat policies but Democrats rarely get their way, that much has been proven true in backwards America, the least progressive of all nations to be called equally or more advanced than it.
Fact before regulatory agencies practically everyone was a small business owners

Fact prior to the FDA almost everyone bought their groceries locally and from mom and pop suppliers. Today 80% of America's food supply comes from less than 10 producers

Fact prior to modern day banking regulations most people banked with a small local bank, now its nearly all done with national banks.

Fact prior to the current climate of the internet were most people spend all day on 5 sites, Twitter,  Facebook, YouTube, tiktok Instagram in the wild west days prior to the regulations we have today a wide variety of sites that were part of small webrings got the majority of traffic 

Fact: it is not illegal for kids to see Gore and it would be a violation of the first amendment if it was and yes this is a predominantly American site so fuck off with your stupid disinfo

#57
WyIted
WyIted's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 5,492
3
4
9
WyIted's avatar
WyIted
3
4
9
No, it isn't.
Good to know the wealthy don't try to influence laws. 
#58
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
No, it isn't.
Good to know the wealthy don't try to influence laws. 
They do, they prefer as little intervention in economics as possible.
#59
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@WyIted
Fact: it is not illegal for kids to see Gore and it would be a violation of the first amendment if it was and yes this is a predominantly American site so fuck off with your stupid disinfo

Obscenity
          Obscenity is not protected under First Amendment rights to free speech, and violations of federal obscenity laws are criminal offenses.  The U.S. courts use a three-pronged test, commonly referred to as the Miller test, to determine if given material is obscene.  Obscenity is defined as anything that fits the criteria of the Miller test, which may include, for example, visual depictions, spoken words, or written text.
          Federal law makes it illegal to distribute, transport, sell, ship, mail, produce with intent to distribute or sell, or engage in a business of selling or transferring obscene matter. Convicted offenders face fines and imprisonment.  Although the law generally does not criminalize the private possession of obscene matter, the act of receiving such matter could violate federal laws prohibiting the use of the mails, common carriers, or interactive computer services for the purpose of transportation. (For more information, see Citizen's Guide to Federal Law on Obscenity).
Obscenity Law and Minors
          Federal law strictly prohibits the distribution of obscene matter to minors. Any transfer or attempt to transfer such material to a minor under the age of 16, including over the Internet, is punishable under federal law.  It is also illegal to use misleading website domain names with intent to deceive a minor into viewing harmful or obscene material.  For example, using a cartoon character or children´s television program in the domain of a website that contains harmful or obscene material may be punishable under federal law.
          In addition, visual representations, such as drawings, cartoons, or paintings that appear to depict minors engaged in sexual activity and are obscene are also illegal under federal law.
          It is important to note that the standard for what is harmful to minors may be different than the standard for adults, and offenders convicted of obscenity crimes involving minors face harsher penalties than if the crimes involved only adults (For more information, see Citizen's Guide to Federal Law on Obscenity).

Swearing and insulting doesn't make your point more true, just makes you seem more dumb when proven wrong. :)
#60
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
You used a misleading domain/title to the thread to lure those potentially under 16 to view gore.

It's in both our interests to beg whiteflame to delete that thread, eh? And leave my name out your mouth while at it.