Even if the Republicans only cared about the rich [Please...], we need them!

Are these poor people on assistance?

 

To be as clear as I can. I did not make an error at all. You brought up Bill Gates to defend your argument therefore it is fair game for me to question you on him. Now run from the question with your tail between your legs exactly as I knew you would but for the record, I know that you know the answer and I know why you cant give the answer.

 

Yes, and it would be nice if alleged conservatives would stop complaining about social spending and taxes since they can always quit their day jobs, go on welfare, and stop paying as much in taxes.

 

" Sure, but so long as there is a demand, there will be a supply for the product. There will always be someone there to provide it. "

Supply comes first. Somebody like Jobs or Gates comes up with an innovation, but it goes nowhere if they can't find somebody with big money to finance the startup business of providing whatever it is on a large scale. That is the mistake so many on the left make, it's like fuels supply. Sure, once the product or service gets going and people find out about it. But it never gets going until investor(s) provide the money to start production in the first place.

 

It could be claimed that markets will merely reach a new equilibrium. Correcting for a market inefficiency should enable markets to reach a more efficient equilibrium.

 

we need consumers.. if the rich are not supplying, someone will fill the demand, look at the war on drugs as an example... someone will always fill the void to supply where there is demand

the rich do though buy laws to make it harder for the regular Joe to start his own business....

.

 

True. But here's the question: who's really at fault here, the rich guy who tries to buy influence or the politician who takes the money. And don't give me the crap that it's only the repubs; that's a load of BS. Tell you what, why don't we stop all subsidies to any company that has more than 1 billion dollars in revenue, AND scrub the tax code to get rid of EVERY tax break, deduction, exemption, loophole, and credit. Then lower the tax rates to be more competitive with the rest of the world.

 

Why not just ditch our drug war to lower our tax burden.

 

Income isn't the only qualification for welfare. Many folks are retiring, shutting down businesses, and choosing not to start new ventures to live off of their savings.



​

 

I didn't offer an argument. I saw the assertion "I have never met or heard of a poor person who created a job and hired somebody" — and I provided the example of a guy named Bill. Who did.

Now if you have a new argument, state it. But don't pretend I've offered one.



​

 

There is no door. There's nowhere you can go, on this planet or off it, that the wardens don't consider themselves the captains of your destiny.

 

You can't get rid of them.

Here's the problem, the tax basis itself is unfair. Income is an unfair metric to tax people on, and we all know it. No one want's to tax the farmer who made an income of $250,000 by spending $200,000 more than the stock broker who made an income of $120,00 by spending $20,000.

Fundamentally we don't want to tax income, we want to tax profit. So we introduce tax breaks: deductions / exemptions (or as they're otherwise known loopholes). Loopholes exist for the purpose of making the tax basis (income) approximate profit. And therefore approximate a fair tax.

The controversy occurs because what you consider a reasonable deduction is different than what I consider a reasonable deduction. So you call my deductions loopholes and I call your tax credits loopholes and neither of us is completely happy. But if you get rid of all deductions we'll both be a lot less happy.

As long as we use income as a basis there will always be deductions, also known as loopholes.

But I like your idea of trying to end subsidies and lowering the tax rate.



​

 

They're not wardens, they're baby sitters. That you can't find a way to take care of yourself without it doesn't mean the charity you demand is a prison.

And there are many places on this planet you can go where no one will provide you with a job, a free lunch or the restrictions that go with them.




​

 

I can take care of myself just fine, thank you. It's taking care of rich people that is literally choking humanity on their poisons.

We don't need them. They're nothing but harmful parasites to the rest of us.

 

Sure that makes sense.

 

uhhh I did you then refused to answer the question. Please dodge it again.

 

What the heck was your question anyway?




​

 

Rich people create jobs by hiring, investing and creating

 

What do you do to take care of rich people and what's to prevent you from not doing it?



​

 

You cant read past posts? I can.

 

Drop the social conservatism, get back to economic policy that doesnt just benefit the wealthy, and yeah Ill vote R

 

Then they'd be Democrats.

 

Where are all the (*)(*)(*)(*)ing jobs? We've given them trillions in tax cuts, they've doubled their take of the nation's income (to about 20%) and wealth (to about 40%) over the past 30 years. They are far richer than ever.

We should have unemployment at 0.1% if what you say were true.

 

Everyone has been given a tax cut. Most of that *income* is stocks. More money= more cuts when taxes are cut. Common sense will tell you that. Also a vast majority of taxes are paid by these super rich you complain about.
No you thinking that unemployment should be 0.1% is way off base. I have given facts, you reply with nothing really.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/johntam...dget-but-the-rich-do-create-nearly-every-job/

 

Everything you do in this economy takes care of a rich person. Every dollar you spend trickles up. Which is fine, for all that it completely defeats the idea that capitalism resembles a meritocracy. No big deal. The problem is that the system is strictly controlled by those at the top of the financial flow. The government really should be made up of people whose lives resemble those of the governed, and the lives of the rich, by definition, do not resemble the lives of most of us.

How are you supposed to make decisions when you aren't going to be participating in the consequences of those decisions? You make a rule and shift some economic margin a few points one way or the other -- but you, personally, know that you won't be caught up in those margins, it'll all be people that you'll just step over on the way to your office? That's no way to run things.