More USA political questions
- Thread starter Keith1
- Start date
Taking any money from the financially challenged would further impact on their hardships. To then be fined for non payment would probably result in a prison population explosion. I suppose you could exchange your labour in lieu of remuneration but that might kick off a rebellion from those that remember the chain gang. For those that have nothing nothing is all they can afford.
Bob
This is a classic lib distortion. You refer to the richest folks as billionaires. If so how come tax rates were raised on those making effectively more than 250k. And in fact the majority of raised rates is paid by peoiple making 250-500k.
This is exactly my nazi anaology you had such offence to. What was done was equate professionals, usualy double income families to "the very rich refuse pay their employees enough to pay taxes" populist scaremoingering and factualy incorrect. Type casting professionaly with a near mythical billioaire class of abusers and telling the public that these who have ill gotten gains must pay more.
Now if you happen to look at the forbes 400 richest who are billionaires(a lot not int he usa) you will see that by far the majority(in the usa) made their money in things like entertainment, computers and real estate, none of which are indiustires known to pay poor wages. Induistries paying poor wages are usualy public companies in things such as fast foods, or say wal mart. Yet consumer want cheap inexpensive goods too. Other industries like steel or auto are no longer owned by billionaires they are public companies and ususaly not so profitable.
So yeah you want to raise taxes on the very rich. please define very rich for me. Is it income above 1 million, because thas not very rich when you pay 50% in taxes and are liable for your own company in lean times. Is it 10 million a hundred million. Or are you saying as above its people with a billion or more in assets? Because I have got news for you, there are not that many people that rich, and even if you took all their money 100% taxed you would run gov for maybe 2 months.
The solution is vibrant economic growth, which means tax reform, so that the burden is not on proifessionals or small to medium businesses, rather that corporations and unearnmed income pays the same rate as good earners. At 25% the gov would collect all it collects now, and there would be massive growth. That woud lead to competition for workers and wage increases.
Last edited:
Except its now manadatory to have health care and if you dont buy it, then you are fined. That is encoded in Obamacare. I say just apply the same principle to wages. If you earn 20k $100 you can aford, you may hate it, but you can pay it, if it goes up by $10 you wont like it and may not vote for it.
If you make 50K per year maybe you have to pay $250 minimum, same principle. There is nothing wrong with having a minimal fee for those making 20k and up. Hell we have the AMT for those making more.
Last edited:
Craik has zero respect for our founding fathers and their silly little racist document....he just aint got the nads to come out and say the obvious.
Pete McCluskey.
Lifetime Supporter
Jim, will you please answer Keith's question?
Jim Craik
Lifetime Supporter
So you can't figure out how giving Americans with the highest incomes 10X the voting power of the Americans with the lowest incomes would give power to white males.
Really....................you have no idea?
Lets see, as of 2012 Womens annual income was approximately 77% of Mens
As of 2010 Hispanic annual income was approximately 63% of Whites
As of 2010 Black income was approximatley 72% of Whites.
*******************
So on average........................assuming my math is correct
Each White male would have approximately 23% more votes than women.
Each White male would have approximetely 37% more votes than Hispanics
Each White male would have approximtely 28% more votes than Blacks
Now Keith, Pete, I answered your question, now answer mine.
If the power of each persons vote was based on their income, which group of AMERICANS would have the most power at the polls?
Last edited:
Pete McCluskey.
Lifetime Supporter
Grumpy old white guys Yehaaaarrrrepper:epper:epper:epper:
epper:epper:epper:epper:
The reason the so called lib left is in power is due to rightist abuse and ineptitude. Lets not forget madatory prison sentances for having weed, a war or two. But those issues are small fry in comparison to alienating women of gender issues, gays over marriage, and hispanics over imigration, all of which has nothing to do with actualy governing, well maybe imiigration does.
Gender issues aka abortion is a constitutional/supreme court isse, it has litte to nothing to do with what party is in power, yet alienating 70% of women over its is a sure way to lose an election. This is was and shall be aconstitutional issue like the 2nd amndment. Gay marriage, why is gov involved in marriage, once again resolved by the supreme court, not technicaly an election issue.
Immigration, the people are coming over anyway, and they stay, whu alienate hispanic votes over this.
lastly the Dems knew how to motivate people using new tech, If I rememeber correctly in 08 Mcain didnt even have e-mail.
All of which means if Romney got 48% of the vote given the above a lot of people voted for him despite thenselvs.
Yeah a lot of lazeabouts vote, but that is not what won or lost the election, it was repub incompetance and hard lines on social issues, something not technicaly part of an election anyway.
Lets not forget O stole repub thunder by being or at least claiming to be strong on defense.
If a repub can get nominated who is ok with gay marriage(pro constitution) and netral on abortion(respects the court as a principle even if they disagree) , not anti hispanic they will be elected by a real landslide.
70% of those polled during the shutdown felt that the debt was the single largest issue facing the narion and that the limit should not just be extended.
Dems won by default. Time for the right to move out of the 50's on social rhetoric and on into the 2ks, and go to its roots on fiscal conservatism, that is a winning formula for elections and for the country socialy and economicaly.
Not at all. You take my words beyond their intent. I did not say that a person must pay taxes to have the right to vote. I mean that a person must contribute to society, IF they wish to have a say in how it is administered.
There are many ways a person may contribute and before the Left accuse me of forgetting those with physical reasons preventing them from working or contributing in some other way, I have not overlooked them.
Jim, I DO NOT want to keep anyone from voting. I do not wish to punish people. I merely believe that to have a right to vote, you should expect to contribute.
IF you can't find work, pick up litter, or volunteer at your local old folks home, or do the shopping for your elderly neighbour, or......
Don't sit on your backside watching Jeremy Kyle, drinking Tea I paid for in a home I paid for, smoking fags I paid for and banging out another little ankle-biter every ten months, simply to entitle you to more of my money and support.
AND don't expect to choose how this country is run and by whom.
Did most of the richest people in America pay their workers too little to qualify for tax contributions? Did they? Really? What period are your dragging up from the past now Jim?
So you can't figure out how giving Americans with the highest incomes 10X the voting power of the Americans with the lowest incomes would give power to white males.
Really....................you have no idea?
Lets see, as of 2012 Womens annual income was approximately 77% of Mens
As of 2010 Hispanic annual income was approximately 63% of Whites
As of 2010 Black income was approximatley 72% of Whites.
*******************
So on average........................assuming my math is correct
Each White male would have approximately 23% more votes than women.
Each White male would have approximetely 37% more votes than Hispanics
Each White male would have approximtely 28% more votes than Blacks
Now Keith, Pete, I answered your question, now answer mine.
If the power of each persons vote was based on their income, which group of AMERICANS would have the most power at the polls?
Well now you see, how on earth could I have known that information. Those statistics are quite disgraceful actually and would, as you say, put the power into the hands of whitey (or continue in the hands of whitey to be more accurate).
Do you have any statistics to show if or how BOB has levelled this playing field since he has been POTUS?
So you can't figure out how giving Americans with the highest incomes 10X the voting power of the Americans with the lowest incomes would give power to white males.
Really....................you have no idea?
Lets see, as of 2012 Womens annual income was approximately 77% of Mens
As of 2010 Hispanic annual income was approximately 63% of Whites
As of 2010 Black income was approximatley 72% of Whites.
*******************
So on average........................assuming my math is correct
Each White male would have approximately 23% more votes than women.
Each White male would have approximetely 37% more votes than Hispanics
Each White male would have approximtely 28% more votes than Blacks
Now Keith, Pete, I answered your question, now answer mine.
If the power of each persons vote was based on their income, which group of AMERICANS would have the most power at the polls?
This is rubbish. Utter rubbish. There must be a subliminal message hidden in an argument like this?
You simply can't break society up like that and use it to illustrate deliberate manipulation of a race, or the distribution of wealth to favour a minority. There are rich ethnic folk too. If you do, how do they carry out such a survey in a country like Mexico? 20% of Latins are rich because? 80% are poor because? If they can't use race in such a debate, what can they use?
It is simply too pathetic an argument Jim. There will always be poor and rich. The FACT is, that most of us lie firmly in the middle, being screwed by both ends.
Why are so many businesses owned and run by old whitey? Because an even older white guy spent his money and his time, building that business up from the dirt.
I believe in one man, one vote. You bang on about a rich person having 10x the voting power of a poor guy. Give it up. You can't discuss this in any meaningful way, if you argue about influence. Influence is applied to government from all sorts of places Jim, many we would disapprove of, be we Left or Right. That is a different thing form discussing a sponger's right to vote.
Last edited:
It's extremely divisive. But there again, it's a common theme from him. The Japanese introduce conflict into a hitherto harmonious gathering - as a means of producing creative thought - and it works to a degree, but this kind of automatic confrontation and never mind the merit of anything, is the most negative and tiresome position.
Interestingly though he never starts a post - but picks others to pieces then hides behind that "but we all agreed" bollocks.
But, he brings out the best in you Peek-Ford!
Don't waste your time mate...
Interestingly though he never starts a post - but picks others to pieces then hides behind that "but we all agreed" bollocks.
But, he brings out the best in you Peek-Ford!
Don't waste your time mate...
Pete McCluskey.
Lifetime Supporter
Mark please keep wasting your time, I quite enjoy your reasoned replies.
I also dislike intensely that ABLE bodied men and women sponge off the system. Of course they can contribute to the system in the ways you mentioned.
If people who did not contribute were denied the vote watch the politicos change their pork barrelling methods.
I also dislike intensely that ABLE bodied men and women sponge off the system. Of course they can contribute to the system in the ways you mentioned.
If people who did not contribute were denied the vote watch the politicos change their pork barrelling methods.
Last edited:
