Do we subsidize the rich?

Do we subsidize the rich?

  • Total voters
    19
  • Poll closed .
medicineman

medicineman

New Member
With all the tax breaks and loop holes for big business, the oil company giveaways, the bailouts for investors, the end of SS contributions for those making over $100,000, the Bush tax cuts for the rich Etc., are we actually subsidizing the rich??
 
medicineman

medicineman

New Member
Since it's my poll, I'll be the first to vote. Hell yes we subsidize the rich. That's the whole gist of capitalism.
 
desertrat

desertrat

Well-Known Member
hey medman,

i'm your second vote. time to pick on a liberal. why indulge in class warfare? do you really believe it is even mathematically possible for the rich as a group to be subsidized? no way - the rich pay the vast majority of taxes from which those subsidies come. the middle class and poor are net consumers of government services.

you make a lot of great points v. conservatives but there is no way you're right here except for exceptional circumstances.
 
medicineman

medicineman

New Member
desertrat said:
hey medman,

i'm your second vote. time to pick on a liberal. why indulge in class warfare? do you really believe it is even mathematically possible for the rich as a group to be subsidized? no way - the rich pay the vast majority of taxes from which those subsidies come. the middle class and poor are net consumers of government services.

you make a lot of great points v. conservatives but there is no way you're right here except for exceptional circumstances.
Click to expand...
OK, Let's get started.
1.Oil subsidies, what about them? Drilling rebates, tax credits etc. when the profit is beyond reason.
2.The discontinuation of SS deductions once one reaches the 100,000 mark. What about that, isn't that a subsidy
3.Big agra subsidies. What about being paid to not grow crops, and why is it always the big rich farmers that get the most?
4.Tax credits for corporations, like for shipping jobs overseas.
5. Thousands of businesses and corporations that pay no taxes at all, yet rake in a gigantic profit, Arent we the middle class subsidizing them? We have to pay a percentage of our income with only a few exemptions, no-one in the middle class as an employee gets away without paying.

I could go on for hours, but you should be getting the picture by now. Every cent not paid by the rich has to be paid by the lower to middle class, and they are the ones that can afford it the least. So my contention that we the people subsidize the rich is blatant.
 
desertrat

desertrat

Well-Known Member
medicineman said:
OK, Let's get started.
1.Oil subsidies, what about them? Drilling rebates, tax credits etc. when the profit is beyond reason.
2.The discontinuation of SS deductions once one reaches the 100,000 mark. What about that, isn't that a subsidy
3.Big agra subsidies. What about being paid to not grow crops, and why is it always the big rich farmers that get the most?
4.Tax credits for corporations, like for shipping jobs overseas.
5. Thousands of businesses and corporations that pay no taxes at all, yet rake in a gigantic profit, Arent we the middle class subsidizing them? We have to pay a percentage of our income with only a few exemptions, no-one in the middle class as an employee gets away without paying.

I could go on for hours, but you should be getting the picture by now. Every cent not paid by the rich has to be paid by the lower to middle class, and they are the ones that can afford it the least. So my contention that we the people subsidize the rich is blatant.
Click to expand...
i didn't say there were no subsidies, i said the rich were not net subsidized. there is a difference. while there are some subsidies for the rich, and some of the rich may be net consumers, on average the rich pay more than they get.

for example, the person that pays the max ss deduction gets less from ss than the person who pays little. that is a subsidy from the rich to the poor, not vice versa.
 
D

dknob

New Member
Most "Rich" people don't have to pay income taxes. They don't make income, they make profits or dividends. They pay a 15% tax, you and everyone else pay a lot more. Not to mention, its easy as hell to avoid taxes. You've heard of Donald Trump going bankrupt several times - Donald Trump hasn't gone bankrupt, his corporations have. If I set up a C corp and fill it full of money in the form of profit from business activities, I can issue loans to anyone including myself, loans are not taxed, and if you are "defaulting" on the loans from your corporation, the corporation goes bankrupt. Corporations are like another person, with its own credit.
 
desertrat

desertrat

Well-Known Member
dknob said:
Most "Rich" people don't have to pay income taxes. They don't make income, they make profits or dividends. They pay a 15% tax, you and everyone else pay a lot more. Not to mention, its easy as hell to avoid taxes. You've heard of Donald Trump going bankrupt several times - Donald Trump hasn't gone bankrupt, his corporations have. If I set up a C corp and fill it full of money in the form of profit from business activities, I can issue loans to anyone including myself, loans are not taxed, and if you are "defaulting" on the loans from your corporation, the corporation goes bankrupt. Corporations are like another person, with its own credit.
Click to expand...
rich people pay 95% of the income taxes in this country. it is a myth that they have tax breaks that eliminate that. dividends btw are counted as ordinary income and are taxed at whatever bracket you are in.

yes, one can shield one's net worth by using a C corp. but then you are double taxing yourself and practically you cannot do what you are suggesting unless there are substantial assets of yours at risk in the corp.
 
D

dknob

New Member
The double taxation occurs in a C corp when earnings are distributed to shareholders as dividends. The 15% I was talking about is the capital gains on sale of stock- which Im not sure if they've changed again.

What do you consider "Rich". I kinda consider Rich people the ones that live off their investments and primarily only pay capital gains. Yes you need assets in the C corp, but how are they at risk when you're only doing business with yourself? Causing your own corporate bankruptcy isnt necessarily a risky or 'bad' thing. Its just strategy.

desertrat said:
rich people pay 95% of the income taxes in this country. it is a myth that they have tax breaks that eliminate that. dividends btw are counted as ordinary income and are taxed at whatever bracket you are in.

yes, one can shield one's net worth by using a C corp. but then you are double taxing yourself and practically you cannot do what you are suggesting unless there are substantial assets of yours at risk in the corp.
Click to expand...
 
medicineman

medicineman

New Member
desertrat said:
i didn't say there were no subsidies, i said the rich were not net subsidized. there is a difference. while there are some subsidies for the rich, and some of the rich may be net consumers, on average the rich pay more than they get.

for example, the person that pays the max ss deduction gets less from ss than the person who pays little. that is a subsidy from the rich to the poor, not vice versa.
Click to expand...

. Not true, the max. is around 1800.00 and the Min. is around 350.00. They pay more for what they get, but they definently get more. My premis is this. If you are already rich, why should the government subsidize you at all. I am a socialist in the truest sense of the word. I believe the society should work for the betterment of all, not just the wealthy. I believe in making the workers owners of the society just like wealthy investors. If the workers actually owned the company, with a stake in profitability, don't you think the companies would be profitable. There are a few examples of this here in the good old USA.
http://www.ncba.coop/abcoop_work.cfm
http://www.greens.org/s-r/06/06-32.html
 
desertrat

desertrat

Well-Known Member
medicineman said:
[/COLOR]
. Not true, the max. is around 1800.00 and the Min. is around 350.00. They pay more for what they get, but they definently get more. My premis is this. If you are already rich, why should the government subsidize you at all. I am a socialist in the truest sense of the word. I believe the society should work for the betterment of all, not just the wealthy. I believe in making the workers owners of the society just like wealthy investors. If the workers actually owned the company, with a stake in profitability, don't you think the companies would be profitable. There are a few examples of this here in the good old USA.
http://www.ncba.coop/abcoop_work.cfm
http://www.greens.org/s-r/06/06-32.html
Click to expand...
for ss you forgot that the benefits are means-tested so the wealthy get much less than the maximum payment, that would go to a lower middle income retiree. all you have to know about who subsidizes who in ss is that the wealthy want out of the system.

the government subsidizes the rich in theory to incentivize behavior that will help the country as a whole. admittedly, these subsidies have in practice become another pork barrel opportunity.

socialism works in theory, but it falls apart because of the coercion required to get the more productive people in society to produce for the less productive. i actually agree completely that society should protect the less fortunate, but what society does voluntarily is very different from what government does through force.
 
medicineman

medicineman

New Member
dknob said:
Don't think I ever read you say that before. So just to be clear, is it your socialist values or Mr Obama's socialist values that make you a supporter of Barrack Obamarama?
Click to expand...
I must say both. No one is ever going to come up with the perfect system for everyone. The rich want laise-faire capitalism (What we've had under the Bush regime) and the poor want help. By making the workers owners of the society, I believe we could satisfy the majority. There will always be the fringes that will not like it. Socialistic capitalism is the wave of the future, get used to it.
 
ViRedd

ViRedd

New Member
Yes, we subsidize the rich. We also subsidize the middle class and the poor.

We have evolved into a political system whereby everyone is stealing from everyone else. The only ones making out in all of this is our liege lords in Washington who have convinced us that we are getting a "benefit." In return, we give the highest bidder our vote. Kinda like the life insurance companies who have convinced us that when we die, we get a "death benefit." ~lol~

Vi
 
medicineman

medicineman

New Member
I don't see us giving the highest bidder our vote, I mean, what has Bush done for all those poor bastards in NOLA and points south that thought he was sent from God, those idiotic right wing evangelicals (snake handlers) that voted for him? He started a war and sent their sons and daughters off to die for the wealthy. If you mean the wealthy vote for the highest bidder, You may be right. Bush certainly gave them some perks. If you mean all the poorfolk that will be voting this time for Obama and sending McPalin packing, then you may be right. They may actually get some comprehensive health care reform, some tax relief, their kids coming home from that hell hole of Iraq, (Obamas first order of business). I don't agree with him sending more troops into the meatgrinder of Afghanistan, but the ignorant public is still obsessed with OBL and actually think this is related. We've set up a puppet government there as well as Iraq and once we leave, (If ever), they will be treated as collaborators and traitors. we can't go around the world setting up quasi governments and propping them up with our "Fiat" money. Besides there aint no oil in them thar hills, may be a pipeline that we need control of though.
 
ViRedd

ViRedd

New Member
Med ...

The first thing you need to do, is to check out who O'Bama's economic advisors are. I'm telling you ... you are allowing the man to delude you with his promises. After all the debates we've had, I think I have you pegged politically ... O'Bama isn't on your side.

Here's some good information for you: PREVIEW: Obama's Centrist Economic Team

Yes, politicians get elected by promising the unattainable and unsustainable to their constituents. O'Bama is no different.

Vi
 
medicineman

medicineman

New Member
ViRedd said:
Med ...

The first thing you need to do, is to check out who O'Bama's economic advisors are. I'm telling you ... you are allowing the man to delude you with his promises. After all the debates we've had, I think I have you pegged politically ... O'Bama isn't on your side.

Here's some good information for you: PREVIEW: Obama's Centrist Economic Team

Yes, politicians get elected by promising the unattainable and unsustainable to their constituents. O'Bama is no different.

Vi
Click to expand...
I guess things never change. "A chicken in every pot" wasn't that the Huey Long Mantra? If you call ending the insane Iraq war a payoff, then by all means pay me off. If you call natrionalizing the health care system so every citizen has health care, then pay me off. If you call removing the Bush tax cuts for the rich a payoff, then pay me off. They can both talk about tax cuts, but the truth is we need a tax hike to get control of the debt. Stop wars, stop the space program, stop military wastefulness and cut the budget by 90%, cut pork, cut paying large agra for not growing, there is a long list of wasteful spending and Obama has the list. Tax breaks for the corps, ended, loopholes, closed. we can bring this government back under control, we just have to elect the right people. My advice, vote out all incumbents and put term limits on congress. When they get too comfortable in Washington, they have forgot about podunkville.
 
TheBrutalTruth

TheBrutalTruth

Well-Known Member
The only side a politician or a bureaucrat is on is their own. Most of the taxes paid into any program is wasted inside the programs on government employees. Government employees make more than private sector employees, have better health care plans, and are still on the defined benefit (as opposed to defined-contribution) retirement plans.

Any one that thinks government is there to "help" them is a fool (or retarded).

The only thing the government wants is to continue to force the division of the public along economic, social, racial, ethnic and gender lines so that it can pit us one against the other for its own benefit.
 
medicineman

medicineman

New Member
TheBrutalTruth said:
The only side a politician or a bureaucrat is on is their own. Most of the taxes paid into any program is wasted inside the programs on government employees. Government employees make more than private sector employees, have better health care plans, and are still on the defined benefit (as opposed to defined-contribution) retirement plans.

Any one that thinks government is there to "help" them is a fool (or retarded).

The only thing the government wants is to continue to force the division of the public along economic, social, racial, ethnic and gender lines so that it can pit us one against the other for its own benefit.
Click to expand...

You may be right, on the other hand you could be wrong. Just what is this thing you call government? Well, my goodness, it's a conglomeration of people and Ideas that are granted power over your life, some good (Paramedics come to mind), some Bad, (DEA, FBI, CIA, NSA, most state and local police, etc.) when's the last time you had a cop there when you needed them?
To change Government, you need to change attitudes. Attitudes about it and attitudes within it. You can be part of the problem or part of the solution. Life is not just black and white. Government is not just good or bad. There are good people in government and bad people, good citizens and bad ones. It's the ying and yang. One judges the government based on their relationship to it. If one is getting benerfits from the government, (Retired workers and recipients of government benefits) then maybe government is not all that bad. If one has just been through a tax audit and been found to owe megabucks (ViRedd), then it's the evil empire. So it's all relative actually.
I really don't like the political arm of the government, they are selfish and don't care about the citizens in the least. They start wars, breed unrest in foriegn lands to benefit the corporations, lie, cheat, steal, and are just basically bad players. These assholes need to be reckoned with, throw the bums out.
Then there are the bureaucrats, those self fulfilling bastards that exist to perpetuate their jobs, no matter what it takes. These include the heads of bureaus like the above named CIA, FBI, DEA, NSA, IRS, Etcetera adinfinitum. These exist to protect the political arm of the government.
I can see why wealthy people hate the government, It is always trying to get more money out of them, unless they are the real wealthy ones, those people own the government.
 
desertrat

desertrat

Well-Known Member
medicineman said:
I really don't like the political arm of the government, they are selfish and don't care about the citizens in the least. They start wars, breed unrest in foriegn lands to benefit the corporations, lie, cheat, steal, and are just basically bad players. These assholes need to be reckoned with, throw the bums out.
Click to expand...
hey medman, you are going to lose your socialist membership card if you don;t immediately disavow these scandalous lies and start singing the virtues of government.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top