Oregon passes tax increases on corporations and the wealthy..

[OldTrapper]

If the rich made the laws the way that you imagine they do, they wouldn't be paying the majority of the taxes.

The root of your problem seems to be the idea that somehow all wealth is inherently owned equally by all people. Therefore if one person has more than another, the only possible explanation is that this person has "taken" more than his fair share. If you really believe this, then not only do you not understand economics, but you do not even understand the basic nature of wealth, and how it is created. The "pie" is not fixed at a specific volume. Our economy is a magic pie, and it is as big as we make it from day to day. Everybody who contributes makes the pie bigger. If your slice of pie isn't big enough, the responsibility to make it bigger is yours and yours alone, and nobody can make it smaller against your will except the government. If you don't think so, then answer me this. Is there the same amount of value in the economy today as there was 50 years ago? If you believe that wealth must be distributed evenly by bureaucrats, then you must believe that there will never be more wealth than there is now.

While I do no tbelieve that wealth should be "redistributed" by government I do believe that all should have equal access to that wealth. As things stand now 2% of the population controls 40% of the wealth, and the gap is growing larger each day.

I do not know if you are the same "capitalist pig" I know of in another forum, however, let me give you an example of how the "rich" construe things in their favor aside from their donations to candidates, their hiring of lobbyiests, etc.

Bill Gates recently testified before Congress that he needs more foreign workers to keep his business going since there is a lack of talent in the US. However, this is a blantant lie. Bill Gates hires foreign workers simply because they work cheaper then American workers. He then has the American worker train the foreign worker to do the job, and if they do not train that worker they will not get a severance check when they are fired. Do a google search
the abuses of HB-1 and L1 visas.

Just as another thought, did you know that when the stimulus package came out that MicroSoft received a 180 million GRANT from the government to build two pedestrian overpasses at his corporate offices?

You see, the "rich" are not "rich" because of their hard work. They remain "rich" because of the advantages given to them by the power they have acquired such as the ability to put their money in offshore accounts, or to set up "headquarters" in a two story building in the Caymans which has 20 rooms that are the corporate headquarters for the 250 corporate offices addressed there.

 

[rationalist]

You are right on the money.

Capitalist Pig has just succumbed to the lies that the rich tell to the poor to make the poor think it is a good thing that thy are poor and the rich are rich.

One of these lies is that there is equal opportunity and that people make choices that will make them rich or poor.

This is so obviously untrue you wonder how people who believe it got so stupid.

The idea that the child of a single drug addicted black prostitute has the same opportunity as the child of a billionairre white married couple is just ridiculous.

 

[cdbussey]

You are right on the money.

Capitalist Pig has just succumbed to the lies that the rich tell to the poor to make the poor think it is a good thing that thy are poor and the rich are rich.

One of these lies is that there is equal opportunity and that people make choices that will make them rich or poor.

This is so obviously untrue you wonder how people who believe it got so stupid.

The idea that the child of a single drug addicted black prostitute has the same opportunity as the child of a billionairre white married couple is just ridiculous.

Why SHOULD the child of a single drug addicted black prostitute have the same opportunity as the child of.......? Provide your explanation of ethics.

As a poor person it is hard for me not to agree with you guys. But then as a 5'6" guy do I wail at the unfair advantage against me when I have to run a foot race against a 6'3" guy? Fair would be he is hobbled or something right?

I live in America, maybe in other countries it is bad, but here it is not THAT depressing to be poor. I don't go hungry. I live in a house with my kids, we have heat, ac, a tv, internet etc... etc...

I would reverse the question to you. Why SHOULD the child of losers have a free pass to exactly the same advantages as children of folk that worked hard and DIDN'T get hooked on drugs?

Do you say the child of the crack whore is innocent? So is the child of the banker.... Isn't he? You want the bankers' child to suffer because his neighbors chose to party instead of read their algebra book?

 

[cdbussey]

If the rich made the laws the way that you imagine they do, they wouldn't be paying the majority of the taxes.

Just wanted to clarify what the pig is saying. The rich 1% pay the majority of taxes. That alone should tell us something eh pig?

50% of 10 million leaves a paltry 5 million to live on (before deductions and loopholes). right? 10% of 18,000 leaves 16, 200 to live on. Yeah the rich people are REALLY shouldering the tax burden. Putting themselves WAY out, right pig? It must be tough in the 50% tax bracket. I actually am feeling sorry for those poor rich folk.

 

[OldTrapper]

Why SHOULD the child of a single drug addicted black prostitute have the same opportunity as the child of.......? Provide your explanation of ethics.

As a poor person it is hard for me not to agree with you guys. But then as a 5'6" guy do I wail at the unfair advantage against me when I have to run a foot race against a 6'3" guy? Fair would be he is hobbled or something right?

I live in America, maybe in other countries it is bad, but here it is not THAT depressing to be poor. I don't go hungry. I live in a house with my kids, we have heat, ac, a tv, internet etc... etc...

I would reverse the question to you. Why SHOULD the child of losers have a free pass to exactly the same advantages as children of folk that worked hard and DIDN'T get hooked on drugs?

Do you say the child of the crack whore is innocent? So is the child of the banker.... Isn't he? You want the bankers' child to suffer because his neighbors chose to party instead of read their algebra book?

Ahhh, the son must pay for the sins of the father.

 

[cdbussey]

Are you suggesting that full grown adults should be completely supported as if they were children? The example you use to prove your point, proves mine.

Everybody agrees that society should care for those who CAN NOT care for themselves. Able bodied adults who have just had a "case of hard luck" do not fit into that category. This is yet another straw man of the left.

Do you not consider it possible that a full-grown adult and able bodied man CAN (even if you consider it was shere stupidity on his part) dig himself into a hole he can't get out of without help?

 

[cdbussey]

"The extreme poor that Mare talks about would be better served by private charity for the most part. That would be a distribution of wealth, but a voluntary one." by PLC1

Good point, but there is no charity of that type, if there was I would certainly support it.

And GenSeca, YES, I think that people should sometimes get money they don't earn. If you don't agree with that, then please tell me how your children paid their way through childhood.

You always present my position in black and white, which it is not. I don't want to see the redistribution of wealth ended until the playing field is more level, once the egregious abusers have been stripped of their super-abundance, then we can discuss the what comes next. Would you agree to ANY money going to people who don't earn it? Mentally deficient people? Paralyzed people? Orphans? Is there anyone?

Mare, I think what he is saying a dozen different ways is YOU are not welcome to HIS money without HIS permission. You are trying to convince him to agree to being robbed. I think you are wrong too. I'm a poor person Mare and I don't agree with you.

Would I like to see the playing field levelled? Yes!!!! Do I think the field is level? NO!!!!!! Do I think the answer is Steal from the current winners?????? NO!!!!!!!!

 

[cdbussey]

And when there is not enough given voluntarily, then we simply let them die in the streets to be eaten by the dogs?

Bedtime, it's been a long day. I begin to suspect that you and I may not always agree on things, GenSeca, but I'm guessing that as long as we have a greed-based system and a portion of the population who are greedy and rapacious that we will need laws to regulate their rapacity. You disagree, I suspect, but such is life.

You seem one track minded though Mare. It's hard not to agree with Genseca. He says it over and over again, he is NOT seeking for people's rights to be violated.

Maybe you are barking up the wrong tree. Maybe instead of a CHANGE in the system, what you ought to be campaigning for is a change in the SYSTEM.

What is your definition of theft Mare? How is it possible you can't see that your recent proposals are seen as nothing more than theft? I moan my current predicament, but I don't feel like anybody here owes me anything.

Socialism is a step backard though, just my opinion.

 

[cdbussey]

...In the meantime, my point remains... Either it is immoral, unjust and unethical to violate the rights of some for the benefit of others or it is not. It should not matter which direction the money is flowing.

Do I understand you correctly to be saying that you see no moral distinction whatsoever in robbing the rich to feed the poor and robbing the poor to feed the rich? I THINK I just said the same thing you did.

I DID just say the same thing you did. Somehow it sounds better (for you) the way you said it though huh?

Genseca, tell me which of these two things are the greater crime ( I admit both ARE criminal, both misdemeanors in the eyes of THE LAW. Want YOUR opinion). 1. A poor man steals a $20 item from Nieman Marcus to buy food to feed his hungry child. 2. A rich man steals a $20 item from a 2nd hand store, just to increase his wealth.

 

[rationalist]

CD Bussey, black people have been treated appalingly in America. Just one generation ago they were not allowed to use the same restaurants, buses etc let alone get good jobs and a good education.

The US is still institutionally racist. The book 'Freakonomics' did an experiment where it sent resumes to job advertisements. In each case it sent 2 identical documents but one with a neutral name and one with an obviously black name. The latter were overwhelmingly rejected.

So you see black people are disadvantaged to start with.

Here is another example. Rich people fix the game in their favour. Companies fix prices to make the basics of life eg food more expensive than it need be. This hurts poor people much more than rich people as poor people have to spend a much greater % of their income on food.

Your views are the product of brainwashing by the rich. You think it is right and proper that you are poor and they are rich.

So let me ask you?

Why should the rich screw the poor over time and time again?

Why shouldn't these massive inequalities in society not be addressed.

And why do you consider the son of a single drug addicted mother to be a loser? What part did he play in the circumstances of his birth?

And before you blame the mother, how did she get into that mess?

Most people who turn out 'bad' were born into very difficult circumstances and most of those circumstances can be traced back one way or another to the nasty activities of the rich.

 

[Gipper]

CD Bussey, black people have been treated appalingly in America. Just one generation ago they were not allowed to use the same restaurants, buses etc let alone get good jobs and a good education.

The US is still institutionally racist. The book 'Freakonomics' did an experiment where it sent resumes to job advertisements. In each case it sent 2 identical documents but one with a neutral name and one with an obviously black name. The latter were overwhelmingly rejected.

So you see black people are disadvantaged to start with.

Here is another example. Rich people fix the game in their favour. Companies fix prices to make the basics of life eg food more expensive than it need be. This hurts poor people much more than rich people as poor people have to spend a much greater % of their income on food.

Your views are the product of brainwashing by the rich. You think it is right and proper that you are poor and they are rich.

So let me ask you?

Why should the rich screw the poor over time and time again?

Why shouldn't these massive inequalities in society not be addressed.

And why do you consider the son of a single drug addicted mother to be a loser? What part did he play in the circumstances of his birth?

And before you blame the mother, how did she get into that mess?

Most people who turn out 'bad' were born into very difficult circumstances and most of those circumstances can be traced back one way or another to the nasty activities of the rich.

Another garbage post with no reputable sources backing your statement.

How does a nation elect a Marxist black American if we are so racist?

A generation is 25 years. According to you in 1985 we were a segregated nation. Wrong-O...

The rich screw the poor...oh how silly. The rich employee millions of Americans through investment and consumption.

Most people who turn out 'bad' were born into very difficult circumstances and most of those circumstances can be traced back one way or another to the nasty activities of the rich.

Please prove this using a reputable source.

And please tell us how you would like to address inequality?

 

[rationalist]

Gipper, I quoted an experiment from Freakonomics which demonstrates that the US workplace is racist.

You squeal about sources and when they are provided you ignore them.

Because you are a bigot.

And as for your point about electing a black marxist president - you clearly know nothing about Marxism and the fact that a black man was elected just shows how bad Bush really was.

If the Democrat candidate had been white the victory margin would have been much much larger

 

[rationalist]

Oh BTW sorry about my point suggesting that the US operated apartheid a generation ago.

It was a few years earlier.

All the prejuduces vanished in the few years I was out by.

Silly me.

 

[OldTrapper]

Gipper, I quoted an experiment from Freakonomics which demonstrates that the US workplace is racist.

You squeal about sources and when they are provided you ignore them.

Because you are a bigot.

And as for your point about electing a black marxist president - you clearly know nothing about Marxism and the fact that a black man was elected just shows how bad Bush really was.

If the Democrat candidate had been white the victory margin would have been much much larger

I don't think the workplace is near as racist as many would have some to believe. I do believe there are some who make their entire living off promoting racism, and thus it must be kept alive. Then too, there are a few who are just born racist.

If the Democratic candidate had been white, or even Hillary, they would not have won, and McCain would be president. With Obama as a candidate the Democrats had the "race" factor to exploit, and the "historical event" to play up.

 

[rationalist]

'' I don't think the workplace is near as racist as many would have some to believe''

Well that sure told those analysts at Freakonomics with their high falutin experiment.