The Rich Are Taxed Enough (Debate) - Intelligence Squared U.S.

Padawanbater2

Well-Known Member
You seem to be saying if a person has something and somebody else doesn't it is their duty to serve them.
"In giving to an unfortunate man we do not give him a gratuity but only help to return to him that of which the general injustice of our system has deprived him. For if none of us drew to himself a greater share of the world's wealth than his neighbor, there would be no rich and no poor. Even charity therefore is an act of duty imposed upon us by the rights of others and the debt we owe to them." -Lectures on Ethics, Emmanuel Kant
 

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
"In giving to an unfortunate man we do not give him a gratuity but only help to return to him that of which the general injustice of our system has deprived him. For if none of us drew to himself a greater share of the world's wealth than his neighbor, there would be no rich and no poor. Even charity therefore is an act of duty imposed upon us by the rights of others and the debt we owe to them." -Lectures on Ethics, Emmanuel Kant

Yet when you say giving, you are abusing the meaning of the term. Giving is a willful act, by the person doing the giving, by his own choice. What you have described is not giving, it is taking with a heavy douse of rationalization.
 

Padawanbater2

Well-Known Member
Yet when you say giving, you are abusing the meaning of the term. Giving is a willful act, by the person doing the giving, by his own choice. What you have described is not giving, it is taking with a heavy douse of rationalization.
"In giving.. ..we do not give, we only help to return to him that of which the general injustice of our system has deprived him."

Giving is not a willful act, it is a duty bestowed upon each of us by the rights of others and the debt we owe to them.
 

Oregon Gardener

Well-Known Member

"Robert Reich and Mark Zandi debate Glenn Hubbard and Arthur Laffer on the topic: The Rich Are Taxed Enough. Moderated by John Donvan.

How do we fix the economy? The U.S. government's budget deficit is nearing a trillion dollars for the fourth straight year and unemployment remains high. With the Bush-era tax cuts that are set to expire at the end of 2012, what is the best move for continued economic recovery? President Obama says we should raise taxes on those making more than $250,000 to reduce the deficit. Others say that the richest 1% already pay more than a quarter of all federal taxes and higher taxes for job creators would slow economic growth. Are the nation's wealthiest not paying their "fair share," or should tax breaks be extended for everyone in the name of job creation?

For: Glenn Hubbard
For: Arthur Laffer

Against: Robert Reich
Against: Mark Zandi"

Debate starts around the 10-minute mark


Laffer and Hubbard get taken to school!
This book report got me kicked out of B.A.101 It's a rough draft so don't beat me up on the typos.
The main thesis of “Beyond Outrage” a book by former Secretary of Labor for the first Clinton administration Robert Reich, attempts to explain in a simplistic and entertaining way, through his own perspective, historical data, and some cleverly drawn (by Reich) cartoons, the fallacies and quasi-criminal activities that existed and still exist within the structure of the U.S. economy and offers somewhat altruistic solutions for its repair. This book was well written and lacked any organizational incongruities that would prevent the reader from becoming informed and entertained. Reich touches on several key topics which include the question; what has gone wrong with our economy? Other topics include the breaking of the “basic bargain,” social regression through political appointments, and the ethical behavior of corporations and their Chief Executive Officers.

My interest in this book is as it pertains to Business 101 is the study of ethical and moral standards used by corporations, robber barons, and big business, that in my opinion, have always been woefully negligent of any moral character throughout history. Additionally, I have always been interested in the opinions of the author because of a proven track record of success with fiscal policies when administered at the highest levels. Regardless of whether or not I agree or disagree with certain policies, it is my personal belief that Reich has taken his fiduciary responsibilities seriously and operated in a manner that is above reproach.

As for what has gone wrong with our economy and our democracy, Reich does not come out and simply blame elements of the right wing. He blames a consensus of people from the right, left, and center. “The rigged game” is Reich’s description of how during the three decades after World War Two American were the recipients of grate prosperity because of large investment by government and corporations in education and infrastructure. He notes that following those years starting in 1981 that the top tax rate paid by Americans the upper income was as low as 35 on capital gains in juxtaposition to the 70 percent paid in the previous years. Today capital gains taxes are as low as 15 percent according to Reich. He actually puts names and dollar amounts to the financial malfeasance that has been conducted by the corporate officers that preside over the larger institutions. For example, Reich claims that “the chairman of Merk took home 17.9 million in 2010 as Merk laid off 16 thousand workers.”
 

Nutes and Nugs

Well-Known Member
If everybody had the same attitude as you, this wouldn't be a great nation; it would be Somalia.

That you so willingly subscribe to the idea that you or anyone is without responsibility for others less fortunate in our society simply exposes you as selfish beyond reason or social acceptability.
That's why we have churches.
Too bad the lefties want to condemn them.

It's great for people to GIVE if they can.
It's bad for the government to TAKE your wealth to share it about. WTF

If you didn't notice Pada is again trying to justify communism.
 

Padawanbater2

Well-Known Member
That's why we have churches.
Too bad the lefties want to condemn them.

It's great for people to GIVE if they can.
It's bad for the government to TAKE your wealth to share it about. WTF

If you didn't notice Pada is again trying to justify communism.
Kant died in 1804, 44 years before Marx and Engels published The Communist Manifesto

Genius

And I don't subscribe to communism
 

ttystikk

Well-Known Member
That's why we have churches.
Too bad the lefties want to condemn them.

It's great for people to GIVE if they can.
It's bad for the government to TAKE your wealth to share it about. WTF

If you didn't notice Pada is again trying to justify communism.
So you think charity should handle it? The poor should deserve and expect NOTHING from our society?!

You ARE a selfish bastard, aren't you?
 

hotrodharley

Well-Known Member
That's why we have churches.
Too bad the lefties want to condemn them.

It's great for people to GIVE if they can.
It's bad for the government to TAKE your wealth to share it about. WTF

If you didn't notice Pada is again trying to justify communism.
If others were not writing all the rules for the game, and changing them as they need or see fit, you might have a valid point. But you are blowing hot air. At the least. I'm sure you drive the unplowed streets in winter to protest socialist tactics like snowplows. The world is black and white to you. Until . . . . ..
 

MistrBurrberry

Well-Known Member
So you think charity should handle it? The poor should deserve and expect NOTHING from our society?!
Lolling at churches, The group that will ignore the plight of "sinners" who need help such as trans people, gays, interracial couples, people of the "wrong" race than their congregation, and attach strings to their help. Not to mention that none of the "church charity as an alternative to government social systems" group ever talks about the waste of mega churches or televangelist, but they'll go on and on about faux waste like obama-phones.

If you want inefficiency, try to fix a nationwide problem with tiny community based charities rather than leveraging size and infrastructure.

Not to mention churches aren't subject to discrimination based laws, so they can pick and choose who they offer their charity to and under what conditions.

No thanks!
 
Last edited:

m4s73r

Well-Known Member
Churches and religious people are the bane of this country and not its salvation. I'm for torching them all after notice to evacuate. Run the fucking preachers out of town on a rail after tarring and feathering the bastards.
Or at least fucking tax them. jesus.
As for the topic, when 1% of the population hold half or more wealth of the country they need to pay more in either taxes or wages. Id perfer wages to all the people they employee. Or taxes so welfare can.
Want a tax break? makes sure your employee isnt on welfare.
If you make 3500 per hour, yet only pay your employee 7.50 then we should tax you at 90%.
If you make 3500/hr and your employees make 35/hr TAX BREAK!

Do i really need to quote FDR on Living wage again?
 

ttystikk

Well-Known Member
Or at least fucking tax them. jesus.
As for the topic, when 1% of the population hold half or more wealth of the country they need to pay more in either taxes or wages. Id perfer wages to all the people they employee. Or taxes so welfare can.
Want a tax break? makes sure your employee isnt on welfare.
If you make 3500 per hour, yet only pay your employee 7.50 then we should tax you at 90%.
If you make 3500/hr and your employees make 35/hr TAX BREAK!

Do i really need to quote FDR on Living wage again?
I actually rather prefer the quotes of Teddy Roosevelt- after all, he was a republican and a popular and effective one, at that!
 

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
"In giving.. ..we do not give, we only help to return to him that of which the general injustice of our system has deprived him."

Giving is not a willful act, it is a duty bestowed upon each of us by the rights of others and the debt we owe to them.

If you are concerned about general injustice, it seems that you would recognize some people produce things by their own efforts, these things then become their property.

If you use force (which you are willing to do) to make people give up things THEY have produced to others who have produced nothing, then you are ADDING to the general injustice.

Your premise advocated forced redistribution and is NOT charity, it is theft.
 

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
He's a particularly benighted right wing buffoon. There is no talking sense to some people...


Your difficulty in talking to me could be that your contradictions come to the surface when you do. I understand that makes you feel uncomfortable and leaves you with nothing but insults.

I'm not right wing. I think politics is an act of turd polishing.
 

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
If others were not writing all the rules for the game, and changing them as they need or see fit, you might have a valid point. But you are blowing hot air. At the least. I'm sure you drive the unplowed streets in winter to protest socialist tactics like snowplows. The world is black and white to you. Until . . . . ..

Social cooperation needn't be administered thru violence backed edicts, which is how government presently provides ahem "services".

It is possible that services can be provided absent the violence or threats of it. Yes, even snow plowing could be done in a way that doesn't start with a threat...
 
Top