View Poll Results: Will there EVER be a return to sanity/progressivism?

Voters
16. You may not vote on this poll
  • after 2020

    1 6.25%
  • after 2024

    0 0%
  • after some future election

    1 6.25%
  • never

    5 31.25%
  • only after ecological or economic tragedy

    7 43.75%
  • after ecological or economic tragedy there will be full bore fascism

    2 12.50%
Page 9 of 10 FirstFirst ... 78910 LastLast
Results 81 to 90 of 96

Thread: Will The Oligarchy that owns the US eeeevvvvveerrrrrr be slightly reined in?

  1. Top | #81
    Contributor DBT's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    ɹǝpunuʍop puɐן
    Posts
    9,667
    Archived
    17,906
    Total Posts
    27,573
    Rep Power
    72
    Quote Originally Posted by Loren Pechtel View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by DBT View Post

    I mentioned an ascending pay scale according to skill and other factors, danger, risk, effects on health, etc, which would attract people because of the higher pay. Plus, do not discount the need for meaningful work, some want to be doctors or lawyers or engineers, astronauts, etc, for reasons other than money. Which is not to say that these occupations should not be well rewarded. I didn't say that.
    The problem is you can't have it both ways. The money you want to distribute at the bottom is far more than what exists at the top that you could take even if you didn't mind the harm you would do in the process.
    Well, that's odd...given the stats on wealth distribution and income there should be more than sufficient wealth being created to raise the standard of living across the board.

  2. Top | #82
    Super Moderator
    Join Date
    Sep 2000
    Location
    Nevada
    Posts
    26,527
    Archived
    96,752
    Total Posts
    123,279
    Rep Power
    99
    Quote Originally Posted by DBT View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Loren Pechtel View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by DBT View Post

    I mentioned an ascending pay scale according to skill and other factors, danger, risk, effects on health, etc, which would attract people because of the higher pay. Plus, do not discount the need for meaningful work, some want to be doctors or lawyers or engineers, astronauts, etc, for reasons other than money. Which is not to say that these occupations should not be well rewarded. I didn't say that.
    The problem is you can't have it both ways. The money you want to distribute at the bottom is far more than what exists at the top that you could take even if you didn't mind the harm you would do in the process.
    Well, that's odd...given the stats on wealth distribution and income there should be more than sufficient wealth being created to raise the standard of living across the board.
    Not if you want to fund it with the rich.

  3. Top | #83
    Contributor DBT's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    ɹǝpunuʍop puɐן
    Posts
    9,667
    Archived
    17,906
    Total Posts
    27,573
    Rep Power
    72
    Quote Originally Posted by Loren Pechtel View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by DBT View Post

    Well, that's odd...given the stats on wealth distribution and income there should be more than sufficient wealth being created to raise the standard of living across the board.
    Not if you want to fund it with the rich.
    The rich take far more than they give. Being in positions of power and privilege they are able to manipulate the system in their own favour, tax breaks, dodges, etc. The rich should pay more...more taxes, higher wages so that everyone benefits. Especially workers who contribute to that wealth but are underpaid.

  4. Top | #84
    Super Moderator
    Join Date
    Sep 2000
    Location
    Nevada
    Posts
    26,527
    Archived
    96,752
    Total Posts
    123,279
    Rep Power
    99
    Quote Originally Posted by DBT View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Loren Pechtel View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by DBT View Post

    Well, that's odd...given the stats on wealth distribution and income there should be more than sufficient wealth being created to raise the standard of living across the board.
    Not if you want to fund it with the rich.
    The rich take far more than they give. Being in positions of power and privilege they are able to manipulate the system in their own favour, tax breaks, dodges, etc. The rich should pay more...more taxes, higher wages so that everyone benefits. Especially workers who contribute to that wealth but are underpaid.
    You're still arguing ideology rather than practicality.

  5. Top | #85
    Loony Running The Asylum ZiprHead's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Do you like my pretty crown?
    Posts
    17,399
    Archived
    3,034
    Total Posts
    20,433
    Rep Power
    92
    Quote Originally Posted by Loren Pechtel View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by DBT View Post

    The rich take far more than they give. Being in positions of power and privilege they are able to manipulate the system in their own favour, tax breaks, dodges, etc. The rich should pay more...more taxes, higher wages so that everyone benefits. Especially workers who contribute to that wealth but are underpaid.
    You're still arguing ideology rather than practicality.
    What's impractical about it and why was it so practical 60 years ago?
    When conservatives realize they cannot win democratically, they will not abandon conservatism. They will abandon democracy.

  6. Top | #86
    Super Moderator
    Join Date
    Sep 2000
    Location
    Nevada
    Posts
    26,527
    Archived
    96,752
    Total Posts
    123,279
    Rep Power
    99
    Quote Originally Posted by ZiprHead View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Loren Pechtel View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by DBT View Post

    The rich take far more than they give. Being in positions of power and privilege they are able to manipulate the system in their own favour, tax breaks, dodges, etc. The rich should pay more...more taxes, higher wages so that everyone benefits. Especially workers who contribute to that wealth but are underpaid.
    You're still arguing ideology rather than practicality.
    What's impractical about it and why was it so practical 60 years ago?
    It never existed. The high tax rates you're pining for had so many loopholes they were pretty much meaningless.

  7. Top | #87
    Loony Running The Asylum ZiprHead's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Do you like my pretty crown?
    Posts
    17,399
    Archived
    3,034
    Total Posts
    20,433
    Rep Power
    92
    Quote Originally Posted by Loren Pechtel View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by ZiprHead View Post

    What's impractical about it and why was it so practical 60 years ago?
    It never existed. The high tax rates you're pining for had so many loopholes they were pretty much meaningless.
    I didn't say anything about tax rates. I asked about practicality.

    Frankly, I think this:



    is much better than this.:

    When conservatives realize they cannot win democratically, they will not abandon conservatism. They will abandon democracy.

  8. Top | #88
    Contributor DBT's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    ɹǝpunuʍop puɐן
    Posts
    9,667
    Archived
    17,906
    Total Posts
    27,573
    Rep Power
    72
    Quote Originally Posted by Loren Pechtel View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by DBT View Post

    The rich take far more than they give. Being in positions of power and privilege they are able to manipulate the system in their own favour, tax breaks, dodges, etc. The rich should pay more...more taxes, higher wages so that everyone benefits. Especially workers who contribute to that wealth but are underpaid.
    You're still arguing ideology rather than practicality.
    The gulf was not as wide a few decades ago, yet the world economy did not collapse.

  9. Top | #89
    Super Moderator
    Join Date
    Sep 2000
    Location
    Nevada
    Posts
    26,527
    Archived
    96,752
    Total Posts
    123,279
    Rep Power
    99
    Quote Originally Posted by ZiprHead View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Loren Pechtel View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by ZiprHead View Post

    What's impractical about it and why was it so practical 60 years ago?
    It never existed. The high tax rates you're pining for had so many loopholes they were pretty much meaningless.
    I didn't say anything about tax rates. I asked about practicality.

    Frankly, I think this:



    is much better than this.:

    At least you're admitting the 90+% rates are fantasy.

    What is also missing in your data is tax loopholes. We don't know what the rates really were.

    That being said, the first thing to do should be to undo His Flatulence's tax cuts.

  10. Top | #90
    Contributor DBT's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    ɹǝpunuʍop puɐן
    Posts
    9,667
    Archived
    17,906
    Total Posts
    27,573
    Rep Power
    72
    So why do you appear to be against a fairer distribution of wealth in society? Don't you think that's a good thing, something to work towards?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •