Quote:

Original post by tstrimp Quote: Original post by owl It's simple. If there are 10 people and 10 pieces of bread and one of these people has 9 pieces for himself, there are going to be 8 people who won't be able to eat. If there was an 11th person responsible for making all the 10 people survive by distributing wealth then he has to ask the guy who has 9 pieces of bread more bread-tax than to the one who has 1 piece of bread. It's not nearly as simple as you make it out to be. If you cut all of the CEO salaries in the USA in half, not all of the employees are magically going to get paid more. People typically get paid what they are worth.

Nobody is talking about cutting salaries from the rich. It's just the idea of that those who have more should contribute more AND the government should administer that contribution properly for the greater good.

I just came across this. I don't know if anyone else posted it, since I haven't read all of the intervening pages. Senate Republicans blocked the bill on orders from their corporate masters.

‘U.S.’ Chamber Of Commerce Lobbied To Help GOP Kill Bill To Provide Health Care To 9/11 First Responders

Quote:

... The Chamber fought to help kill the 9/11 compensation bill because it was funded by ending a special tax loophole exploited by foreign corporations doing business in the United States. The “U.S.” part of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce is a misnomer. As ThinkProgress reported, the Chamber represents dozens of foreign businesses in the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Russia, Bahrain, India, Brazil, and other countries. An investigation of the Chamber turned up recent fundraising documents from the Chamber soliciting foreign contributions to the Chamber’s 501(c)(6), the tax entity the Chamber used to run nasty campaign ads against Democrats earlier this year. In September, the Chamber sent a letter officially opposing the 9/11 first responders bill, called the “James Zadroga 9/11 Health and Compensation Act of 2010.” The Chamber warned that ending the tax loophole would “damage U.S. relationships with major trading partners” and “aggravate already unsettled financial markets.” A lobbying disclosure filed with the Senate confirms the Chamber contacted lawmakers to help kill the bill. In typical fashion, the Chamber has not revealed which of its foreign members had asked them to kill the 9/11 bill. As the Chamber CEO explained to the Washington Monthly’s James Verini, the entire purpose of the Chamber is to provide “deniability” to corporations that want to affect the outcomes of elections or of public policy. In 2009, the Chamber secretly used a $86 million donation from the health insurance industry to fight health reform. At the time, the Chamber lied and claimed to the public that they were simply acting on behalf of the entire “business community.” Republicans are continuing to protest any renewed attempts to pass the 9/11 first responders bill because of the tax issue raised by the Chamber. Yesterday, Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME) sent out a statement that mirrored the Chamber’s opposition to ending the foreign corporate tax loophole.

Quote:

Original post by tstrimp Quote: Original post by Alpha_ProgDes Your response still doesn't address or even counter the issue that the gov't does not need to go out of its way to make the rich richer. No, they don't. The rich are obviously good enough at that themselves. Not exactly sure what sort of response you were expecting.

Well, I was responding to way2lazy2care and you just jumped in. So your response was odd to begin with. [smile]

Quote:

Original post by LessBread I just came across this. I don't know if anyone else posted it, since I haven't read all of the intervening pages. Senate Republicans blocked the bill on orders from their corporate masters. ‘U.S.’ Chamber Of Commerce Lobbied To Help GOP Kill Bill To Provide Health Care To 9/11 First Responders Quote: ... The Chamber fought to help kill the 9/11 compensation bill because it was funded by ending a special tax loophole exploited by foreign corporations doing business in the United States. The “U.S.” part of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce is a misnomer. As ThinkProgress reported, the Chamber represents dozens of foreign businesses in the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Russia, Bahrain, India, Brazil, and other countries. An investigation of the Chamber turned up recent fundraising documents from the Chamber soliciting foreign contributions to the Chamber’s 501(c)(6), the tax entity the Chamber used to run nasty campaign ads against Democrats earlier this year. In September, the Chamber sent a letter officially opposing the 9/11 first responders bill, called the “James Zadroga 9/11 Health and Compensation Act of 2010.” The Chamber warned that ending the tax loophole would “damage U.S. relationships with major trading partners” and “aggravate already unsettled financial markets.” A lobbying disclosure filed with the Senate confirms the Chamber contacted lawmakers to help kill the bill. In typical fashion, the Chamber has not revealed which of its foreign members had asked them to kill the 9/11 bill. As the Chamber CEO explained to the Washington Monthly’s James Verini, the entire purpose of the Chamber is to provide “deniability” to corporations that want to affect the outcomes of elections or of public policy. In 2009, the Chamber secretly used a $86 million donation from the health insurance industry to fight health reform. At the time, the Chamber lied and claimed to the public that they were simply acting on behalf of the entire “business community.” Republicans are continuing to protest any renewed attempts to pass the 9/11 first responders bill because of the tax issue raised by the Chamber. Yesterday, Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME) sent out a statement that mirrored the Chamber’s opposition to ending the foreign corporate tax loophole.

I'm just waiting for the day that Repubilcans declare that businesses need a tax holiday for a whole year or we'll be a recession (or worse).

Quote:

Original post by owl It's just the idea of that those who have more should contribute more AND the government should administer that contribution properly for the greater good.

They do contribute more. Mission accomplished?

Quote:

Original post by tstrimp Quote: Original post by owl It's just the idea of that those who have more should contribute more AND the government should administer that contribution properly for the greater good. They do contribute more. Mission accomplished?

Dunno. Is it?

Quote:

Original post by owl Quote: Original post by tstrimp Quote: Original post by owl It's just the idea of that those who have more should contribute more AND the government should administer that contribution properly for the greater good. They do contribute more. Mission accomplished? Dunno. Is it?

When those that have are prospering and still want a handout, then no.

Quote:

Original post by Alpha_ProgDes When those that have are prospering and still want a handout, then no.

I'm confused. Are you advocating taxing the rich until they are no longer prospering? Lobotomizing them so that they don't want to keep more of their own money?

Quote:

Original post by tstrimp Quote: Original post by Alpha_ProgDes When those that have are prospering and still want a handout, then no. I'm confused. Are you advocating taxing the rich until they are no longer prospering? Lobotomizing them so that they don't want to keep more of their own money?

How are you confused? Are you selectively choosing what words you want to see?!

• You're prospering? Great.
  
• You need a handout? Fine.
  
• But you're prospering AND you want a handout? No.

Quote:

Original post by Alpha_ProgDes Quote: Original post by tstrimp Quote: Original post by Alpha_ProgDes When those that have are prospering and still want a handout, then no. I'm confused. Are you advocating taxing the rich until they are no longer prospering? Lobotomizing them so that they don't want to keep more of their own money? How are you confused? Are you selectively choosing what words you want to see?! You're prospering? Great. You need a handout? Fine. But you're prospering AND you want a handout? No.

By "handout," you mean, "taking away less of their money by force?"