It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
Yes. It's theirs. Their parents worked hard to ensure a prosperous future for the children by saving them money. No dispute, no one but them can touch it. No one but them has the natural right to that money, except their dead parents.. who are convienently dead.
First of all, the 'rich' are not some elite group, where everyone with over 300k are automatically issued into some secret club. They're people. People who have either worked hard to save up and earn that money, or people who inherited it from hard working relatives. They're not hording, they're earning. There will never be a point where the rich have all the money and everyone else doesn't. Why are you making these people out to be villains? What have they done wrong? They've committed no crime. They played the system, and it worked out in their favor. That's life. You can't change that some people end up at the good end of the spectrum, and some at the bad. Taking from the rich is not helping the poor. Motivating the rich to donate, or motivating people to create jobs, or motivating people to donate, or motivating people to find work will help the poor. Working together, not casting out enemies.
[/quote]
Don't put words in my mouth.
The rich deserve the money they've earned, and no one else deserves to take that from them. I have no interest in government being ruled by the wealthy, but when a country's people take no interest in researching politics, people have to spend money to advertise and campaign, and thus only the rich can run. I've never said that's a good thing.
I do believe in equal opportunity, and encouraging the rich to help grow the economy, and grow jobs, and encouraging the poor to take those jobs so that they are no longer poor. I don't believe in distributing wealth based on pre-determined credentials.
I know the common belief is that equal opportunity is a joke. I know the education system is painfully flawed, and it's hard for people to start out without a secure financial background. But it doesn't make it impossible, and I sure as hell will never believe in telling the poor that they can give up, and that other people will lose personal property so they can give up.
How is it free if it's at the cost of the wealthy?
This is a holdover from the past. Know why a class on stitching wounds costs more than a class on installing transmissions?
Heheh, me either.
So, if everybody who either earns or inherits their money deserves it why is the rich shouldn't have to spend it, but the middle-class should? I want all classes to pay for what they want, but I want those who can to help those who can't, maybe just as a gesture of good f*cking will.
First of all, the 'rich' are not some elite group, where everyone with over 300k are automatically issued into some secret club. They're people. People who have either worked hard to save up and earn that money, or people who inherited it from hard working relatives. They're not hording, they're earning. There will never be a point where the rich have all the money and everyone else doesn't. Why are you making these people out to be villains? What have they done wrong? They've committed no crime. They played the system, and it worked out in their favor. That's life. You can't change that some people end up at the good end of the spectrum, and some at the bad. Taking from the rich is not helping the poor. Motivating the rich to donate, or motivating people to create jobs, or motivating people to donate, or motivating people to find work will help the poor. Working together, not casting out enemies. [/quote]
Right, the rich aren't an elite group, that's why they look down upon those who aren't rich.
And, oh yeah, they're not hording - that's why their money's overseas! They shouldn't have to pay taxes just because they how to send their money to the Cayman Islands?
No, I can't change that people end up on different ends of the spectrum, it's the blind adherence to the spectrum that needs to change for our society to grow.
Oh, and "what have they done wrong"? Donald Trump is an ***hole.
[/quote]
Don't put words in my mouth.
The rich deserve the money they've earned, and no one else deserves to take that from them. I have no interest in government being ruled by the wealthy, but when a country's people take no interest in researching politics, people have to spend money to advertise and campaign, and thus only the rich can run. I've never said that's a good thing. [/quote]
Even if you've never said that it's a good thing, you seem to be supporting it.
Except that the rich helping the poor is distributing wealth based on predetermined credentials. The rich would be helping the poor because they are the poor, both being predetermined by the rich either working for their money or lazily sitting around waiting for their folks to die and the poor either being down on their luck or born in an alleyway (or other such circumstances)
I'm still not understanding the whole acceptance of lazily sitting around waiting for their folks to die thing. If the money is deserved simply because someone earned it, does that make it okay to keep the money from the purse you stole on the subway? After all, that lady earned it.
Who's telling the poor to give up? And what, exactly, is wrong with the rich simply giving a helping hand?
(On an unrelated note: what exactly is wrong with our education system? I personally just feel cheated that my high school didn't actually get the money for the things they wanted until the school year after my class left, it kind of felt like they just waiting for us to go.)
Equal opportunity isn't a joke, it's just that the rich don't want it.
Lower classes are never going to be able to better themselves if rich people are just saying "f*ck off it's my money" at every corner.
How can you expect them to be nice when your threatening to steal their money.
As a conservative, it's controversial for me to say.. but I would support higher taxes on the wealthy.. in what they spend their money on. So a house priced over $600K would pay slightly more than houses under it, etc. They buy a $100K car, slightly higher taxes deducted. But I will never expect to them to hand over their money while it's being threatened to be taken.
We wouldn't have to threaten to steal it, if they just agreed to help willingly.
That would be in the restructuring of the system. Going to med school shouldn't cost what it does, but in times past they could charge anything. Now those costs will have to come down or we'll have fewer doctors AND fewer med schools. Malpractice insurance has to come down as well, and laws limiting how a doctor can be sued have to be put in place. This whole idea of cashing in because you chose to be a doctor or lawyer instead of a fireman has to be put out of our misery. Work is work. Knowledge isn't concentrated any more, so wealth needs to play catch up. Hard work should be paid for well- easy stuff not as much, and as long as the corporate heads can sit around going "Uh, yeah, do that" (while others actually do the WORK) & get paid more than all the workers under them combined, the closer the entire system comes to collapsing in on itself (our recent depression is just a small taste of what will happen if we choose not to restructure how wealth is earned).
In short, Let the wealthy keep what they earn, just make earning REALLY earning it, not simply overcharging individuals or systems to get the brass ring.
I can not walk into your house, and demand you give me the leftovers in the fridge. It's leftover. It's an abundance. You've already eaten. Now it's my turn. That's fair.
No, it isn't.
You simply can not expect someone to do something with their money because you want them to. And you can't force them to. And that's how it is. That can't, won't, and should not change because everybody in America is entitled to do what they want (legally) with what they have.
No one should expect anything else. People will make their own conscious decisions, and it will have repercussions, good or bad.
Yes, yes it would be nice if they donated some relief to the poor, but nobody should expect them to. And there sure as hell should never be a law that takes away personal property from an American individual.. for any reason.
If they don't give you their money, too bad. You are not entitled to someone else's money, property, or success.
Your simply responsible for making your own ends meet. I understand sometimes that is not possible. And that is unfortunate. But we have welfare programs, as well as many other charities and foundations dedicated to helping people get back on their feet. And many wealthy individuals pay into these programs. But the great thing is, nobody has to. (Except welfare. Tax payers pay that.)
I actually would like sales tax ONLY. No loopholes, no IRS... just a tax on stuff that isn't food. A poor person buys a Hyundai, a rich person buys a Learjet- both get taxed at the same rate. Economic equilibrium.
That's how income taxes are! But alot of people seem to have a problem with that.
20% tax on your 50,000 seems alot. 10,000.
But 20% tax on someone's 5,000,000 is 1,000,000! Far more.
That is fair, and I think the rich pay their fare share!
(Income tax is not 20%, just used it for example).
I would honestly love a fair tax system. All Americans above poverty level pay a small amount a month to help those in poverty, and a small percentage of tax is added, at a flat rate (the same % for everything you buy) on all items.
So I pay 3% tax to the government on a bag of chips, 3% tax to the government on a BMW. No income, etc. complicated taxes, no confusing tax forms. Straight, simple funding of the government. Plus, the impoverished are fairly aided, while keeping a fair system across all levels of society.
Sales tax is something you wouldn't use a lawyer for; want the item? Pay the tax.
You said that already.
Otherwise I find the current system, for people who can still afford it, to be fine. I'd like to have the choice between government healthcare and private healthcare.
Why doesn't the government create a 'company' that receives government funding to help those who need the help, but can also be a payed service by those who don't need help as an alternative to other healthcare companies.
Why do we have to overhaul the entire system?
Oh wait, he can't get credit. He's too far in debt. #burn
Sorry. I'll be serious again.
Pretty much my thoughts exactly.
Look, how many people you know make north of 1 mill per year? So building luxury housing only affordable to that income or higher in the millions of units wouldn't make sense, right?
Well, median income all over is going down, and when you've got a whole population where each household is making $20,000 per year EVERYTHING else has to freeze or come down in price or IT JUST WON'T SELL. This is the change I'm talking about. The icky idea that while good profit isn't as desirable as FANTASTIC profit, it's better than no profit.
It sure as hell does not to me.
1. Romney expressed his personal beliefs about the treatment of abortion, and ultimately of women. But, he clearly expressed they were his personal views. He is smart enough to know he couldn't get any legislation through dealing with his strong views on the subject.
2. He would have done away with 'Obamacare' and likely sought an alternate program/system.
3. If gay marriage passes from state to state, like it has surprisingly in this year's elections, Romney, and the Republicans, would be pressured but ultimately, there is hardly anything they could do that wouldn't be political suicide.
So a simpler answer..
Romney wouldn't have done anything about gay marriage and anything about abortion or the treatment of the 'female body'. Nothing. He would have repealed 'Obamacare'. He would have made as many budget cuts he could get away with, and likely would have submitted a proposal to balance the budget for the first time in decades.
He would have been a luke-warm president, and I didn't see him do anything major internationally unless pressured. He pushed for the US to leave Israel and Iran to sort things out themselves, and he would have focused on fiscal responsibility and domestic issues.
Better.. we'll never know.. but definitely different.
You see him as markedly less hawkish than I do, it seems.
I suppose I should say you're welcome, but I detect underlying motives, so perhaps I should not. Benefits of being the Republican Romney supporter, right? Everyone loves to find a way to twist and turn your statement to fit their needs. Ehhhh....
I don't see a "Pansy" Here. ;)