NationStates Jolt Archive

I am sick and tired of big buiseness being above the law, does anyone agree?

I am sick and tired of big buiseness being above the law, does anyone agree?

How is big business above the law? Do you have any examples...?

You know the former socialist President of Tanzania outlawed big business in his country. When he stepped down, he said the most honest thing ever uttered by a socialist politician: "I failed. Let's admit it."

I am sick and tired of big buiseness being above the law, does anyone agree?

How is big business above the law? Do you have any examples...?

You know the former socialist President of Tanzania outlawed big business in his country. When he stepped down, he said the most honest thing ever uttered by a socialist politician: "I failed. Let's admit it."

Well I don't know of any capitalist politicians who were that honest :roll:

What if big business is above the law because they are the government?

I am sick and tired of big buiseness being above the law, does anyone agree?

How is big business above the law? Do you have any examples...?

You know the former socialist President of Tanzania outlawed big business in his country. When he stepped down, he said the most honest thing ever uttered by a socialist politician: "I failed. Let's admit it."

Well I don't know of any capitalist politicians who were that honest :roll:

THat's because they didn't fail nearly as much...

What if big business is above the law because they are the government?

Government shouldn't be above the law. The whole point of Rule of Law is so that no one is above the law. This resolution would put government above the law... and we all know what happens then...

What if big business is above the law because they are the government?

Government shouldn't be above the law. The whole point of Rule of Law is so that no one is above the law. This resolution would put government above the law... and we all know what happens then...

Okay, I'll rephrase it. What if the big business is the government and any law is the result of the decisions of the businesses?

What if big business is above the law because they are the government?

Government shouldn't be above the law. The whole point of Rule of Law is so that no one is above the law. This resolution would put government above the law... and we all know what happens then...

Okay, I'll rephrase it. What if the big business is the government and any law is the result of the decisions of the businesses?

Then your country has some serious problems.

What if big business is above the law because they are the government?

Government shouldn't be above the law. The whole point of Rule of Law is so that no one is above the law. This resolution would put government above the law... and we all know what happens then...

Okay, I'll rephrase it. What if the big business is the government and any law is the result of the decisions of the businesses?

Then your country has some serious problems.

If you want to view it that way. "Government" is big business. Why can't big business be government?

What if big business is above the law because they are the government?

Government shouldn't be above the law. The whole point of Rule of Law is so that no one is above the law. This resolution would put government above the law... and we all know what happens then...

Okay, I'll rephrase it. What if the big business is the government and any law is the result of the decisions of the businesses?

Then your country has some serious problems.

If you want to view it that way. "Government" is big business. Why can't big business be government?

No government is organized crime. There's a difference.

What if big business is above the law because they are the government?

Government shouldn't be above the law. The whole point of Rule of Law is so that no one is above the law. This resolution would put government above the law... and we all know what happens then...

Okay, I'll rephrase it. What if the big business is the government and any law is the result of the decisions of the businesses?

Then your country has some serious problems.

If you want to view it that way. "Government" is big business. Why can't big business be government?

No government is organized crime. There's a difference.

I still don't see where you are going. The government is the law and decides what is or is not a crime. That is moot. If "organized crime" is the government, then it's not really crime...

Even conservatively, the government is organized crime. They get away with things their citizens cannot.

Then it becomes a question of methods and motivation, as well as results.

I am sick and tired of big buiseness being above the law, does anyone agree?

Business under government control? How communist. Maybe there can be federal regulations so they make sure to pay taxes and report earnings and so on and so forth. But the solution isn't to just get rid of it. This is how capitalism works, and we all know that capitalism is the way to go.

Communism or not, we the people of Yshurak believe that business should be regulated by the government. Without regulated business, chaos ensues and the people are exploited.

All businesses need to be controlled by the government to some extent, just as you would control the people. If anything you need to be more strict on businesses than you would your people. But I suppose the question is the extent of the control, I'd rather the government did not tell MTV what they could and could not show and telling McDonalds what to put in thier food. But I don't think we should allow business's to steal other people's patented ideas and charge unbelievable amounts on medications just because they have a patent.

Nevertheless, this is too vague of a resolution.

Government's sole purpose is to protect individuals from the initiatory use of violence and mediate disputes.

And TGM is right about government being organized crime. A government is just a street gang on a larger scale. It has the guns, and it uses violence or the threat of violence to enforce its will over a certain physical territory.

and charge unbelievable amounts on medications just because they have a patent.

I agree up to that point. That's just setting up double standards. Let me use an example that will point to the govenment themselves. Companies will receive government contracts that state that only they will provide 'x' good to the government. Usually these goods cost MUCH more then we indicidual citizens would pay for them. In return, that company tries to essentially encourage or buy votes for the government officials who signed that contract and probably their party. Telling the pharmasutical companies to lower the prices on medicine while the government buys votes at unbelievable prices through products from companies? That's not a very good policy.

Government's sole purpose is to protect individuals from the initiatory use of violence and mediate disputes. Yeah. It could be argued that it should try to provide social well being in the country, but opinions differ.

And TGM is right about government being organized crime. A government is just a street gang on a larger scale. It has the guns, and it uses violence or the threat of violence to enforce its will over a certain physical territory.

Technically it's not a crime if its legal.

Anarchy is not an enviable alternative.

Anarchy is not an enviable alternative.

Some of us very much beg to differ

and charge unbelievable amounts on medications just because they have a patent.

I agree up to that point. That's just setting up double standards. Let me use an example that will point to the govenment themselves. Companies will receive government contracts that state that only they will provide 'x' good to the government. Usually these goods cost MUCH more then we indicidual citizens would pay for them. In return, that company tries to essentially encourage or buy votes for the government officials who signed that contract and probably their party. Telling the pharmasutical companies to lower the prices on medicine while the government buys votes at unbelievable prices through products from companies? That's not a very good policy.


Well, the government really shouldn't be buying votes in the first place. You shouldn't penalize the consumer just because the government is doing bad things, and I don't really think they government should tell people what price they have to sell medicine at, just give limits to the amount you can charge. That way companies can't chagre 90$ for a pill that costs 10c to make.

What if big business is above the law because they are the government?

Government shouldn't be above the law. The whole point of Rule of Law is so that no one is above the law. This resolution would put government above the law... and we all know what happens then...

Okay, I'll rephrase it. What if the big business is the government and any law is the result of the decisions of the businesses?

Then your country has some serious problems.

If you want to view it that way. "Government" is big business. Why can't big business be government?

No government is organized crime. There's a difference.

Lots of governments are organized crime. If you don't pay your taxes, the government steps in and takes them for themselves. Business can't do that. The only way a business can be anti-competitive is if government steps in.

and charge unbelievable amounts on medications just because they have a patent.

I agree up to that point. That's just setting up double standards. Let me use an example that will point to the govenment themselves. Companies will receive government contracts that state that only they will provide 'x' good to the government. Usually these goods cost MUCH more then we indicidual citizens would pay for them. In return, that company tries to essentially encourage or buy votes for the government officials who signed that contract and probably their party. Telling the pharmasutical companies to lower the prices on medicine while the government buys votes at unbelievable prices through products from companies? That's not a very good policy.


Well, the government really shouldn't be buying votes in the first place. You shouldn't penalize the consumer just because the government is doing bad things, and I don't really think they government should tell people what price they have to sell medicine at, just give limits to the amount you can charge. That way companies can't chagre 90$ for a pill that costs 10c to make.


Why must this be brought up over and over? Yes, it costs 10¢ to make. But how did the company arrive at the process to make the pill? By research. And if they can't pay their researchers, they'll quit, to feed their families. And without researchers, we have no new drugs.

I am sick and tired of big buiseness being above the law, does anyone agree?

I agree, but let's face it, business IS the law. They are alowed to donate massive amounts of money to certain politicians they like, which in essence is just them ruling us in a round about way. I'm sick of it! They can trash the environment, all in the name of profit! FUCK THEM!

----------------
-President Z.D. Meier
Alliance of Democracy
U.N. Delegate

http://images.art.com/images/PRODUCTS/small/10045000/10045608.jpg

and charge unbelievable amounts on medications just because they have a patent.

I agree up to that point. That's just setting up double standards. Let me use an example that will point to the govenment themselves. Companies will receive government contracts that state that only they will provide 'x' good to the government. Usually these goods cost MUCH more then we indicidual citizens would pay for them. In return, that company tries to essentially encourage or buy votes for the government officials who signed that contract and probably their party. Telling the pharmasutical companies to lower the prices on medicine while the government buys votes at unbelievable prices through products from companies? That's not a very good policy.


Well, the government really shouldn't be buying votes in the first place. You shouldn't penalize the consumer just because the government is doing bad things, and I don't really think they government should tell people what price they have to sell medicine at, just give limits to the amount you can charge. That way companies can't chagre 90$ for a pill that costs 10c to make.

First I think a lot of pills cost more then 10 cents to make. Anyway. Giving limits as to how much you can sell medicine for is indirectly telling them how much they can charge. It's not saying how much you CAN charge, but it's saying how much you CAN'T charge. Now I'd probably be for setting a limit on medicine, even if the decision is based more on emotions then logic (which would say in a capitalist society you can't do that, but then the US isn't REALLY diehard capitalist). My mother has to pay an arm and a leg for her medicine, so much that I pay for quite a bit of it. It's something close to my heart. I'm just saying that it IS telling them how much to charge indirectly. I used the example I did as a subtle hint at my opinions on government spending. It was just a musing, not really the stance I'd take in reality.

and charge unbelievable amounts on medications just because they have a patent.

I agree up to that point. That's just setting up double standards. Let me use an example that will point to the govenment themselves. Companies will receive government contracts that state that only they will provide 'x' good to the government. Usually these goods cost MUCH more then we indicidual citizens would pay for them. In return, that company tries to essentially encourage or buy votes for the government officials who signed that contract and probably their party. Telling the pharmasutical companies to lower the prices on medicine while the government buys votes at unbelievable prices through products from companies? That's not a very good policy.


Well, the government really shouldn't be buying votes in the first place. You shouldn't penalize the consumer just because the government is doing bad things, and I don't really think they government should tell people what price they have to sell medicine at, just give limits to the amount you can charge. That way companies can't chagre 90$ for a pill that costs 10c to make.

First I think a lot of pills cost more then 10 cents to make. Anyway. Giving limits as to how much you can sell medicine for is indirectly telling them how much they can charge. It's not saying how much you CAN charge, but it's saying how much you CAN'T charge. Now I'd probably be for setting a limit on medicine, even if the decision is based more on emotions then logic (which would say in a capitalist society you can't do that, but then the US isn't REALLY diehard capitalist). My mother has to pay an arm and a leg for her medicine, so much that I pay for quite a bit of it. It's something close to my heart. I'm just saying that it IS telling them how much to charge indirectly. I used the example I did as a subtle hint at my opinions on government spending. It was just a musing, not really the stance I'd take in reality.

Like hell the US isn't really diehard capitalist! The US IS Capitalism! The US is the pimp of the world!

----------------
-President Z.D. Meier
Alliance of Democracy
U.N. Delegate

http://images.art.com/images/PRODUCTS/small/10045000/10045608.jpg

Anarchy is not an enviable alternative.

Some of us very much beg to differ

Oh man, don't get me started on this. Anarchy is one of my 'rant issues'. You'll never hear the end of it from me, even if it never happens. Besides, I don't want to get the 'goths' on this fourm angry at me.

Too late (but I'll be concise because it's getting late).

The world is not a perfect place. Not all humans have the same respect for their fellow man as you do. The only thing keeping skinheads from skull stomping you on a curb in front of a crowd is rules and regulations. These are the things that have brought civilization to where it is. Without it there would be chaos. The world would eventually descend in to one big gang war. There would be mass shortages of EVERYTHING due to a non-existant infastructure (who do you think pays for roads? the government, through tax dollars). No private companies would be able to build these things because when someone will destroy a road or blow up a building in a fit of frustration when they stub their toe one day. There'd be nothing to stop them.

I could go on, but I'll end by saying ANARCHY = FALL OF CIVILIZATION

Anarchy is not an enviable alternative.

Some of us very much beg to differ

Oh man, don't get me started on this. Anarchy is one of my 'rant issues'. You'll never hear the end of it from me, even if it never happens. Besides, I don't want to get the 'goths' on this fourm angry at me.

Too late (but I'll be concise because it's getting late).

The world is not a perfect place. Not all humans have the same respect for their fellow man as you do. The only thing keeping skinheads from skull stomping you on a curb in front of a crowd is rules and regulations. These are the things that have brought civilization to where it is. Without it there would be chaos. The world would eventually descend in to one big gang war. There would be mass shortages of EVERYTHING due to a non-existant infastructure (who do you think pays for roads? the government, through tax dollars). No private companies would be able to build these things because when someone will destroy a road or blow up a building in a fit of frustration when they stub their toe one day. There'd be nothing to stop them.

I could go on, but I'll end by saying ANARCHY = FALL OF CIVILIZATION

I'm not a goth and I'm not as extreme an Anarchist as I am a communist. The people need to be totally free of the grips of corporate trash and that can only be achieved through Anarchy and Communism

----------------
-President Z.D. Meier
Alliance of Democracy
U.N. Delegate

http://images.art.com/images/PRODUCTS/small/10045000/10045608.jpg

and charge unbelievable amounts on medications just because they have a patent.

I agree up to that point. That's just setting up double standards. Let me use an example that will point to the govenment themselves. Companies will receive government contracts that state that only they will provide 'x' good to the government. Usually these goods cost MUCH more then we indicidual citizens would pay for them. In return, that company tries to essentially encourage or buy votes for the government officials who signed that contract and probably their party. Telling the pharmasutical companies to lower the prices on medicine while the government buys votes at unbelievable prices through products from companies? That's not a very good policy.




Well, the government really shouldn't be buying votes in the first place. You shouldn't penalize the consumer just because the government is doing bad things, and I don't really think they government should tell people what price they have to sell medicine at, just give limits to the amount you can charge. That way companies can't chagre 90$ for a pill that costs 10c to make.

First I think a lot of pills cost more then 10 cents to make. Anyway. Giving limits as to how much you can sell medicine for is indirectly telling them how much they can charge. It's not saying how much you CAN charge, but it's saying how much you CAN'T charge. Now I'd probably be for setting a limit on medicine, even if the decision is based more on emotions then logic (which would say in a capitalist society you can't do that, but then the US isn't REALLY diehard capitalist). My mother has to pay an arm and a leg for her medicine, so much that I pay for quite a bit of it. It's something close to my heart. I'm just saying that it IS telling them how much to charge indirectly. I used the example I did as a subtle hint at my opinions on government spending. It was just a musing, not really the stance I'd take in reality.

Like hell the US isn't really diehard capitalist! The US IS Capitalism! The US is the pimp of the world!

----------------
-President Z.D. Meier
Alliance of Democracy
U.N. Delegate

http://images.art.com/images/PRODUCTS/small/10045000/10045608.jpg

I think that legislation for the federal control of drug prices, or at least a cap on them individually, would not have much trouble passing because polititions would fear for their job if they didn't vote yes on it. If that passed we wouldn't be 100% capitalist. We have VERY strong capitalist leanings, but there's some things where the US is more moderate. I wouldn't have it any other way.

I just hate the way my country, the US, caters to the priveleged, and lets the poor rot. I think we need to increase tax on the ritch instead of decreasing it.

----------------
-President Z.D. Meier
Alliance of Democracy
U.N. Delegate

http://images.art.com/images/PRODUCTS/small/10045000/10045608.jpg

I put it in the wrong place. Edited :)

Anarchy is not an enviable alternative.

Some of us very much beg to differ

Oh man, don't get me started on this. Anarchy is one of my 'rant issues'. You'll never hear the end of it from me, even if it never happens. Besides, I don't want to get the 'goths' on this fourm angry at me.

Too late (but I'll be concise because it's getting late).

The world is not a perfect place. Not all humans have the same respect for their fellow man as you do. The only thing keeping skinheads from skull stomping you on a curb in front of a crowd is rules and regulations. These are the things that have brought civilization to where it is. Without it there would be chaos. The world would eventually descend in to one big gang war. There would be mass shortages of EVERYTHING due to a non-existant infastructure (who do you think pays for roads? the government, through tax dollars). No private companies would be able to build these things because when someone will destroy a road or blow up a building in a fit of frustration when they stub their toe one day. There'd be nothing to stop them.

I could go on, but I'll end by saying ANARCHY = FALL OF CIVILIZATION

I'm not a goth and I'm not as extreme an Anarchist as I am a communist. The people need to be totally free of the grips of corporate trash and that can only be achieved through Anarchy and Communism

----------------
-President Z.D. Meier
Alliance of Democracy
U.N. Delegate

http://images.art.com/images/PRODUCTS/small/10045000/10045608.jpg

Free from corporations grip as in they have no say in your life outside the office? I totally agree. That's why I say the US isn't 100% capitalist or that's how it'd be.

Anarchy is not an enviable alternative.

Some of us very much beg to differ

Oh man, don't get me started on this. Anarchy is one of my 'rant issues'. You'll never hear the end of it from me, even if it never happens. Besides, I don't want to get the 'goths' on this fourm angry at me.

Too late (but I'll be concise because it's getting late).

The world is not a perfect place. Not all humans have the same respect for their fellow man as you do. The only thing keeping skinheads from skull stomping you on a curb in front of a crowd is rules and regulations. These are the things that have brought civilization to where it is. Without it there would be chaos. The world would eventually descend in to one big gang war. There would be mass shortages of EVERYTHING due to a non-existant infastructure (who do you think pays for roads? the government, through tax dollars). No private companies would be able to build these things because when someone will destroy a road or blow up a building in a fit of frustration when they stub their toe one day. There'd be nothing to stop them.

I could go on, but I'll end by saying ANARCHY = FALL OF CIVILIZATION

I'm not a goth and I'm not as extreme an Anarchist as I am a communist. The people need to be totally free of the grips of corporate trash and that can only be achieved through Anarchy and Communism

----------------
-President Z.D. Meier
Alliance of Democracy
U.N. Delegate

http://images.art.com/images/PRODUCTS/small/10045000/10045608.jpg

Free from corporations grip as in they have no say in your life outside the office? I totally agree. That's why I say the US isn't 100% capitalist or that's how it'd be.

That's kinda what I mean't. I really am talking about corporation in general, I think we don't really need all the trash they try to convince us we need, only to lead us to an early death. And that my friend is immoral to me.

----------------
-President Z.D. Meier
Alliance of Democracy
U.N. Delegate

http://images.art.com/images/PRODUCTS/small/10045000/10045608.jpg

Anarchy is not an enviable alternative.

Some of us very much beg to differ

Oh man, don't get me started on this. Anarchy is one of my 'rant issues'. You'll never hear the end of it from me, even if it never happens. Besides, I don't want to get the 'goths' on this fourm angry at me.

Too late (but I'll be concise because it's getting late).

The world is not a perfect place. Not all humans have the same respect for their fellow man as you do. The only thing keeping skinheads from skull stomping you on a curb in front of a crowd is rules and regulations. These are the things that have brought civilization to where it is. Without it there would be chaos. The world would eventually descend in to one big gang war. There would be mass shortages of EVERYTHING due to a non-existant infastructure (who do you think pays for roads? the government, through tax dollars). No private companies would be able to build these things because when someone will destroy a road or blow up a building in a fit of frustration when they stub their toe one day. There'd be nothing to stop them.

I could go on, but I'll end by saying ANARCHY = FALL OF CIVILIZATION

I'm not a goth and I'm not as extreme an Anarchist as I am a communist. The people need to be totally free of the grips of corporate trash and that can only be achieved through Anarchy and Communism

----------------
-President Z.D. Meier
Alliance of Democracy
U.N. Delegate

http://images.art.com/images/PRODUCTS/small/10045000/10045608.jpg

Free from corporations grip as in they have no say in your life outside the office? I totally agree. That's why I say the US isn't 100% capitalist or that's how it'd be.

That's kinda what I mean't. I really am talking about corporation in general, I think we don't really need all the trash they try to convince us we need, only to lead us to an early death. And that my friend is immoral to me.

----------------
-President Z.D. Meier
Alliance of Democracy
U.N. Delegate

http://images.art.com/images/PRODUCTS/small/10045000/10045608.jpg

Frivilous bullshit is what makes our economy so huge and what gives a lot of our population jobs. However it's also what gives us these cycles of amazing and (relativly) bad economic power. We're in the relativly bad time now. Now I admit that the dot com bust and the WTC attacks have a huge influence on it, but another problem is that people have all the STUFF they need. They have a new car, they have a new exercise machine, they have a new whatever. They don't need anything else now. When not many people are buying, the economy appears to get weaker. But it's not, because it's reasonable to assume that in 4 or 5 years when everyones car is OLD again (which isn't bad, because then young people get decent, kind of new used cars) they go buy a new one and the whole cycle starts again. Very simple, but that's the ...For Dummies version of my belief.

I am sick and tired of big buiseness being above the law, does anyone agree?

I agree, but let's face it, business IS the law. They are alowed to donate massive amounts of money to certain politicians they like, which in essence is just them ruling us in a round about way. I'm sick of it! They can trash the environment, all in the name of profit! f--- THEM!

You know how to solve that, don't you?

Stop government from regulating business. That way, businessmen won't have anything to be gained from buying politicians.

I just hate the way my country, the US, caters to the priveleged, and lets the poor rot. I think we need to increase tax on the ritch instead of decreasing it.

Yes, let's punish people for being good. Let's forcibly take money from the people who did earn it and give it to the lazy SOBs who didn't.

That's kinda what I mean't. I really am talking about corporation in general, I think we don't really need all the trash they try to convince us we need, only to lead us to an early death. And that my friend is immoral to me.

----------------
-President Z.D. Meier
Alliance of Democracy
U.N. Delegate



Big businesses are amoral. They are only morally obligated as far as the law requires and for public relations.

I sort of agree with this...I prefer state-control of business.

Like hell the US isn't really diehard capitalist! The US IS Capitalism! The US is the pimp of the world!


It's really not. Things the US had a diehard capitalist country wouldn't:

-Tarriffs
-Business Subsidies
-Taxes
-Welfare/Public Social Security

Just to name a few. Hong Kong is the closest to pure capitalism but even then it's not pure capitalist.

And Eridanus... you can give money to your favorite politician too. It isn't a double standard.

That's kinda what I mean't. I really am talking about corporation in general, I think we don't really need all the trash they try to convince us we need, only to lead us to an early death. And that my friend is immoral to me.

----------------
-President Z.D. Meier
Alliance of Democracy
U.N. Delegate



Big businesses are amoral. They are only morally obligated as far as the law requires and for public relations.

The point of big business is to make money. If a corporation stops making money no one will invest in it and it will go bankrupt and people will starve. Even Max Barry agrees with me on this if you read his website.

I am sick and tired of big buiseness being above the law, does anyone agree?

I agree, but let's face it, business IS the law. They are alowed to donate massive amounts of money to certain politicians they like, which in essence is just them ruling us in a round about way. I'm sick of it! They can trash the environment, all in the name of profit! f--- THEM!

You know how to solve that, don't you?

Stop government from regulating business. That way, businessmen won't have anything to be gained from buying politicians.

Yeah that's very good.... the only reason businesses move their bases to Bermuda and launder money through Switzerland and the Cayman Islands is because the US Corporate Tax rates are punitive... exceeding those in many nominally communist countries such as China by far.

*child* - Mommy I'm scared!
*mother* - What is it honey?
*child* - That thing! It is scaring me!!! Waaaaa!!!
*mother* - Oh that, that is just a socialist dear.
*child* -can it hurt me?
*mother* -Only if you vote for it.

I just hate the way my country, the US, caters to the priveleged, and lets the poor rot. I think we need to increase tax on the ritch instead of decreasing it.

Yes, let's punish people for being good. Let's forcibly take money from the people who did earn it and give it to the lazy SOBs who didn't.

Or, let's take it from the lazy SOB's that didn't earn their money and inherited a vast fortune because their great-great-grandaddy was a slave trader, and give it to those people who did earn it, those who struggle every day for low wages, those who work long hours through a system that exploits them at every turn - the working class. If capitalism really "helps those who work hard" how come those who work hard most of their lives are poor, and those who have short working hours, long holidays, and fat pensions even if they fail at what they do, are rich?

Personally, I think poor people work HARDER than rich people, just to stay ALIVE. My dad works 6 days a week 10 hours a day, and we BARELY have enough money to stay in our MOBILE HOME! Don't call my dad lazy. He does physical labor that NO rich person would EVER do. If anybody is lazy, it is rich people, because they hae the money to be rich.

And yes, we should tax rich people more. Especially those who have enough money to afford everything as it is. By everything, don't take me literally, I don't mean EVERYTHING. I mean they can do anything leisurely that they want. For example, they can go on cruises, vacations, have maids, and so forth. Why not tax these people more? These people don't really NEED the money, some people do, and taking money from the richest group will NOT affect them that much at all. Say somebody makes $1,000,000 a year. I don't know taxes, but say they are currently $50,000 for taxes. Would $75,000 make a big difference? To the government it will, because each of these people would give an extra $25,000, but to the individual, WHAT DIFFERENCE WILL IT MAKE?

If my dad got an extra $25,000 a year, it would make our life a WHOLE bunch easier.

One last note, on education. The main difference between rich and poor is education. I will admit that my dad was lazy during High School, but he is NOT NOW, and the only reason he is poor is because he made that mistake during high school.

Personally, I think poor people work HARDER than rich people, just to stay ALIVE. My dad works 6 days a week 10 hours a day, and we BARELY have enough money to stay in our MOBILE HOME! Don't call my dad lazy. He does physical labor that NO rich person would EVER do. If anybody is lazy, it is rich people, because they hae the money to be rich.

And yes, we should tax rich people more. Especially those who have enough money to afford everything as it is. By everything, don't take me literally, I don't mean EVERYTHING. I mean they can do anything leisurely that they want. For example, they can go on cruises, vacations, have maids, and so forth. Why not tax these people more? These people don't really NEED the money, some people do, and taking money from the richest group will NOT affect them that much at all. Say somebody makes $1,000,000 a year. I don't know taxes, but say they are currently $50,000 for taxes. Would $75,000 make a big difference? To the government it will, because each of these people would give an extra $25,000, but to the individual, WHAT DIFFERENCE WILL IT MAKE?

If my dad got an extra $25,000 a year, it would make our life a WHOLE bunch easier.

One last note, on education. The main difference between rich and poor is education. I will admit that my dad was lazy during High School, but he is NOT NOW, and the only reason he is poor is because he made that mistake during high school.

We at the PROA believe part of the reason the rich get taxed less than the poor is because the rich can afford to hire people to take care of their money. Instead of spending it on basic necessities they can invest it into the economy, which in theory helps boost the economy and benefits, indirectly, the government. They can also use the loopholes in the taxation system to their advantage. Another point we'd like to make is that by raising taxes on the rich you run the risk of having them just put their money into offshore banks, or just moving to another country.

Actually, most rich people tend to "hoard" money, so the idea that all rich people's money trickles down to the poorer classes is basically false. For many rich people, money seems to be an addiction. They are never satisfied with what they have, and keep taking and hoarding even more. Poorer people are more likely to spend their money and so "invest" it in the economy. Remember, buying "basic commodities" like food will put money into the economy.

Actually, most rich people tend to "hoard" money, so the idea that all rich people's money trickles down to the poorer classes is basically false. For many rich people, money seems to be an addiction. They are never satisfied with what they have, and keep taking and hoarding even more. Poorer people are more likely to spend their money and so "invest" it in the economy. Remember, buying "basic commodities" like food will put money into the economy.

Aye. In trickle-down economies, all that trickles down is piss.

Actually, most rich people tend to "hoard" money, so the idea that all rich people's money trickles down to the poorer classes is basically false. For many rich people, money seems to be an addiction. They are never satisfied with what they have, and keep taking and hoarding even more. Poorer people are more likely to spend their money and so "invest" it in the economy. Remember, buying "basic commodities" like food will put money into the economy.

We the PROA never said the poor get anything, just the government, where did you get the idea that the poor had any power? We would think if it was up to the poor, the rich would get taxed heaver.

Actually, most rich people tend to "hoard" money, so the idea that all rich people's money trickles down to the poorer classes is basically false. For many rich people, money seems to be an addiction. They are never satisfied with what they have, and keep taking and hoarding even more. Poorer people are more likely to spend their money and so "invest" it in the economy. Remember, buying "basic commodities" like food will put money into the economy.

No they tend to invest it. Over 90% of Bill Gates's wealth is in stock. Investment lets companies grow and improve.

I just hate the way my country, the US, caters to the priveleged, and lets the poor rot. I think we need to increase tax on the ritch instead of decreasing it.

Yes, let's punish people for being good. Let's forcibly take money from the people who did earn it and give it to the lazy SOBs who didn't.

Or, let's take it from the lazy SOB's that didn't earn their money and inherited a vast fortune because their great-great-grandaddy was a slave trader, and give it to those people who did earn it, those who struggle every day for low wages, those who work long hours through a system that exploits them at every turn - the working class. If capitalism really "helps those who work hard" how come those who work hard most of their lives are poor, and those who have short working hours, long holidays, and fat pensions even if they fail at what they do, are rich?

Because you have to work smarter not harder. You know when my family first came over to the US in 1989 after spending several decades as a political refugee (my dad) or under terrible communist oppression (my mom), my mom had to work over 10 hours a day for the minimum wage as a waitress to put my dad through college (this was the University of Delaware... and they have a policy of 100% tuition refund if you get straight-As... which is what my dad did). Now they are both making close-to six-digit incomes and have several weeks of vacation a year.

More rich people start out like my parents did than inherit their money... not as extreme, but there is not a SINGLE American billionaire who inherited his fortune. So sorry. You're stupid.