Forums Register login What's New?
Palin: "share in the wealth"
Page 4 of 7


  1. http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism



    critically speaking, to a degree i agree with you except that the industry is not nationalized, nor do alaskans own the means of production. higher taxes are being levied however. alaska maintains that these taxes pay alaskans for the natural resource.

    i don't equate this to "redistribution of wealth"

    the oil company benefits from receiving the natural resource.

    alaskans are paid for the natural resource by the oil company.

    as you will soon see "redistribution of wealth" takes $$$ from those that make anywhere from 125k to 300k (take your pick) and gives it to those that don't with no apparent benefit to those being taxed more.

    how is this the same?
  2. What are Alaskans being compensated for? Who among them is any worse off because of the oil companies taking oil out of the ground? What would Alaskans do with the natural resources without oil companies?

    Taking money from one person or company & giving it to another is redistribution of wealth.

    Just as any other company benefits from utilizing America's infrastructure.

    They are two different forms of wealth redistribution. One takes from a wealthy corporation, while another takes from wealthy individuals. One distributes it equally, one does not. Nonetheless, it is being redistributed.
  3. whatever they want to.....it's their resource, not the oil company's. they, in turn, benefit from the oil company as they allow the oil company to procure and use this resource to the oil company's benefit.

    its a win-win. the oil company is happy as are the alaskan people.


    technically yes (as i have so stipulated) as are taxes, levies, etc., but not in the sense that's been discussed regarding obama & joe the plumber.


    no. a resource such as oil is not "infrastructure". a diamond in africa, silver in nevada, coal in kentucky are examples of natural resources. not infrastructure.

    most fair-minded people think option 2 sucks. those that have worked their a$$ off to achieve the american dream will not be happy....and no, it's not fair.

    why do libs think it is?
  4. Well, lets have all American companies pay us since they use our land to put their corporate offices on.

    I'm not saying that oil is infrastructure. I'm saying that all companies are utilizing America's resources (such as infrastructure) for their success.

    I am for a tiered tax system, and believe in a small amount of help for the poor. This is good for everyone because it creates a strong middle class by allowing the most upward mobility.

    Obama's beliefs are much, much to the left of mine.

    They are a feel-good party who's ignored the long-term consequences of their continued short-term handouts.

    Republicans on the other hand are hypocrites who have ignored the long-term consequences of their attempt to give the same hand-outs but without corresponding tax income.
  5. on this we can both agree
  6. What bums me is that I have to pay a pretty steep tax on my business earnings (of which none of my distributions decrease my taxable business income). Then, I have to pay another steep tax on my personal income distributions, which have already been taxed out the wazoo. I am getting whacked over the head with taxes, and its going to support people who choose not to work.

    The future for successful small business owners is to have two businesses, lets' call them ABC-1, LLC and ABC-2, LLC. Once it is clear that your business' taxable earnings are approaching the intolerable limit, you shut it down for the year, and business 2 opens its doors. If your extra insurance and accounting expenditures can offset your increased taxes, then it is worth doing. The small business man will find a way to work through this. We don't bust our humps all year to have our hard-earned money passed on to lazy slackards who over-indulge on booze, cigs, and car stereos, but can't afford to buy basic essentials, or pay their utility bill. The guy in front of me at the grocery just the other day had a brand new Dodge RAM pickup (yes, it had a HEMI), and used a food stamp card. When he figured out he had a few dollars left, he grabbed a few candy bars and through them on the card. Meanwhile, he is driving a gas guzzling, $25K pickup truck. He can afford the truck note, but not his groceries. Prolly got some nice 10/20/10 insurance on that truck, too.

    I am tired of 10% of the earners paying 90% of the taxes. And giving a tax break to the 90%, 40% of whom don't pay any tax. Sheesh.
  7. WHAT ABOUT THE CARIBOU! WILL SOMEONE PLEASE REMEMBER THE CARIBOU?
  8. This is a fallacy promoted by the republicans. Taxpayers pay to fund the entire government. That's everything--the military, the roads, the federal departments, the Forest service, national parks, NASA, the FBI, and on and on. The middle class pays taxes and doesn't receive welfare checks and neither do the working poor. Those that do receive welfare are a tiny percentage of the Federal Budget (1%!)and are mostly for dependent children and disabled people. Even then it's only temporary.
  9. That's not exactly a revelation. How does Obama's trillion dollar spending plan figure to help?
  10. What Trillion dollar spending plan?

    From The Fact Checker:

(You have insufficient privileges to reply here.)
Page 4 of 7