Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
How much money should any one man have sissy ass?
Johnboy, who believes "the definition of a happy and comfortable life is dependent on the government?"
How do I know girlyman/boy, and why would I care?
Subjective arguments and sophomoric bullshit is your forte, not Dante's
Oh golly girly boy.....you seem so worried about someone else not having enough....
From each according to his ability, to each according to his need
right????
How much money should any one man have sissy ass?
How do I know girlyman/boy, and why would I care?
Subjective arguments and sophomoric bullshit is your forte, not Dante's
Are you kidding me? Who the fuck donates millions of dollars in cash?
you are not understanding. What he means is someones' assets can show he is a billionaire, yet in actuality it is all on paper. He has no cash available unless he were to convert, as an example, stocks into cash by selling them. And depending on the market he could end up with much less than the worth it had been declared. Just one of many examples.
Can you imagine those billionaires that have most of their worth in stocks, commodities, etc. suddenly having to sell them all and what would then happen to the economy?
I think you exaggerate how much disposable money a billionaire has access to.
Johnboy, who believes "the definition of a happy and comfortable life is dependent on the government?"
That's what it meant in the 18th century. In the 21st century "liberal" means communist.
Only in your minuscule little paranoid head.
That's reality as demonstrated by noting what those who call themselves liberals support. They wouldn't disagree with a single item on the platform of the American Communist Party.
Johnboy, who believes "the definition of a happy and comfortable life is dependent on the government?"
Liberals
Johnboy, who believes "the definition of a happy and comfortable life is dependent on the government?"
Liberals
What did i tell you about thinking critically?
There is no such thing as excess profit or excess savings.
Of course there is. Once you've bought/invested all you could ever need, anything left over is "excess". Something you have no use for is what we call "useless".
And just what is this definition of "all you need"? And who determines what it is anyone "needs"
I can give you a laundry list of things I think you need and don't need is that OK with you?
You have absolutely no right to tell anyone else what they need or don't need. It's none of your business.
you are not understanding. What he means is someones' assets can show he is a billionaire, yet in actuality it is all on paper. He has no cash available unless he were to convert, as an example, stocks into cash by selling them. And depending on the market he could end up with much less than the worth it had been declared. Just one of many examples.
Can you imagine those billionaires that have most of their worth in stocks, commodities, etc. suddenly having to sell them all and what would then happen to the economy?
I think you exaggerate how much disposable money a billionaire has access to.
Here are some examples for you of those that have lost much of their worth-
Thomas Friedman of the New York Times went from $3.6 billion to less than $25 million in a matter of a year.
In 2001 BET founder sold his company to Viacom for $4 billion, yet because of a nasty divorce, bad real estate deals, and the loss of value in Viacom stock lost all but $550 million in one year.
In 2008 Mark Zuckerburg lost $900 million of his worth of $1.5 billion.
In 2007 Randal Nardone was worth over $10.7 billion through his hedgefund. He lost 91% of that value in one year.
What many people do not realize is that most peoples net worth is all tied up in paper assets. Say I purcahse a home that is worth $250,000 and take a loan out for that amount. I have another $10 grand in savings. My net worth is now $260,000 even though I just took out the loan on that home and I still owe all but my down payment on it. That is just an example of net worth for you. Do I actually have access to $260,000? No. And if the real estate market crashes, then my net worth drops even more, even though I am still responsible for paying for a $250,000 mortgage. And what happens if I need to sell? Then I am still obligated to the bank for that $250,000 even if I can only sell the home for $190,000. I have derived an added debt of $60,000 on something I don't even own anymore.
Net worth that you hear about of individuals is the total of their homes, real estate holdings, vehicles, stocks, treasury bills, etc. and of course any cash they may have accumulated, retirement funds, etc. Even though they may owe the banks for most of that, it is still considered their net worth. If they suddenly were to lose most of all of the above, through poor investing, economies, etc. and they had to turn to their retirement savings, and had to withdraw from them early just to live, even then they would be worth much less than that fund shows on paper as there are penalties for early withdrawal. Even money in the form of cd's, money markets, etc. can be subject to early withdrawl penalties.
Liberals
What did i tell you about thinking critically?
Not one word. Because as a liberal, you are incapable of such.
Paranoia strikes deep.
so you dont think they should confiscate?
Still waiting....you deflected and I'm straight up asking
Do you think they should confiscate?
...to charitable causes?
I am not suggesting that we come up with laws that requires billionaires to give to charity, but I do think billionaires have a responsibility to use part of their fortune to better mankind.
I have a lot of respect for billionaires like Bill Gates and Mark Zuckerberg who plan to give half their fortune to charity after they die. To me, that is the right thing to do.
In your opinion, how much should a billionaire give while they are still alive? Throw out a percentage.
How much money should a person give if they are worth 1 billion? 5 billion?
I know what you said and I'm saying if the money served a purpose then it wasn't excess money you moron!
Fact is you stupid little fuck the money was used!! He used the money to donate to your made up subject's foundation.
If you're so dim you can't comprehend the words on your own screen then fuck you.
Don't ever try to put words in my mouth. You're nowhere near worthy. Once the money is used, it isn't useless, and that was your word. Dumb shit.
Trust me, you would never be fortunate for me to put anything in your mouth.
I do believe you are the one with the reading comprehension problem skippy.
"Once the money is used, it isn't useless, "
That's my word?
No I'm pretty sure I never said anything as retarded as that.
so in other words, you're another loony buying into Randian Nitwitticisms?I shudder at the thought of a country where the definition of a happy and comfortable life is dependent on the government.
How much money can a citizen keep till he becomes associated with hoarders? How many children can you have before the government decides that you are becoming less happy and comfortable? How many cars is the government going to allow you to have till they decide that you're becoming decadent and unhelpful to the general rules of governmental abstinence.
The thing about freedom is that it's so hurtful and unfair sometimes. It's still better than letting the politicians govern your values by confiscating your private property.
Don't get me wrong, I'm all for fixing our overly complex ridiculous tax code. A simple flat tax would fix much of our problems I believe. Also, what part about a government unable to balance a budget is supposed to make me comfortable with their financial expertise?
Johnboy, who believes "the definition of a happy and comfortable life is dependent on the government?"
If you're assuming Steve Jobs and Bill Gates retired and went fishing it would mean the end of Apple and Microsoft, you need to ask yourself why Ford didn't fold when Henry died. To move aside and make room for someone else underlies the principle of horizontal vs vertical distribution of wealth.The problem with that thinking (IMHO) is that the government would have less money. An example, Steve Jobs, Bill Gates, etc would have no motive to continue their innovations as soon as they reached the 20 million dollar mark. Why not retire and go fishing? Consequently, we would have far fewer jobs which would lead to less money in our society that government could tax.
The "flat tax" idea has been plugged into the Libertarian playbook by the super-rich and would only be fair if everyone's earnings were the same.I shudder at the thought of a country where the definition of a happy and comfortable life is dependent on the government. How much money can a citizen keep till he becomes associated with hoarders? How many children can you have before the government decides that you are becoming less happy and comfortable? How many cars is the government going to allow you to have till they decide that you're becoming decadent and unhelpful to the general rules of governmental abstinence. The thing about freedom is that it's so hurtful and unfair sometimes. It's still better than letting the politicians govern your values by confiscating your private property. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for fixing our overly complex ridiculous tax code. A simple flat tax would fix much of our problems I believe. Also, what part about a government unable to balance a budget is supposed to make me comfortable with their financial expertise?
What you're talking about is the kind of competitive jealousy that drives many to strive for more, and more, and more. Behaviorists regard this limitless compulsion as a mental disorder and most religions regard such covetous jealousy as sin. Which I'm sure you, as an Irish Catholic, are well aware of.Caring how much your neighbors have is not rational nor emotionally healthy. The manifestation of greed when it comes to other peoples property is the only mental disorder I see here.
