Do the rich earn their income?

[bripat9643]

I haven't seen much in the way accurate debate or salient points. Mostly it's just name-calling, personal attacks and straw man arguments, mixed with insults and hatred.

Why do you think that is?

Simple: Commies like you are immune to facts and logic, and productive people are tired of being looted by imbeciles who swallow that brand of swill.

Furthermore, your claim is just wrong. I post all manner of "salient points," facts and valid arguments. But I believe in disincentives for posting dangerous idiocies like the stuff you post.

 

[Sundial]

Warren Buffett is lying to you to make himself rich,
:

You don't really believe that do you?

You know Buffet is like 90 years old, right? That he's lived in the same house for like 60 years? That he's got more money than God?

How does this plan work, anyway?

1. I'll lie and say that some people make too much money.

2. People will believe me.

3. ...........

4. PROFIT!

 

[Sundial]

Are we supposed to feel guilty for giving something back to and making the system work for the most successful, productive people in the country, rather than the poor envy-jockeys?

Envy-jockeys?? "Ignorant peasants" was better. Anachronistic, but better.

 

[Sundial]

I guess that would depend on your definition of "earn". If you define it as "suffering through a shitty job for someone else every day like I do", then no. The point of becoming rich is so you don't have to do that any more.

The definition of "unearned income" is income you get without work.

No, Brain Trust. Actually, the reason politicians started calling it that is EXACTLY because they know half-wit twerps think that's what it means.

Argue with Google, not with me.

In fact - and the IRS and any accountant will tell you this - the definition of "unearned income" is "any income that doesn't come from being an employee". My best friend and I have recently started an errand service. We run our asses off twelve hours a day, seven days a week, but because we put the money into a business account and draw our share off as something other than an employee paycheck, everything we make qualifies as "unearned income". Would you like to tell me that I don't work?

If you're a sole proprietorship, it'd be earned income, regardless of what account you put it in. If you're some sort of corporation, what you're talking about is illegal. It would be a form of tax evasion.

You need to learn that you saying something doesn't make it right.

Really? Please show me where I EVER said anything that asinine.

Don't flatter yourself, tweeko, because from what little I've seen of you so far, the only way you could say something I would agree with is completely by accident.

Oops. I guess not.

Are the rich rich so they don't have to work? Or because they're running businesses and managing investments?

When the fuck did I ever say the rich were rich in order to not work?

Scroll up a little bit, and look at the part that's highlighted in red.

Granted, there's almost always an element of not wanting to HAVE to work, but that's not the same thing. Working at doing something you CHOOSE to do, rather than working at whatever because you HAVE to, are very different things.

Nevertheless, please try to keep straight which poster said what, because it really doesn't work to try to make one person responsible for someone else's position.

Or is running businesses and managing money not work?

And if it's not work, why do people get paid to do those things?

Isn't it so other people don't have to?

Usually, people get paid to run businesses and manage money, not so that other people don't HAVE to, but because other people AREN'T CAPABLE of it. The pool of people in this country qualified to run Fortune 500 companies is pretty small.

Rich people hire other people to manage their money, not just because they're not capable of doing it, but because it's a chore.

 

[Sundial]

Well? There you go. Not only is she working for her money, she's ALSO providing jobs.

And your fucking problem was . . . ?

You gotta wonder about these libtards. They hate rich people who don't create jobs, and they hate rich people who do create jobs. Of course, the truth is that they hate rich people because they want to take what the rich have. They are like a snarling pack of jackels sneaking up on some unsuspecting victims huddled around a campfire. Virtually everything libs posts about the rich is a just sleazy rational for taking their stuff.

You're projecting. I've never said I hate rich people, and I don't think anyone else (besides you and other conservatives) have said it either.

What's happening is that you and your fellow-travelers are spewing a continual vomit of insults and obscenities, and then crying victim because of imaginary attacks.

 

[Sundial]

I haven't seen much in the way accurate debate or salient points. Mostly it's just name-calling, personal attacks and straw man arguments, mixed with insults and hatred.

Why do you think that is?

Simple: Commies like you are immune to facts and logic, and productive people are tired of being looted by imbeciles who swallow that brand of swill.

Furthermore, your claim is just wrong. I post all manner of "salient points," facts and valid arguments. But I believe in disincentives for posting dangerous idiocies like the stuff you post.

You're only making yourself look angry and irrational.

 

[Wiseacre]

Do the rich guys earn their income? Most do, busted their asses for several years building up a business or getting specialized training and experience to the point where their time is extremely valuable. There's gonna be some crooks or outright lucky bastards born into money, but how are you going to tell which from which? Is it right to penalize the hard working group that earned everything they've gotten, so you can take a bunch of money from those who lied, cheated, stole, or otherwise got lucky?

And here's the thing, even if you take more money from both groups, it's still not enough to cover the gov't spending we're doing now, let alone 10 years from now.

 

[Patrick2]

What's the unspoken corollary? That all wealth should be taken from the rich, because "they didn't earn it"? Then why would they earn any more? Then where are you going to get it? You'll end up with a socialist society. People under 30 who don't know what that means should read up on the history of socialist societies to find out what your government school teacher didn't tell you.

 

[auditor0007]

A new 250k tax bracket wouldn't increase the taxes of someone making 250k one cent.

There is no 250k bracket..

All that shits a myth...

** Edit..

It's not that it's a myth but a person/individual making 225k could be paying more in taxes than a person making 250k or vice versa...

The guy who is making 250 per could be bringing home less than the guy making 225...

Do you understand how tax brackets work?

Wow! Amazing, isn't it?

 

[auditor0007]

According to the IRS, the answer is mostly not.

Of the richest of the rich only 6.5% of income was from working, as of 2007. The rest came from things like interest, dividends, and capital gains.

In other words, the kind of income you get without having to wake up in the morning.

Which raises the question: if the rich are consuming without working, who is doing their work for them?

Link

The whole point of being financially independent is that your money works for you.

And since it's the money that's doing the work and not you, you basically shouldn't have to pay any taxes on it.

 

[grunt11b]

According to the IRS, the answer is mostly not.

Of the richest of the rich only 6.5% of income was from working, as of 2007. The rest came from things like interest, dividends, and capital gains.

In other words, the kind of income you get without having to wake up in the morning.

Which raises the question: if the rich are consuming without working, who is doing their work for them?

Link

They dont get rich by not working for it, and if you believe the IRS, then your a fucken idiot.

 

[grunt11b]

Don't forget "inheritance". Republicans call that "the good old fashioned way".

And lets not forget the death tax that left wing ideologues want to implement, where you cannot leave what you have to your kids without the gubemt saying so before they get their cut of it. Fucking communists.

 

[bripat9643]

You're projecting. I've never said I hate rich people, and I don't think anyone else (besides you and other conservatives) have said it either.

What's happening is that you and your fellow-travelers are spewing a continual vomit of insults and obscenities, and then crying victim because of imaginary attacks.

Oh puhleeze. Just because you haven't said string of words, "I hate rich people" doesn't mean you haven't said it. Everything you post is seething with your hatred for the rich, or at least your obvious desire to take everything they have. All this blathering about whether they have "earned" what they have is an expression of hatred. It would be utterly pointless unless you want to take their stuff.

 

[bripat9643]

Simple: Commies like you are immune to facts and logic, and productive people are tired of being looted by imbeciles who swallow that brand of swill.

Furthermore, your claim is just wrong. I post all manner of "salient points," facts and valid arguments. But I believe in disincentives for posting dangerous idiocies like the stuff you post.

You're only making yourself look angry and irrational.[/QUOTE]

Wrong, I make myself look perceptive.

 

[Rozman]

Um..made my point even mo' bettah.

What do you think would have happened had this venture failed?

Me or you? We'd lose are shirts.

Them? We'd lose are shirts.

The difference is that in both scenarios..the Trumps keep their shirts.

Your point was that trump inherited millions of dollars. I pointed out that your assumption was based on the premise that his father paid cash for their joint real estate venture. At most, he put up 10% of the price, so he wasn't even a millionaire.

whenever one of your points gets shot down, you start blubbering about another that was previously shot down.

You proved yourself wrong again.

The difference is that in both scenarios..the Trumps keep their shirts.

[/QUOTE]


How many people earned a paycheck because of Donald Trump?
Just think of how many people benefited from just one Trump building/casino/hotel/condominium....

Why don't you think about that and all the other rich people who you lefties condemn and try to destroy...These people go away like you want and who will you then demonize and look to to keep people employed,who government get tax revenue from...

 

[Trajan]

Um..made my point even mo' bettah.

What do you think would have happened had this venture failed?

Me or you? We'd lose are shirts.

Them? We'd lose are shirts.

The difference is that in both scenarios..the Trumps keep their shirts.

Your point was that trump inherited millions of dollars. I pointed out that your assumption was based on the premise that his father paid cash for their joint real estate venture. At most, he put up 10% of the price, so he wasn't even a millionaire.

whenever one of your points gets shot down, you start blubbering about another that was previously shot down.

You proved yourself wrong again.

The difference is that in both scenarios..the Trumps keep their shirts.

How many people earned a paycheck because of Donald Trump?
Just think of how many people benefited from just one Trump building/casino/hotel/condominium....

Why don't you think about that and all the other rich people who you lefties condemn and try to destroy...These people go away like you want and who will you then demonize and look to to keep people employed,who government get tax revenue from... [/QUOTE]

who is John Galt?

 

[JohnA]

Then you should be able to name them.

Big ones.

Go on.

Dick Fuld. When did he make any investments?

How about..Lloyd Blankfein? Which one was his?

And James P. Gorman? When did he belly up to the bar?

What about Duncan L. Niederauer? That's a guy I actually met. When was the last time he opened his wallet?

How about Trump? That's a fave. You think he uses his own cashola?

Most of these guys don't ever touch their personal wealth to make investments.

Your questions are stupid. For one thing, the invesments people make are personnel information unless they are buying and selling stock in the companies they work for. In the case of Dick Fuld, a good chunk of the money he has acquired was "EARNED" income according to the definition you and rdean are using. He recieved an enormous salary for being a CEO. The same goes for James P. Gorman, Lloyd Blankfein and Duncan L. Niederauer.

Which do you object to, "earned income" or "unearned income?"

Like all real estate developers, Trump builds his projects by borrowing money using the resulting development as collateral for the loan. Do you object to that arrangement? If you do, then how do you propose to get houses built for turds like you to live in?

The average joe does the same thing borrows money from a bank * other peoples money* to BUY home for himself
iif it fails repossess the bank sells it at loss (of future income )or at the least under market price
average joe loses the bank losses other poeples money ....both lose

if it increases in value the bank gets rich by the interest it charges average joe gets rich by the equity it produces..... both win

your the average joe where did you *work for your equity /money* ??in the illustration above

i bet most of the libs here have mortgages and im betting they have other peoples money (mortgage ) at the lowest rate they can while evaluating thier home at the highest value they can
So the AVERAGE JOE who thinks and votes liberal gets rich by using OTHER Peoples money

 

[Sallow]

How many people earned a paycheck because of Donald Trump?
Just think of how many people benefited from just one Trump building/casino/hotel/condominium....

Why don't you think about that and all the other rich people who you lefties condemn and try to destroy...These people go away like you want and who will you then demonize and look to to keep people employed,who government get tax revenue from...

I'm sure quite a few people make a "paycheck" from what Trump sorta does. Not the point really.

These people have no skin in the game..they have other people's skin. And they don't make things to last..they hit and run..and do so to make as much profit in the short term as possible.

Is that ethical? Of course not. Is it legal? Right now it is..

 

[Sallow]

To further the point Liberals think it's evil and want government to confiscate it and pass it around to those who have no inclination to work hard and make something of themselves.

Dude.

How exactly would that happen?

Dude.

Confiscate..

Are you trying to tell me you Libs don't want the Inheritance tax raised through the roof?..
C'mon guys you are on here all the time crying that the rich have way too much and that needs to stop.The President when he was campaigning for the Presidency said over and over that we need to spread the wealth around...

You can play stupid all you want but people know what you guys are all about...

Taxation is not "confiscation". It's the Constitutionally mandated way the Government generates revenues. And it uses those revenues to pay for services that many WEALTHY people use to accrue their wealth.

Lately, conservatives have been successful in turning both government and tax into dirty words..hence our debt.

But look..if the wealthy don't like the services or the taxes or the government...they should move.

 

[Sallow]

Then you should be able to name them.

Big ones.

Go on.

Dick Fuld. When did he make any investments?

How about..Lloyd Blankfein? Which one was his?

And James P. Gorman? When did he belly up to the bar?

What about Duncan L. Niederauer? That's a guy I actually met. When was the last time he opened his wallet?

How about Trump? That's a fave. You think he uses his own cashola?

Most of these guys don't ever touch their personal wealth to make investments.

Your questions are stupid. For one thing, the invesments people make are personnel information unless they are buying and selling stock in the companies they work for. In the case of Dick Fuld, a good chunk of the money he has acquired was "EARNED" income according to the definition you and rdean are using. He recieved an enormous salary for being a CEO. The same goes for James P. Gorman, Lloyd Blankfein and Duncan L. Niederauer.

Which do you object to, "earned income" or "unearned income?"

Like all real estate developers, Trump builds his projects by borrowing money using the resulting development as collateral for the loan. Do you object to that arrangement? If you do, then how do you propose to get houses built for turds like you to live in?

My questions aren't stupid.

You haven't put up one reason any of these people should earn millions more then the normal employee at their respective companies.

They seriously don't add any value..most of them keep "bankers" hours and many of them haven't even put in the time most normal employees of their respective companies have.

And in a couple of cases..they screwed up so bad..their companies folded. And these are companies they didn't start. Or the families didn't start..or they really weren't a part of.

You really need to do a little research before you come up with these insipid answers..

Or you can just keep on being a stupid fucking moron.