Obama: People who earn more are merely "Society's lottery winners"

[NYcarbineer]

Keep an eye on Mac1958. He'll trot this out every chance he gets and never admit that he is taking it out of context, much like the you didn't build that nonsense. All the while pretending he is non-partisan.

I'd like to add two new marginal tax tiers, 44.9% and 49.9%. Across the board. Oops!

Did you think you "had" me there? Wanna try again?

My politics are clearly too complicated for run-of-the-mill hardcore partisan ideologues like you. I'm used to it, I know how you people are.

And your fixation on me is getting a little creepy.

.

Why do you think punishing success is a good strategy?

Why do you think a nation can run on no revenue?

 

[Mac1958]

Keep an eye on Mac1958. He'll trot this out every chance he gets and never admit that he is taking it out of context, much like the you didn't build that nonsense. All the while pretending he is non-partisan.

I'd like to add two new marginal tax tiers, 44.9% and 49.9%. Across the board. Oops!

Did you think you "had" me there? Wanna try again?

My politics are clearly too complicated for run-of-the-mill hardcore partisan ideologues like you. I'm used to it, I know how you people are.

And your fixation on me is getting a little creepy.

.

Why do you think punishing success is a good strategy?

Any income tax rate could be called "punishing success".

The key is finding an equilibrium, and I believe (as do many of my peers in the financial profession) that two new, marginally higher tax tiers on the top earners would not retard growth to a significant degree. It would almost certainly, in fact, incentivize more tax-advantaged investment.

These increases, of course, are separate from an expectation that spending does not increase as a percentage of GDP, and that real attempts at increasing efficiencies must continue. As always.

.

NO, a flat tax does not punish success because you pay the same rate regardless of income level.
Anyone approaches those tiers would find ways to throttle back on their earnings or shield them in some way. Yes, it would incentivize tax advantaged investment. Great if you're selling munis but a loser for the economy.
Your last points are enigmatic to me.

A flat tax would destroy tax-advantaged investments, deductions and credits the day it was enacted, I'd have zero interest in that.

.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Keep an eye on Mac1958. He'll trot this out every chance he gets and never admit that he is taking it out of context, much like the you didn't build that nonsense. All the while pretending he is non-partisan.

I'd like to add two new marginal tax tiers, 44.9% and 49.9%. Across the board. Oops!

Did you think you "had" me there? Wanna try again?

My politics are clearly too complicated for run-of-the-mill hardcore partisan ideologues like you. I'm used to it, I know how you people are.

And your fixation on me is getting a little creepy.

.

Why do you think punishing success is a good strategy?

Any income tax rate could be called "punishing success".

The key is finding an equilibrium, and I believe (as do many of my peers in the financial profession) that two new, marginally higher tax tiers on the top earners would not retard growth to a significant degree. It would almost certainly, in fact, incentivize more tax-advantaged investment.

These increases, of course, are separate from an expectation that spending does not increase as a percentage of GDP, and that real attempts at increasing efficiencies must continue. As always.

.

NO, a flat tax does not punish success because you pay the same rate regardless of income level.
Anyone approaches those tiers would find ways to throttle back on their earnings or shield them in some way. Yes, it would incentivize tax advantaged investment. Great if you're selling munis but a loser for the economy.
Your last points are enigmatic to me.

A flat tax will raise your taxes. Are you prepared for that?

 

[Mac1958]

Keep an eye on Mac1958. He'll trot this out every chance he gets and never admit that he is taking it out of context, much like the you didn't build that nonsense. All the while pretending he is non-partisan.

I'd like to add two new marginal tax tiers, 44.9% and 49.9%. Across the board. Oops!

Did you think you "had" me there? Wanna try again?

My politics are clearly too complicated for run-of-the-mill hardcore partisan ideologues like you. I'm used to it, I know how you people are.

And your fixation on me is getting a little creepy.

.

Why do you think punishing success is a good strategy?

Why do you think a nation can run on no revenue?

Rabbi and I are having a conversation.

Blatant straw man arguments - your specialty - are not required.

.

 

[NYcarbineer]

A flat tax will make the rich richer and the poor poorer. That's why so many conservatives support it. As I have said repeatedly,

conservative economic policy always tries to make the rich richer and the poor poorer.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Keep an eye on Mac1958. He'll trot this out every chance he gets and never admit that he is taking it out of context, much like the you didn't build that nonsense. All the while pretending he is non-partisan.

I'd like to add two new marginal tax tiers, 44.9% and 49.9%. Across the board. Oops!

Did you think you "had" me there? Wanna try again?

My politics are clearly too complicated for run-of-the-mill hardcore partisan ideologues like you. I'm used to it, I know how you people are.

And your fixation on me is getting a little creepy.

.

Why do you think punishing success is a good strategy?

Why do you think a nation can run on no revenue?

Rabbi and I are having a conversation.

Blatant straw man arguments - your specialty - are not required.

.

Fuck off. Go tell the mods you want this thread for yourself and your boyfriend.

 

[Mac1958]

.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Keep an eye on Mac1958. He'll trot this out every chance he gets and never admit that he is taking it out of context, much like the you didn't build that nonsense. All the while pretending he is non-partisan.

I'd like to add two new marginal tax tiers, 44.9% and 49.9%. Across the board. Oops!

Did you think you "had" me there? Wanna try again?

My politics are clearly too complicated for run-of-the-mill hardcore partisan ideologues like you. I'm used to it, I know how you people are.

And your fixation on me is getting a little creepy.

.

Why do you think punishing success is a good strategy?

Any income tax rate could be called "punishing success".

The key is finding an equilibrium, and I believe (as do many of my peers in the financial profession) that two new, marginally higher tax tiers on the top earners would not retard growth to a significant degree. It would almost certainly, in fact, incentivize more tax-advantaged investment.

These increases, of course, are separate from an expectation that spending does not increase as a percentage of GDP, and that real attempts at increasing efficiencies must continue. As always.

.

NO, a flat tax does not punish success because you pay the same rate regardless of income level.
Anyone approaches those tiers would find ways to throttle back on their earnings or shield them in some way. Yes, it would incentivize tax advantaged investment. Great if you're selling munis but a loser for the economy.
Your last points are enigmatic to me.

A flat tax makes munis less attractive thus raising the borrowing costs for local, municipal, state governments.

 

[NLT]

Yea I guess these people just won the lottery of life
Billionaires Who Came From Nothing - Business Insider

 

[The Rabbi]

Keep an eye on Mac1958. He'll trot this out every chance he gets and never admit that he is taking it out of context, much like the you didn't build that nonsense. All the while pretending he is non-partisan.

I'd like to add two new marginal tax tiers, 44.9% and 49.9%. Across the board. Oops!

Did you think you "had" me there? Wanna try again?

My politics are clearly too complicated for run-of-the-mill hardcore partisan ideologues like you. I'm used to it, I know how you people are.

And your fixation on me is getting a little creepy.

.

Why do you think punishing success is a good strategy?

Why do you think a nation can run on no revenue?

Why is your only way to argue a strawman fallacy?

 

[NLT]

1. Roman Abramovich is an Oil and aluminum tycoon who is worth $11.2 billion. Steel tycoon's parents both died by the time he was 4 years old. He was raised by relatives. After brief stretch in Soviet military, sold plastic ducts from his apartment. Participated in controversial Russian oil export deals before taking over oil outlet Sibneft in 1995. Flipped it to Russia’s Gazprom for $13 billion a decade later. Bought stake in steel giant Evraz. Soccer fan owns U.K.’s Chelsea club; also world's biggest yacht. Divorced twice, had his sixth child with his girlfriend in December.

2. John Paul DeJoria got $4 billion. Ever heard the name Paul Mitchell? Yes, he is the con-founder of this popular hair brand products. Once sold cards and newspapers to help support his single mother. She later sent him to foster care when she couldn't support him. Homeless for a time, living in his car and pushing hair care products door-to-door. With $700 cofounded own line of hair care products, John Paul Mitchell Systems, in 1980. Later pioneered high-end tequila market with Patron distillery. Launched ultra-posh Ultimat vodka line last year. Now frequents red carpet events, flashing peace sign for paparazzi.

3. Leonardo Del Vecchio is the founder of Luxottica eyeglasses and his net worth stands around $10.5 billion. One of five children, he was raised in an orphanage after widowed mother couldn't support him. Worked in a factory making molds for auto parts, eyeglass frames; severed part of his finger. At age 23 opened own molding shop, making eyeglass frames. Now his Luxottica is worlds largest maker of sunglasses and prescription eyewear sold under such brands as Ray-Ban, Oakley. Also operates more than 6,000 retail outlets through Sunglass Hut and LensCrafters shops.

4. Larry Ellison is the genius person behind the success of Oracle software company and his wealth is close to $28 billion. His single teenage mother who gave birth to Ellison in the Bronx sent him to live in Chicago with his aunt and uncle, who later adopted him. He dropped out of college reportedly after his adoptive mother died. Founded Oracle in 1977, now one of the world’s biggest software companies. Got $130 million pay package in 2009, making him second-highest-paid CEO in the U.S., according to our recent compensation survey. Sailing buff owns mega-yacht and won latest America's Cup.

5. Micky Jagtiani is the creator of Landmark retail empire and he got $2.8 billion in his bank. Failing accounting student dropped out of school to drive a taxi and clean hotel rooms in London. Moved to Bahrain shortly before his only brother died of leukemia. Diabetic father died within months, and mother died of cancer a year later. Family-less at 21, Jagtiani took over brother's retail space in Bahrain and spent his $6,000 inheritance on baby merchandise in 1973. Expanded single store into $2.5 billion (sales) diversified retail empire Landmark.

6. Steve Jobs, will probably be the most famous guy along with Bill Gates. Not because Steve Jobs is the richest person, although he is one of the richest person with his net worth about $5.5 billion, but because he is a co-founder of Apple. Just think iPod and iPhone. San Francisco native was adopted by a working-class couple and grew up in nearby Santa Clara, Calif. Dropped out of Reed College when he couldn't afford tuition but continued auditing classes. Jobs started Apple computer outlet in parents's garage in 1976. Fired after power struggle 1985. Started Pixar. Returned to Apple 1996. Health of revered chief executive has been scrutinized after he took leave of absence for a liver transplant. Back now, leading continued expansion in music and media through devices and software including iPod, iTunes and new iPad.

7. Li Ka-shing is the head of conglomerates Cheung Kong and Hutchison Whampoa and got $21 billion. Don’t ever assume all the Chinese people are poor. This guy is born to a China native's family who fled to Hong Kong in 1940. Had to quit school at age 15 after his father died of tuberculosis. Worked in a plastics factory to support his family. Li later made plastic flowers to be exported to the U.S. Today runs Cheung Kong and Hutchison Whampoa, massive conglomerates with interests in ports, oil and gas, electricity, retail, telecom and real estate. Generous donor has given out $1.45 billion to education, medical research.

8. Guy Lalibert is the founder of popular show Cirque du Soleil and is worth $2.5 billion. Acrobat showman started as a stilt-walking, fire-eating street performer. Founded Cirque du Soleil in 1984 with pavement exhibitionist pals. Hit it big when casino mogul Steve Wynn brought act to Las Vegas in 1991. Since then has expanded shows to include themed-versions featuring The Beatles and Elvis. Next up: Michael Jackson shows. Poker guru has won card tournaments; also recorded Web videos from space.

9. J.K. Rowling is the author of Harry Potter book and movie series. She currently has $1 billion but will grow her wealth as she keeps earning royalty fees. While writing wizardry single mother lived on welfare in Edinburgh, Scotland. Broke and depressed, author once told reporters she contemplated suicide. Rowling’s Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone was published in 1997 and quickly became a bestseller and the first of a seven-book series that captivated children and adults worldwide. First of films series released in 2001. First six of the magical movies grossed more than $5 billion.

10. Oprah Winfrey is the queen of daytime talk shows. When you are on Oprah show, you know you got something going on in your life – a success. She is worth $2.4 billion. She was born to single teenage mother, but raised by grandmother in a farmland. She has been a victim of child sexual abuse. After her TV talk show success, she started her on studio, O magazine, book club and what not. She is also ready to launch her new Oprah Winfrey Network cable channel.

 

[The Rabbi]

Keep an eye on Mac1958. He'll trot this out every chance he gets and never admit that he is taking it out of context, much like the you didn't build that nonsense. All the while pretending he is non-partisan.

I'd like to add two new marginal tax tiers, 44.9% and 49.9%. Across the board. Oops!

Did you think you "had" me there? Wanna try again?

My politics are clearly too complicated for run-of-the-mill hardcore partisan ideologues like you. I'm used to it, I know how you people are.

And your fixation on me is getting a little creepy.

.

Why do you think punishing success is a good strategy?

Any income tax rate could be called "punishing success".

The key is finding an equilibrium, and I believe (as do many of my peers in the financial profession) that two new, marginally higher tax tiers on the top earners would not retard growth to a significant degree. It would almost certainly, in fact, incentivize more tax-advantaged investment.

These increases, of course, are separate from an expectation that spending does not increase as a percentage of GDP, and that real attempts at increasing efficiencies must continue. As always.

.

NO, a flat tax does not punish success because you pay the same rate regardless of income level.
Anyone approaches those tiers would find ways to throttle back on their earnings or shield them in some way. Yes, it would incentivize tax advantaged investment. Great if you're selling munis but a loser for the economy.
Your last points are enigmatic to me.

A flat tax would destroy tax-advantaged investments, deductions and credits the day it was enacted, I'd have zero interest in that.

.

Thats precisely the point of such a thing. "Tax advantaged" means absent the tax considerations the investment would suck. No one would buy it. So the question is why should we the taxpayer subsidize investments that suck? The money should be invested in ventures that produce maximum return given the safety parameters and other considerations.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Keep an eye on Mac1958. He'll trot this out every chance he gets and never admit that he is taking it out of context, much like the you didn't build that nonsense. All the while pretending he is non-partisan.

I'd like to add two new marginal tax tiers, 44.9% and 49.9%. Across the board. Oops!

Did you think you "had" me there? Wanna try again?

My politics are clearly too complicated for run-of-the-mill hardcore partisan ideologues like you. I'm used to it, I know how you people are.

And your fixation on me is getting a little creepy.

.

Why do you think punishing success is a good strategy?

Why do you think a nation can run on no revenue?

Why is your only way to argue a strawman fallacy?

So do you support taxation or not? Calling it punishment sounds like opposition.

 

[The Rabbi]

Keep an eye on Mac1958. He'll trot this out every chance he gets and never admit that he is taking it out of context, much like the you didn't build that nonsense. All the while pretending he is non-partisan.

I'd like to add two new marginal tax tiers, 44.9% and 49.9%. Across the board. Oops!

Did you think you "had" me there? Wanna try again?

My politics are clearly too complicated for run-of-the-mill hardcore partisan ideologues like you. I'm used to it, I know how you people are.

And your fixation on me is getting a little creepy.

.

Why do you think punishing success is a good strategy?

Why do you think a nation can run on no revenue?

Why is your only way to argue a strawman fallacy?

So do you support taxation or not? Calling it punishment sounds like opposition.

My positipon has been clear and consistent, dum-dum. Now go and fuck yourself.

 

[NYcarbineer]

I'd like to add two new marginal tax tiers, 44.9% and 49.9%. Across the board. Oops!

Did you think you "had" me there? Wanna try again?

My politics are clearly too complicated for run-of-the-mill hardcore partisan ideologues like you. I'm used to it, I know how you people are.

And your fixation on me is getting a little creepy.

.

Why do you think punishing success is a good strategy?

Why do you think a nation can run on no revenue?

Why is your only way to argue a strawman fallacy?

So do you support taxation or not? Calling it punishment sounds like opposition.

My positipon has been clear and consistent, dum-dum. Now go and fuck yourself.

You are clearly a fuckwit and your posts consistently prove it.

You want to make the rich richer and the poor poorer. How will that make America better?

 

[The Rabbi]

Why do you think punishing success is a good strategy?

Why do you think a nation can run on no revenue?

Why is your only way to argue a strawman fallacy?

So do you support taxation or not? Calling it punishment sounds like opposition.

My positipon has been clear and consistent, dum-dum. Now go and fuck yourself.

You are clearly a fuckwit and your posts consistently prove it.

You want to make the rich richer and the poor poorer. How will that make America better?

I wouldnt call anyone a fuckwit, dum-dum. You are the one who consistently throws straw men arguments when you've lost. The ideas I support have been proved to make everyone richer.
The problem is you hate wealthy people. So you're OK punishing poor people as long as you get to punish wealthy people too. Lady Thatcher had your type down pat.

 

[CowboyTed]

Not all, some of them work harder, pay attention in class and have good ideas. Probably around 60% fall into this class of people...The other 40% got lucky to have a rich dad, uncle, etc.

Matthew,

I would be closer than most to a 1%er and can tell you after twice coming close to bankrupt. Being self made man involves a certain amount of luck... Bill Gates would agree there was luck and good judgement that got him to where he was...

Now saying that I got a first class education paid for by my parents and help from the government. I left college with no debt and was able to go to a further year in software development which if I had debt I would never had done and would have done Actuary(I would have been a pretty bad actuary, I didn't really like it). So now I own my own company in software consultancy and development.

There was a lot fate in what happened and I have friends who worked just as hard as me and didn't get the breaks...

I also have to say that someone who slogs out a 12 hour day on a building site as a labourer probably works just as hard as I do if not more.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Why do you think a nation can run on no revenue?

Why is your only way to argue a strawman fallacy?

So do you support taxation or not? Calling it punishment sounds like opposition.

My positipon has been clear and consistent, dum-dum. Now go and fuck yourself.

You are clearly a fuckwit and your posts consistently prove it.

You want to make the rich richer and the poor poorer. How will that make America better?

I wouldnt call anyone a fuckwit, dum-dum. You are the one who consistently throws straw men arguments when you've lost. The ideas I support have been proved to make everyone richer.
The problem is you hate wealthy people. So you're OK punishing poor people as long as you get to punish wealthy people too. Lady Thatcher had your type down pat.

Are you denying that a flat tax would make the rich richer and the poor poorer?

If you deny that, then let's debate it. You make your case first, your case that asserts that premise is wrong.

 

[NYcarbineer]

[
I wouldnt call anyone a fuckwit, dum-dum. .

You seem to be afflicted with short term memory loss:

State Dept. orders Marines to disarm US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

 

[The Rabbi]

Why is your only way to argue a strawman fallacy?

So do you support taxation or not? Calling it punishment sounds like opposition.

My positipon has been clear and consistent, dum-dum. Now go and fuck yourself.

You are clearly a fuckwit and your posts consistently prove it.

You want to make the rich richer and the poor poorer. How will that make America better?

I wouldnt call anyone a fuckwit, dum-dum. You are the one who consistently throws straw men arguments when you've lost. The ideas I support have been proved to make everyone richer.
The problem is you hate wealthy people. So you're OK punishing poor people as long as you get to punish wealthy people too. Lady Thatcher had your type down pat.

Are you denying that a flat tax would make the rich richer and the poor poorer?

If you deny that, then let's debate it. You make your case first, your case that asserts that premise is wrong.

Yes. A flat tax would make everyone richer. This is undoubted.