War on The Rich: Dumbest Idea in History of Man

[Boss]

You seem to think that taxation is somehow stealing?

Haven't you read the Constitution?

Some is, some isn't.

For the first 160 years of this nation we used flat, consumption taxes.

The problem with consumption taxes is that they are anonymous. Let's say that major democrat Ima Phukinkruk takes a large bribe from Ted Danson or Brad Pitt. His job is to exempt Actors from taxes. With a direct tax, this isn't possible. How does the grocer or barber know who the actors are? They just collect a flat percent on the total spent.

This clearly is no good for selling favors. So the answer is a direct tax, particularly on income and property. An exorbitant tax where exemptions are sold to the highest bidder and the well connected looter is ideal - and exactly what we had prior to 1986. Reagan cut 90% of the corruption out of the tax code - which is why you are trained to hate Reagan. But the 10% remaining is still huge.

A flat tax offers a far more fair system, but beyond that, it creates honest government, it takes away one of the main elements that the crooks in Washington sell, tax exemptions.

so-called consumption taxes cause working people to pay as taxes a greater part of their income than wealthy people who save a greater percentage of their income.

the "flat-tax" is also called the "help steve forbes not pay taxes" tax.

but that wouldn't bother you, no doubt.

Nonsense. The Fair Tax has a built-in mechanism to avoid taxation on basic essentials. Each month, you'd get a 'prebate' for the taxes you would pay on basic needs. If all you are doing is 'surviving' there is no tax at all. The tax only applies to spending and consuming above and beyond just surviving. Now the thing is... many welfare recipients have iPhones and drive Cadillacs. But the myth that a consumption tax would burden the poor is unfounded.

 

[rightwinger]

SO?

All that illustrates is that some people pay far beyond their fair share.

Why should anyone pay a higher share than anyone else.

So...you don't try to get blood from a turnip

You tax where the money is not by shaking down poor people. Care to name a successful nation on earth that has a flat tax? Why not start with Russia?

Actually some eastern European countries have done very well with a flat tax and it has worked very well in Hong kong

There you go interjecting fact into it.
Yeah, the East European countries saw revenue soar when they went to a flat tax. Simpler and less incentive to cheat.
No wonder Dems hate it.

Never thought I would see the day

Conservatives advocating that we be more like Eastern Europe

That would be E.Europe, post Soviet break up.
Liberals prefer E.Europe, pre Soviet break up.

Tell us about your love affair with Putin again

 

[The Rabbi]

No, I just get tired of sociopathic douchebags criticizing people who help people besides themselves.

Hey, look around, dumbass... you're not "helping" anyone. The rich keep getting richer, the poor remain mired in poverty. We've spent 20-trillion dollars trying to bring them out of poverty to no avail. Not only do your policies FAIL, they cause even more dynamic problems... take student loans for example. You've artificially driven the price of education through the roof by doling out "free money" instead of letting capitalism work. Now we have kids who can never repay their massive student loans. Who did your policy help?

The same thing with the housing/financial collapse... It all started with Utopian dreams of poor people owning homes.... helping people! All the "free money" was doled out so poor people could buy homes and the price of homes went through the roof because free market capitalist forces were removed. Eventually, the poor can't afford their homes and default, then everything comes crashing down... you stick your index finger in your mouth and bite the tip, then blame it all on Republicans! The same thing is going to happen with health care.

All of your right wing fallacies have been proven wrong and it's the sociopathic douchebags who've turned the system on its ear (for their short term personal gain) who are to blame.

So why do you continue to vote for Democrats??

 

[The Rabbi]

So...you don't try to get blood from a turnip

You tax where the money is not by shaking down poor people. Care to name a successful nation on earth that has a flat tax? Why not start with Russia?

Actually some eastern European countries have done very well with a flat tax and it has worked very well in Hong kong

There you go interjecting fact into it.
Yeah, the East European countries saw revenue soar when they went to a flat tax. Simpler and less incentive to cheat.
No wonder Dems hate it.

Never thought I would see the day

Conservatives advocating that we be more like Eastern Europe

That would be E.Europe, post Soviet break up.
Liberals prefer E.Europe, pre Soviet break up.

Tell us about your love affair with Putin again

After you admit to how many times you jerk off to Obama's picture.

 

[Boss]

it's my understanding that there are six families behind the fight against inheritance taxes. one of them is the hilton family.

That's pretty amazing since Conrad Hilton left NONE of his massive estate to his family members. It was all gifted to charity.

 

[Boss]

A 90% tax that only applies to 1% of the gross yields less than a 10% that hits 90% of it.

You might think that but a 90% tax on the top one percent of the population will yield significantly more than a 10% tax on the lower 90% but you would be wrong

Actually, a 10% tax on the wealthy would yield more

You democrats sell tax exemptions that shield 99% of the income of the wealth of the 1%

It's all about corruption - it always was.

Tax credits and exemptions are the currency of the democratic party. Take away direct taxation, and you take away most of the democrats sell in return for bribes.

democrats sell tax exemptions? wow... .that's a new one. the exemptions are rightwingnut gimmes'.
who is suggesting a 90% tax on the top 1%. i think most of us would be pretty ok if the top 1% paid the same PERCENTAGE of their annual earnings, whether by income or earnings on investments, as the middle class.

i've never seen a justification for taxing stock market earnings at a lower rate than employment income.

Stock market earnings are dividends and ARE taxed at normal income rates. These are short-term capital gains... 39.6% baby! What is not taxed at normal income rates is income on long-term investments. There is a lower rate there because we are encouraging rich people to take money out of security investments and do things with it, like fund capitalist ventures. They don't HAVE to do this, you see? We WANT them to do this because it means there is money available for banks to lend to upstart businesses and such. Raise the rates on that and you eliminate it almost entirely because the wealthy are no longer motivated to do it. So is it better to have 15% of something substantial while having the money available to fund economic growth, or is it better to have 39.6% of virtually nothing and no money available?

 

[Toro]

Inheritance is wealth. We have fairly high taxes on it.

and how much of inherited wealth is exempt from taxes?

and what percentage of people actually inherit enough wealth to pay inheritance taxes.

it's my understanding that there are six families behind the fight against inheritance taxes. one of them is the hilton family.

Most people don't pay inheritance tax. It's not meant to generate much revenue. It's meant for social engineering. I believe that it was originally implemented because people thought it would discourage aristocracy.

I believe that most Western countries do not have an estate tax. Canada does not.

 

[JoeNormal]

No, I just get tired of sociopathic douchebags criticizing people who help people besides themselves.

Hey, look around, dumbass... you're not "helping" anyone. The rich keep getting richer, the poor remain mired in poverty. We've spent 20-trillion dollars trying to bring them out of poverty to no avail. Not only do your policies FAIL, they cause even more dynamic problems... take student loans for example. You've artificially driven the price of education through the roof by doling out "free money" instead of letting capitalism work. Now we have kids who can never repay their massive student loans. Who did your policy help?

The same thing with the housing/financial collapse... It all started with Utopian dreams of poor people owning homes.... helping people! All the "free money" was doled out so poor people could buy homes and the price of homes went through the roof because free market capitalist forces were removed. Eventually, the poor can't afford their homes and default, then everything comes crashing down... you stick your index finger in your mouth and bite the tip, then blame it all on Republicans! The same thing is going to happen with health care.

All of your right wing fallacies have been proven wrong and it's the sociopathic douchebags who've turned the system on its ear (for their short term personal gain) who are to blame.

So why do you continue to vote for Democrats??

You've got me confused with someone else apparently. Given a close race between Republicans and Democrats I probably would vote for the Dem but my state is so Red I can afford a protest vote - usually for the Green party.

 

[Toro]

Just as soon as bailouts for the rich come from the rich only. I will agree...

Which bailouts are these?

GM? Nope, that was for the UAW votes - purchased by Obama with taxpayer funds. Chrysler? Nah, same as GM.

The bailout of CALPERS? Payola to to the corrupt unions in California.

AIG? Nope, that was to protect the public employee unions who would have crashed along with AIG.

So what are you babbling about, exactly?

Calpers was bailed out?

 

[Skull Pilot]

I've got all the material wealth I could ever want. If I had a lot more money, I'd buy time with it. That's the commodity that most rich people I know don't have.

more rationalization.

You have yet to tell me who made it harder or impossible for you to amass this material wealth.

Maybe that's because no one is stopping you or anyone else from improving their financial position

It's because he cares about his family. And he has to care about his family because government just isnt doing enough, darn it.

Show me where I said that.

It was implied in your statements.

What I might have implied is that I would like to see the same safety net and medical system that other industrialized countries offer their citizens. Why wouldn't you want that?

I have yet to see a flat tax proposal that does not result in a significant cut in taxes for the wealthy

SO?

All that illustrates is that some people pay far beyond their fair share.

Why should anyone pay a higher share than anyone else.

So...you don't try to get blood from a turnip

You tax where the money is not by shaking down poor people. Care to name a successful nation on earth that has a flat tax? Why not start with Russia?

Actually some eastern European countries have done very well with a flat tax and it has worked very well in Hong kong

There you go interjecting fact into it.
Yeah, the East European countries saw revenue soar when they went to a flat tax. Simpler and less incentive to cheat.
No wonder Dems hate it.

Never thought I would see the day

Conservatives advocating that we be more like Eastern Europe

Yes take a singular example and turn it into a comprehensive change

I hope you didn't pull a muscle attempting that stretch

 

[occupied]

Inheritance is wealth. We have fairly high taxes on it.

and how much of inherited wealth is exempt from taxes?

and what percentage of people actually inherit enough wealth to pay inheritance taxes.

it's my understanding that there are six families behind the fight against inheritance taxes. one of them is the hilton family.

Most people don't pay inheritance tax. It's not meant to generate much revenue. It's meant for social engineering. I believe that it was originally implemented because people thought it would discourage aristocracy.

I believe that most Western countries do not have an estate tax. Canada does not.

Yes, there was a time that practically no one disagreed with a high inheritance tax, of course that was the days that America had company towns galore and was personally familiar with the despair that came when some asshole controlled the local economy for his own benefit. America has become one giant company town and somehow we have forgotten why we used to hate multi-generational wealth.

 

[Boss]

No, I just get tired of sociopathic douchebags criticizing people who help people besides themselves.

Hey, look around, dumbass... you're not "helping" anyone. The rich keep getting richer, the poor remain mired in poverty. We've spent 20-trillion dollars trying to bring them out of poverty to no avail. Not only do your policies FAIL, they cause even more dynamic problems... take student loans for example. You've artificially driven the price of education through the roof by doling out "free money" instead of letting capitalism work. Now we have kids who can never repay their massive student loans. Who did your policy help?

The same thing with the housing/financial collapse... It all started with Utopian dreams of poor people owning homes.... helping people! All the "free money" was doled out so poor people could buy homes and the price of homes went through the roof because free market capitalist forces were removed. Eventually, the poor can't afford their homes and default, then everything comes crashing down... you stick your index finger in your mouth and bite the tip, then blame it all on Republicans! The same thing is going to happen with health care.

All of your right wing fallacies have been proven wrong and it's the sociopathic douchebags who've turned the system on its ear (for their short term personal gain) who are to blame.

All you are doing is responding with baseless emotive rhetoric. You've not pointed out any fallacy or proven anything wrong, you just keep repeating the mindless nonsense you've read at some Marxist blog. When your policies utterly fail, you find some way to spin it and blame conservatives, republicans, right-wingers, anyone but yourself. The "solution" is always more of your stupidity.

 

[Skull Pilot]

We all have the same time every week.

So tell me why is it that some people with a bunch of kids don't use their kids as an excuse not to do something but as a reason to do it.

As a reason to get rich? Or what? I've seen people complete an education after kids and some even start a business after kids but I haven't seen anyone get rich after kids unless the seeds were well sown beforehand.

Just because you haven't seen it doesn't mean it can't be done.

I know people who started business while they had kids and they even had more kids after who never made excuses they way you people do and they actually became quite wealthy.

But people like you would rather say it can't be done so you can justify your own lack of initiative. The sad thing is that at least 80% of people will agree with you so it's quite a group of enablers.

Maybe you should associate with more ambitious people.

I've got all the material wealth I could ever want. If I had a lot more money, I'd buy time with it. That's the commodity that most rich people I know don't have.

more rationalization.

You have yet to tell me who made it harder or impossible for you to amass this material wealth.

Maybe that's because no one is stopping you or anyone else from improving their financial position

There's definitely a glass ceiling in my industry and if you're good at what you're doing currently, a move into a management position isn't going to happen. Now that the economy has stagnated, there are even fewer managers looking to move. I've stopped fighting it. I'm getting close enough to retirement that it wouldn't be worth the energy.

And all other industries are closed to you as are the countless ways one can create an additional revenue stream right?

 

[Uncensored2008]

Calpers was bailed out?

Big time.

{States' troubles are becoming bigger. Hitherto, local governments have acquired infusions of funds from federal budget earmarks, which are now forbidden. Furthermore, states are suffering "ARRA hangover" -- withdrawal from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, aka the 2009 stimulus. With about $150 billion for state and local governments, it raised the federal portion of state budgets from about a quarter to a third.}

Opinion Don t let states like California seek federal bailouts on pensions - San Jose Mercury News

 

[The Rabbi]

Inheritance is wealth. We have fairly high taxes on it.

and how much of inherited wealth is exempt from taxes?

and what percentage of people actually inherit enough wealth to pay inheritance taxes.

it's my understanding that there are six families behind the fight against inheritance taxes. one of them is the hilton family.

Most people don't pay inheritance tax. It's not meant to generate much revenue. It's meant for social engineering. I believe that it was originally implemented because people thought it would discourage aristocracy.

I believe that most Western countries do not have an estate tax. Canada does not.

Yes, there was a time that practically no one disagreed with a high inheritance tax, of course that was the days that America had company towns galore and was personally familiar with the despair that came when some asshole controlled the local economy for his own benefit. America has become one giant company town and somehow we have forgotten why we used to hate multi-generational wealth.

What fantasy have you been reading?
The inheritance tax probably costs more to collect, and costs the economy more than it brings in. No reason to keep it other than to "stick it" to rich people. Which is the the reason for being for most leftists.

 

[Toro]

Calpers was bailed out?

Big time.

{States' troubles are becoming bigger. Hitherto, local governments have acquired infusions of funds from federal budget earmarks, which are now forbidden. Furthermore, states are suffering "ARRA hangover" -- withdrawal from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, aka the 2009 stimulus. With about $150 billion for state and local governments, it raised the federal portion of state budgets from about a quarter to a third.}

Opinion Don t let states like California seek federal bailouts on pensions - San Jose Mercury News

I really wouldn't consider either a bailout.

 

[occupied]

Inheritance is wealth. We have fairly high taxes on it.

and how much of inherited wealth is exempt from taxes?

and what percentage of people actually inherit enough wealth to pay inheritance taxes.

it's my understanding that there are six families behind the fight against inheritance taxes. one of them is the hilton family.

Most people don't pay inheritance tax. It's not meant to generate much revenue. It's meant for social engineering. I believe that it was originally implemented because people thought it would discourage aristocracy.

I believe that most Western countries do not have an estate tax. Canada does not.

Yes, there was a time that practically no one disagreed with a high inheritance tax, of course that was the days that America had company towns galore and was personally familiar with the despair that came when some asshole controlled the local economy for his own benefit. America has become one giant company town and somehow we have forgotten why we used to hate multi-generational wealth.

What fantasy have you been reading?
The inheritance tax probably costs more to collect, and costs the economy more than it brings in. No reason to keep it other than to "stick it" to rich people. Which is the the reason for being for most leftists.

I suppose the anti-aristocracy sentiment is all but gone from conservative politics, you people deserve a plutocracy but not everyone is such a shameless fucking toady to the establishment wealthy.

 

[Andylusion]

The wealth of any nation is finite. The more of it the rich concentrate in their own hands, the less there is left for everyone else.

Wrong! Wealth is NOT finite, it is infinite. People generate wealth through their labor, creativity, talents, etc. This is your key problem, the failure to understand wealth is not finite. When you believe such a fallacy, it causes you to think the wealthy should only become so wealthy else the poor can never become wealthy. It makes you believe there is only so much wealth and the wealthy have it all.

The truth is, wealth is generated, so wealth is limitless. Now the people who are wealthy in a nation, especially a free market economy nation like our own, generally got wealthy because they were smart with their money, were successful at free market capitalism, and had the drive, motivation and ambition to succeed. Many came from abject poverty to become wealthy. Seems to me, the really "smart" person might want to listen to them, learn from them, try to emulate them and find out about how they were successful.

Just total opposite of what you want to do.

How can wealth be infinite. Is the annual GDP number 'infinity'?

A nation can only generate so much wealth per year; the more of it the Rich keep, the less for the rest of us.

How could wealth be finite? If it was finite, no nation could possibly be more or less wealthy, than any other nation.

GDP is irrelevant to the point. The amount of wealth that is created in a given year, does not mean that it is not possible for more or less to be created in a given year.

If your car is yellow, does that mean it was impossible for it to be red or black, or some other color? No, it happen to be painted yellow. That doesn't mean it could not have been some other color. Just that yellow is what it was.

Wealth, is not static. Wealth is inherently dynamic.

First off, let's define what wealth is. What is wealth? Is wealth the $$ in your bank account? No.

Wealth is stuff. Things. Objects. In accounting terms, 'assets'.

A $, is actually just a green bit of paper with ink on it.

If you want to know what wealth is, just leave two people stranded on deserted islands. Leave one with a trillion dollars, and the other with a life time supply of food, water, building supplies, propane, a grill, and whatever other supplies he could need.

Between the two, who is wealthy? The guy with the dollars, or the guy with the stuff? Of course the answer is the guy with the stuff.

The only value $$ has, is what you can trade for it. That's it. It has zero intrinsic value.

So we have established that wealth come from stuff. I should also mention services, which are also wealth. The guy on the Island with a natural gas hookup, and electricity, and running water, would be more wealthy than the guy with a bunch of dollars, and no services.

Based on that, why do we say that the amount of wealth that can be created is infinite?

Because the amount of products and services that can be produced is inherently dynamic. Even then, the value of the products and services are even more dynamic.

Every individual can change their production. GoPro was created by a guy who sold sea shell necklaces. His wealth production went from something extremely low, to something extremely high.

Additionally, every person that goes from living on welfare producing zero wealth, to producing something of value, drastically changes the amount of wealth produced.

Every person who keeps a job instead of retiring, increases production of wealth.

Every young person who get's a job, instead of playing PS2 video games, increases the production of wealth.

Now in theory there is some maximum upper limit to how much wealth could possibly be produced in a single year.

If we forced every single able person, to do the absolute most valuable labor possible, you could in theory determine the maximum number of people, verses the maximum value of the labor, verses the maximum number of hours that could be worked, and thus you could assume that's the maximum amount of products and services the country could produce.

The problem there is, you don't know who can work. I was working at 6 or 7 years old. One winter break, I was shoveling side walks for $5. Worked all during break and beyond. There's a story of Nick Vujicic, who was born without arms or legs, and he got his real estate license, and was buying and selling real estate over his computer, making tons of money. I know a guy who was doing home remodeling on the weekends, tossing news papers in the morning, and had a full time job. The mechanic that I have work on my car, does car repair from his garage, after he gets home from his regular job.

So you don't know who can work, or how much they can work.

Additionally, you don't know what high value labor there is, because what work there is to do, is constantly in flux. Who knew 10 years ago that we'd have smart phones? Who knew there would be a massive industry of software development for Smart phones? Who knew we'd have tablets? Who knew everyone would have LCD screens 15 years ago?

The economy is dynamic, and what labor has value, and what value it has, is constantly changing.

Thus, just as we said, wealth is inherently dynamic and ever changing.

Now, as to the "the more of it the Rich keep, the less for the rest of us."

The problem is again, that you think wealth is static. Wealth is not static. It is either being created, or being consumed.

Wealth is NEVER static. If you buy a car.... that car is dropping in value. That wealth, is being consumed.

Worse, the rate of consumption is dependent on the people involved. If you find a person who doesn't take care of their stuff, and you give them some rich guys Porsche, in a just a few short years, that Porsche will be just as much a junker, as the car they had before.

Even if they did try and take care of it, an expensive high value car, tends to have expensive high value repairs. They likely wouldn't have the means to maintain the car even if they wanted.

The difference between the wealthy and the poor, is generally that the poor consume their wealth, and the rich invest their wealth.

Two people buy corn seed. One cooks it up, and eats it. The other plants it, and reaps a dozen bushels of corn later. The first is starving later, and the other ends up wealthy.

It's the difference between the PinBall people and the Beer Pong people.

Where does that come from? Warren Buffet. Buffet has a great story from his youth. When he was in high school, he worked a paper route. Instead of blowing his money on soda, and smokes, and baseball cards, Warren Buffet saved his money and purchased a PinBall machine, which he placed in a local business, and there.... it earned more money.

Now I don't know about you, but when I was in high school, the popular thing to do was to buy a keg of beer, and go to someone's house whose parents were away, and play beer pong all night long, pissing your money down the drain.

Buffet didn't end up a billionaire because he was super smart, or because "the evil rich kept wealth for themselves". The reason he's wealthy is simply because he invested.

Did you know that if you deposit merely $100 invested into a growth stock mutual fund, from 20 to retirement, you'll be a millionaire or close to it?

But people don't. Take Michael Jackson. He made an estimated Billion dollars in his life time. Yet when he died, his estate was on the verge of bankruptcy, and he was in the process of selling off his wonderland ranch properties. Why? Because he consumed every dollar he earned.

Again, the reason the wealthy are wealthy, is not because they are hoarding, but because they are investing instead of consuming.

Take Sharon Tirabassi of Canada. She won $10 Million dollars. That's a lot of money. Imagine all the wealth that could be created if she invested that properly. Imagine all the jobs that could be created, and products and services provided.
Sharon Tirabassi 10 Million Lottery Winner Broke Catching The Bus News One
Instead she consumed it all, and she's broke now.

Steve Jobs, on the other hand only got $5 Million. He used it to purchase Pixar, which of course created hundreds of jobs, and box office hit movies, and later sold Pixar for a cool $5 Billion.

Did Steve Jobs hoard his money? No. He invested it. That's why he died a billionaire, and Sharon did not. That's how life works. It's not some evil trick by the rich people. It's merely the results of choices made by individuals.

 

[Andylusion]

Nothing wrong with being rich as long as you contribute to the society that supports you

The rich people contribute the most to society of any of us. Every product or service we value, and are willing to pay for, is a contribution to society. If all the rich left, we'd be in ruins.

 

[Andylusion]

Looks to me like the class war is over, the rich won.

There is no war. The very fact you think one side won, indicates your absolute ignorance of how well off the poor in America are. The poor in America live better than the middle class of other 1st world countries.