What should the wealthy do? Libs How should they be sharing there wealth?

[Brain357]

What "loopholes" are you referring to? Why shouldn't an American be able to do whatever he wants with his money? Who's money is it? It certainly doesn't belong to the government, although turds like you behave as if it does.

And why wouldn't some of it belong to the government? Aren't the very rich benefitting from a very stable country? Police take care of the crime. The military takes care of outside invaders. These things aren't free.

SO that would justify paying for the cost of the military and the police. That's about 20% of what we currently pay in taxes, and that's if the rich paid for all of it. The poor also benefit from a "stable country." Shouldn't they pay some?

When you pay for the services of a security company, you pay only for the cost of the service rendered. You don't pay based on how much stuff you own or how much you earn. Payment based on how much you own shows all the signs of an extortion racket, which is exactly what our government is.

So you don't pay more if you have say 5 houses instead of 1? Really? Then suppose your businesses also have several warehouse and office buildings. Your saying a security company would do all those for the same price as 1 house? Really?

 

[The Rabbi]

there are no loopholes that allow that. You've been misinformed.

Buffet disagrees with you.
Buffett says he's still paying lower tax rate than his secretary - Mar. 4, 2013

But you still can't name any of these so-called "loopholes?"

He's operating from a base of information smaller than a pin head.

 

[The Rabbi]

And why wouldn't some of it belong to the government? Aren't the very rich benefitting from a very stable country? Police take care of the crime. The military takes care of outside invaders. These things aren't free.

SO that would justify paying for the cost of the military and the police. That's about 20% of what we currently pay in taxes, and that's if the rich paid for all of it. The poor also benefit from a "stable country." Shouldn't they pay some?

When you pay for the services of a security company, you pay only for the cost of the service rendered. You don't pay based on how much stuff you own or how much you earn. Payment based on how much you own shows all the signs of an extortion racket, which is exactly what our government is.

So you don't pay more if you have say 5 houses instead of 1? Really? Then suppose your businesses also have several warehouse and office buildings. Your saying a security company would do all those for the same price as 1 house? Really?

Do you know anything about pricing goods and services?

 

[bripat9643]

And why wouldn't some of it belong to the government? Aren't the very rich benefitting from a very stable country? Police take care of the crime. The military takes care of outside invaders. These things aren't free.

SO that would justify paying for the cost of the military and the police. That's about 20% of what we currently pay in taxes, and that's if the rich paid for all of it. The poor also benefit from a "stable country." Shouldn't they pay some?

When you pay for the services of a security company, you pay only for the cost of the service rendered. You don't pay based on how much stuff you own or how much you earn. Payment based on how much you own shows all the signs of an extortion racket, which is exactly what our government is.

So you don't pay more if you have say 5 houses instead of 1? Really? Then suppose your businesses also have several warehouse and office buildings. Your saying a security company would do all those for the same price as 1 house? Really?

No, I didn't say that. I said they would charge according to the cost of performing the service. They would charge the same price if your warehouse was filled with computers and televisions or if it was filled with used tires. The price is based on the cost of providing the service, not the value of what is being protected.

 

[bripat9643]

SO that would justify paying for the cost of the military and the police. That's about 20% of what we currently pay in taxes, and that's if the rich paid for all of it. The poor also benefit from a "stable country." Shouldn't they pay some?

When you pay for the services of a security company, you pay only for the cost of the service rendered. You don't pay based on how much stuff you own or how much you earn. Payment based on how much you own shows all the signs of an extortion racket, which is exactly what our government is.

So you don't pay more if you have say 5 houses instead of 1? Really? Then suppose your businesses also have several warehouse and office buildings. Your saying a security company would do all those for the same price as 1 house? Really?

Do you know anything about pricing goods and services?

He obviously doesn't. How else could he remain a libturd?

 

[bripat9643]

Buffet disagrees with you.
Buffett says he's still paying lower tax rate than his secretary - Mar. 4, 2013

But you still can't name any of these so-called "loopholes?"

He's operating from a base of information smaller than a pin head.

He's actually just regurgitating propaganda and talking points that he heard some pinko professor spouting.

 

[Brain357]

SO that would justify paying for the cost of the military and the police. That's about 20% of what we currently pay in taxes, and that's if the rich paid for all of it. The poor also benefit from a "stable country." Shouldn't they pay some?

When you pay for the services of a security company, you pay only for the cost of the service rendered. You don't pay based on how much stuff you own or how much you earn. Payment based on how much you own shows all the signs of an extortion racket, which is exactly what our government is.

So you don't pay more if you have say 5 houses instead of 1? Really? Then suppose your businesses also have several warehouse and office buildings. Your saying a security company would do all those for the same price as 1 house? Really?

No, I didn't say that. I said they would charge according to the cost of performing the service. They would charge the same price if your warehouse was filled with computers and televisions or if it was filled with used tires. The price is based on the cost of providing the service, not the value of what is being protected.

So your saying that yes some rich guy with many houses and things that need protecting would pay more through a security company than a person with just one house. Thank you. My point is made.

 

[The Rabbi]

So you don't pay more if you have say 5 houses instead of 1? Really? Then suppose your businesses also have several warehouse and office buildings. Your saying a security company would do all those for the same price as 1 house? Really?

No, I didn't say that. I said they would charge according to the cost of performing the service. They would charge the same price if your warehouse was filled with computers and televisions or if it was filled with used tires. The price is based on the cost of providing the service, not the value of what is being protected.

So your saying that yes some rich guy with many houses and things that need protecting would pay more through a security company than a person with just one house. Thank you. My point is made.

What point was that?

For the record your ignorance borders on trolling whenever you post.

 

[Londoner]

Government is run in the interest of those who own it.

The OP doesn't understand lobbying and election funding.

Let me give you an example:

When a politician doesn't vote in the special-interests of Koch industries, that politician gets primaried and removed.

Here's something else OP doesn't understand:

Wall Street, Big Pharma and Big Oil pour trillions of dollars a year into Washington for the privilege of drafting their own legislation.

The reason Obama's Public Option failed was because 100% of the GOP and 20% of the Dems are owned by the Health Insurance monopolies which control our Health Care markets.

The reason Dick Chaney refused to release the names on his infamous energy commission that convened on the eve of the Iraq War was because he didn't want the country to see who was writing energy policy.

Or what about the 2003 Republican Drug Bill, which awarded Eli Lilly a no-bid contract to charge above market costs to the tax payer (through the Bush expansion of Medicare, which expansion didn't draw one ounce of protest from the Right).

The OP's point would carry more weight if he understood more details about Government corruption and waste. Most of his facts seem like they came directly from the conservative message machine. If he understood how the Government, which was once run on behalf of the middle class, is now a subsidy and bailout machine for large corporations and wealthy investors, it would be easier to take him seriously. If he could at least explain how big money has destroyed government and turned most major domestic sectors into anti-competitive monopolies, than we would see him as more than just a mouthpiece for the same ol' boring welfare talking points.

I read an academic paper about the era of mega-mergers launched by Reagan in the 80's. As it turns out, corporations decided that they could preserve profits not by competing with each other (by offering a better product at a better price), but by simply buying and merging with each other so that they could fix prices without fear of losing customers to a competitor.

Prior to Reagan, competitive markets were protected by powerful anti-trust legislation which forced companies to compete for customers. After Reagan, the economy was increasingly ruled by fully merged mega-corporations that held the consumer captive to limited options. [This is why it's a joke when I hear people say that the GOP cares about competitive markets. Since Reagan, we have seen the exact opposite. People don't get it: there is a reason why corporations pour trillions of dollars into Washington every year. They want to protect their investors from competition. There is a reason why Charter communications and Cox Cable are being sued for dividing portions of California into fixed no-compete zones. If cable and Internet consumers only have one option, it makes it easier for each company to raise rates without fear of losing customers. This is something talk radio Republicans have never understood. They have no idea about the special interest rats nest set up by corporations to control the American economy. ]

Again, one suspects the OP doesn't even know what Anti-Trust means. One also suspects he's never heard of the Sherman Act or actually studied the technical language of an actual policy. He lives completely off a fixed range of rightwing pundits. Tragically, FOX News has trapped the OP inside a very limited range of talking points about welfare (most of which I agree with), but he doesn't see the much larger picture of corruption and waste that is caused by the corporations who spend trillions each year to control Washington.

 

[Brain357]

No, I didn't say that. I said they would charge according to the cost of performing the service. They would charge the same price if your warehouse was filled with computers and televisions or if it was filled with used tires. The price is based on the cost of providing the service, not the value of what is being protected.

So your saying that yes some rich guy with many houses and things that need protecting would pay more through a security company than a person with just one house. Thank you. My point is made.

What point was that?

For the record your ignorance borders on trolling whenever you post.

Even the most obvious points elude you. Impressive.

 

[mmmjvpssm]

Know why there's such a disparity between rich and poor?

Because there is the same, exact disparity between smart and stupid.

Yes, you people that are in here daily and bitching about how 'The Man' has kept you down on an hourly basis.....?

You're stupid.

Instead of bitching about how something is always someone else's fault, you could be spending your time doing something about your very own stupidity.

And no, I don't mean getting an education. If those people had any brains, they wouldn't be putting up with numbskulls like you every day, grading your stupid papers and bouncing crybaby losers on their knee.

If they had any real brains, they'd be out doing something real.

Which is what you crybabies should be doing.

And oh... I'm retired. In Florida. I paid my dues. I ain't rich, but I ain't crying either.

Sick of hearing excuses all day from the same fucking losers. DO something about it

If there are any idiots in here it's you. Nobody ever said it was wrong to be rich, to have lots of money, and nobody ever said that everybody should be rich, and mostly, because mostly people aren't idiots like you, people don't say that if you're not rich then you're stupid. There are lots of very smart people who aren't rich, and there are very stupid people who are rich

 

[The Rabbi]

So your saying that yes some rich guy with many houses and things that need protecting would pay more through a security company than a person with just one house. Thank you. My point is made.

What point was that?

For the record your ignorance borders on trolling whenever you post.

Even the most obvious points elude you. Impressive.

No actually they seem to elude you. Like the amount the wealthy pay in taxes far exceeds the military budget.

 

[mmmjvpssm]

In a free society... nobody should be forced to share any wealth or earning

Who said they should be forced to?

 

[mmmjvpssm]

Know why there's such a disparity between rich and poor?

Because there is the same, exact disparity between smart and stupid.

Yes, you people that are in here daily and bitching about how 'The Man' has kept you down on an hourly basis.....?

You're stupid.

Instead of bitching about how something is always someone else's fault, you could be spending your time doing something about your very own stupidity.

And no, I don't mean getting an education. If those people had any brains, they wouldn't be putting up with numbskulls like you every day, grading your stupid papers and bouncing crybaby losers on their knee.

If they had any real brains, they'd be out doing something real.

Which is what you crybabies should be doing.

And oh... I'm retired. In Florida. I paid my dues. I ain't rich, but I ain't crying either.

Sick of hearing excuses all day from the same fucking losers. DO something about it

In reality rhe reason Koch brothers are rich is because they are rich
I cannot make millions because I do not have billions to invest
Liberals think they should give that money to others
my simple question is then what?
Being wealthy is not a sin
staying wealthy takes work and welath to start with
its just the facts of life

No, we never said they should give their money away

 

[The Rabbi]

In a free society... nobody should be forced to share any wealth or earning

Who said they should be forced to?

Probably you. What do you think taxes are?

 

[mmmjvpssm]

Know why there's such a disparity between rich and poor?

Because there is the same, exact disparity between smart and stupid.

Yes, you people that are in here daily and bitching about how 'The Man' has kept you down on an hourly basis.....?

You're stupid.

Instead of bitching about how something is always someone else's fault, you could be spending your time doing something about your very own stupidity.

And no, I don't mean getting an education. If those people had any brains, they wouldn't be putting up with numbskulls like you every day, grading your stupid papers and bouncing crybaby losers on their knee.

If they had any real brains, they'd be out doing something real.

Which is what you crybabies should be doing.

And oh... I'm retired. In Florida. I paid my dues. I ain't rich, but I ain't crying either.

Sick of hearing excuses all day from the same fucking losers. DO something about it

In reality rhe reason Koch brothers are rich is because they are rich
I cannot make millions because I do not have billions to invest
Liberals think they should give that money to others
my simple question is then what?
Being wealthy is not a sin
staying wealthy takes work and welath to start with
its just the facts of life

No, it isn't a 'fact of life'.

Like how Man can't fly? No wait, we can. We do.

Or how Man can't live underwater? Hang on a second, we can and we do.

Some people inherit wealth, some just get lucky. But an awful lot of people that are rich?

They earned it.

Take a look at our (real) GDP in the year 2000. 11 Trillion Dollars.

In 2013 it will be close to 14 Trillion.

That is an increase of 3 Trillion dollars. Divide that by our total number of households, app 115,000,000.

So let's see, remove 6 zeros and divide by 115 = $26,000 PER HOUSEHOLD INCREASE in GDP!!

That's a lot.

What I'm saying is this... The amount of money in our system is not static. It is increased every year (unless there's a dimocrap dirtbag holding things back) and that money gets spread around. A lot.

Some call it 'trickle down', which is inaccurate and some call it what it is -- Free Market Capitalism. Money never stays in one place for very long.

libtards think that the amount of money in a system is static. That there is only so much to go around and, for that reason, they prefer the Horse and Sparrow method of income redistribution.

Rich People? I don't like 'em. Most of them. I've met some (and I'm talking billionaires) that if they sat down next to you and started drinking a beer with you, you'd never know they're a billionaire. They don't care.

But even though I don't particularly care for rich, I understand the need for them. It's like the bacteria that is always present in your stomach. I don't like it, but you can't live without it.

Rich people are a necessary evil in a Free Society. Hurt them and you kill the Free Market.

Like our communist pals don't already know that.

And that is why communism always, always, always fails and why it WILL always, always, always fail. Not because communists are stupid and should be shot on sight. That much is a given. But because they stifle the minds and creativity of people who are, quite frankly, much smarter than them.

You don't have to like rich people. But we do have to acknowledge the necessity of having them around.

Does that also apply to workers? Or would Walmart get along just fine if it had no employees?

 

[mmmjvpssm]

I read a joke where the Koch brothers have 12 cookies
take 11
give 1/2 of one to a Conservative
and then tell the same "look at that person on wellfare, he is trying to take half of your cookie"

What would you have them do?
Do you understand why I cannot ever become "rich"

Probably the best kept secret is that there are more wealthy Liberals than conservatives. They have kept the control over the black vote because they have to power to do it. Who ever has the most money rules and that is why the Liberals are controlling the vote across the nation. They have the money to do it. ( Look at Hollywood - Film Producers - Movie Moguls - Movie stars - all democrats ) Many are in Republican leadership positions today. That is how the GOP lost control. They have Democrat leaders otherwise known as RINOS. Republicans are only now figuring how they lost the party. What a shame.

More rich liberals? So that would mean liberals are smarter? I mean you have to be smart to be rich right? Or does that only apply sometimes? And we don't "control the black vote" Blacks vote for who they want

 

[Brain357]

What point was that?

For the record your ignorance borders on trolling whenever you post.

Even the most obvious points elude you. Impressive.

No actually they seem to elude you. Like the amount the wealthy pay in taxes far exceeds the military budget.

Well it's just one example of how the very rich get more benefit and hence should pay more. I think the security company example is great. Certainly you can't disagree that the person with 5 houses, several warehouses, and a few office buildings should pay more for security than the guy with one house? If you do please explain.

Doesn't the rich guy who owns a trucking company benefit from good roads? Yet he didn't build those roads nor does he maintain them. Certainly the owner of the trucking company uses the roads more than the single individual. So if he is using them more he should pay more. There are lots of such examples.

 

[mmmjvpssm]

In order to participate in this thread you must believe:

Liberals hate the rich
The Rich are the job creators
Charge the Rich less in taxes and jobs will flourish
Liberals want to steal from the Rich
....
That a ton of Liberals are rich
Read the top again..

That is fucking bullshit and has already been proved to be. We did give the rich tax cuts and jobs did not flourish. And it's not only the rich that create jobs. If it's a new business than year, but if it's a case of an existing business expanding the reason they are expanding is because the employees did a good job

 

[mmmjvpssm]

I read a joke where the Koch brothers have 12 cookies
take 11
give 1/2 of one to a Conservative
and then tell the same "look at that person on wellfare, he is trying to take half of your cookie"

What would you have them do?
Do you understand why I cannot ever become "rich"

How about if they just pay the same tax rate as me. I would be fine with that.

Actually.. how about everyone pay the same tax rate on every dollar earned (starting with dollar 1) with no exception, exemption, deduction, loophole, or anything else???

No