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

[Skull Pilot]

Why hells bells, the can man can make and save 200 a month.

Even an idiot like you can too!!

Imagine that

If it is so simple to wait 50 years to become a millionaire, are you not surprised that we aren't all millionaires? I mean EVERYBODY can save 200 dollars a month. Well.....not everybody........but enough can to prove your point. If only they understood money like you do.

Tell me what's not simple about saving some money every month.
It's very simple you either save 50 a week from your pay or you get a second job so you can save 50 a week.

OH MY GAWD that's soooooooo fucking complicated right?

Then your car breaks down and you get a $500 unexpected bill. Well there is 10 weeks gone. While it can be done, it's not that easy. Lots of things unexpected can happen. Or maybe you just can't get a good enough job so all the money goes for expenses. Can't just get a second job if you have kids to take care of. I think what your saying can be done, but don't act like it is so simple and easy.

Man you people just love to make excuses don't you?

The fact is most people love to make excuses that's why most people don't have any money saved.

 

[francoHFW]

OP_-Pay 30% in all taxes and fees, not 17% like now, and corps more than the present 12%- the country and the non rich have been slowly ruined under Pub pander to the greedy idiot rich policies....

Less than the middle class is ridiculous, dupes- see sig para. 1....

 

[bripat9643]

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.

He would pay more, turd, but not 10,000 times more. the rich currently pay many times more than the cost of providing security for their property. The poor pay absolutely nothing.

 

[zeke]

Why dont you outline the exact problem with wealth disparity.

As many times as I've challenged posters to do this they never rise to it. I sometimes get nonsense like, "Well in South America...". This isnt South America. The problem in those countries is crony capitalism and protectionism that yields those results. We dont have a lot of that here. Yet.

Why? You wouldn't believe the source. Or just dismiss the info out of hand.

But the better question is why do YOU think wage and income disparity is GOOD for the country.

I mean we already know that the ultra wealthy have never had it so good but what is the benefit to the rest of us?

Translation: You have no idea why it is good or bad.
Income disparity mirrors disparity in effort and ability. Something you have quite a bit of experience with.

Couldn't think of some bull shit reason why wealth disparity is good for the country eh?
But really, effort and ability. Other than you have enough "effort and ability" (translated; you have no life) to make 30 thousand puffed up, self important bull shit posts.

But back to efforts and abilities. You can lie to yourself and any one else about the money you have and the success you are. It's the internet dude.

But as I learned a while ago on the 'Net. People will lie to you about what they have and what they have done. Amazing eh?

You a liar about how great you are Rabbi? All the money you have and how successful you are. I don't know you, wouldn't care to know you. But I doubt you have much in the way of abilities and as to your 30 thousand posts. They speak for themselves. Loud and clear. Puffed up and full of shit. Mean and nasty. Is that really you Rabbi.

 

[zeke]

Even an idiot like you can too!!

Imagine that



Tell me what's not simple about saving some money every month.
It's very simple you either save 50 a week from your pay or you get a second job so you can save 50 a week.

OH MY GAWD that's soooooooo fucking complicated right?

Then your car breaks down and you get a $500 unexpected bill. Well there is 10 weeks gone. While it can be done, it's not that easy. Lots of things unexpected can happen. Or maybe you just can't get a good enough job so all the money goes for expenses. Can't just get a second job if you have kids to take care of. I think what your saying can be done, but don't act like it is so simple and easy.

Man you people just love to make excuses don't you?

The fact is most people love to make excuses that's why most people don't have any money saved.

Its just an excuse that gets in the way of us all being rich. Has nothing to do with declining wages, cuts in hours, lack of jobs, loss of housing, increasing food and transportation costs, lack of medical coverage, rising rents etc etc.

If people didn't have all them damn excuses, they would be rich I say. RICH. Like me.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

You keep ignoring the qualifiers on this claim. The would pay more, but that doesn't give the government a blank check to charge them whatever it likes, which is exactly what turds like you believe.

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.

Tracks have to pay use taxes that more than cover the cost of building and maintaining the roads.

 

[bripat9643]

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

When Reagan cut marginal tax rates the result was 22 million new jobs. You're full of shit.

Employees get paid for their efforts. How does that justify a tax of any kind?

 

[bripat9643]

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

Yes. In fact, let's abolish the Marxist income tax and adopt the FAIR tax.

 

[Vox]

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

When Reagan cut marginal tax rates the result was 22 million new jobs. You're full of shit.

Employees get paid for their efforts. How does that justify a tax of any kind?

when taxes were lowered in 2003 the 2004 IRS revenue was the highest in 4 decades

 

[bripat9643]

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.

Yes, HE DID and helps to maintain them

Now maybe you mean he helped pay for them with taxes and helps maintain them with taxes. That would be correct. But he did not break the shovel out and build them himself, nor does he maintain them. The government does those things. And since he puts way more wear on them than the guy who has a single car, it makes sense he pays more.

He does pay more, nimrod. Don't you know anything about the taxes truckers pay?

 

[bripat9643]

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.

The owner of the trucking company pays for the roads through:
Income taxes
Wage taxes for his employees.
Tag, title and other taxes for his trucks
Fuel taxes for his trucks.

Seen that way the freeloaders are the workers.

You seem to be missing 1.000 here.

I'll assume you agree with the first point.

Yes he does pay for them. And benefits greatly from them. Just like he benefits from all his workers making him money. They are not freeloaders at all.

Workers aren't freeloaders, but the ticks who suck off the government are freeloaders. That's where most of the taxes we pay go, not for security or roads.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

The owner of the trucking company pays for the roads through:
Income taxes
Wage taxes for his employees.
Tag, title and other taxes for his trucks
Fuel taxes for his trucks.

Seen that way the freeloaders are the workers.

You seem to be missing 1.000 here.

The rich guy doesn't pay wage taxes, that comes straight out of the paychecks of the workers. Those other ones are also paid by other people. The old retired guy down the street who has a truck also pays income taxes and stuff for his truck, but nobody would ever say he built the roads

You're a certifiable idiot. Over the road truckers pay taxes based on the weight of the cargo they are hauling. That's in addition to excise taxes on gasoline, registration fees and any other taxes they may pay. Those taxes pay the cost of building the roads.

The lament that the truckers don't build the roads themselves is even more idiotic. Did you build your house? Did you build your car? No, and it's stupid to complain about that. In this society we have what's called "division of labor." That's so not everyone has to build his own house, roads, car, airplane, computer, television, bridges, skyscrapers etc.

 

[bripat9643]

Now maybe you mean he helped pay for them with taxes and helps maintain them with taxes. That would be correct. But he did not break the shovel out and build them himself, nor does he maintain them. The government does those things. And since he puts way more wear on them than the guy who has a single car, it makes sense he pays more.

The government did not do that. Individuals, usually private contractors, built the roads. Which is irrelevant. What is relevant is who paid for it.

So without the government you think we would have such an effective road system do you?

So who pays more then? The individual who has one car or the owner of a trucking company who has a fleet of trucks? I'd say the person who uses it more should be paying more.

He does pay more, nimrod, a lot more.

 

[Brain357]

The trucking company owner already pays more.
What were you trying to prove again? You flunked.

I guess your saying then that the trucking company owner should pay more than the individual with one car. That was my point. I am proving that the rich guy pays more in taxes because he gets more benefits. Which is something you clearly cannot refute.

He pays more in taxes than he gets in benefits. Something you cannot refute.

Who benefits from programs to teach Chinese hookers how to drink alcohol responsibly? Who should pay for that?

I'm not arguing that people are getting the most for there money. I would say they don't. There is a ton I would cut starting with foreign aid.

Can you really say he pays more than he gets? Hard to put a value on the benefits of living in the greatest country.

What I am explaining is why the rich owe a higher percent. They consume more relative to joe average so hence the higher rate.

 

[Vandalshandle]

Regarding General Electric, which is one of the largest companies in the world:


"A new analysis of the mega-corporation's tax filings shows that 1.8 percent of GE's pre-tax profits have gone to the federal government since 2002. That bears repeating: GE has paid an average tax rate of just 1.8 percent over the past decade, according to an analysis by the non-profit advocacy group Citizens for Tax Justice. "


General Electric Tax Rate 1.8 Percent Over Decade, Report Finds (UPDATE)

'nuff said....

 

[The Rabbi]

Why? You wouldn't believe the source. Or just dismiss the info out of hand.

But the better question is why do YOU think wage and income disparity is GOOD for the country.

I mean we already know that the ultra wealthy have never had it so good but what is the benefit to the rest of us?

Translation: You have no idea why it is good or bad.
Income disparity mirrors disparity in effort and ability. Something you have quite a bit of experience with.

Couldn't think of some bull shit reason why wealth disparity is good for the country eh?
But really, effort and ability. Other than you have enough "effort and ability" (translated; you have no life) to make 30 thousand puffed up, self important bull shit posts.

But back to efforts and abilities. You can lie to yourself and any one else about the money you have and the success you are. It's the internet dude.

But as I learned a while ago on the 'Net. People will lie to you about what they have and what they have done. Amazing eh?

You a liar about how great you are Rabbi? All the money you have and how successful you are. I don't know you, wouldn't care to know you. But I doubt you have much in the way of abilities and as to your 30 thousand posts. They speak for themselves. Loud and clear. Puffed up and full of shit. Mean and nasty. Is that really you Rabbi.

Translation: I am a total zero and I want to blame my employers who fired me for incompetence.

Yeah, Zeke, you brought up personal claims about what people do and dont have. You have nothing. Except turds for brains.

 

[Jackson]

I guess your saying then that the trucking company owner should pay more than the individual with one car. That was my point. I am proving that the rich guy pays more in taxes because he gets more benefits. Which is something you clearly cannot refute.

He pays more in taxes than he gets in benefits. Something you cannot refute.

Who benefits from programs to teach Chinese hookers how to drink alcohol responsibly? Who should pay for that?

I'm not arguing that people are getting the most for there money. I would say they don't. There is a ton I would cut starting with foreign aid.

Can you really say he pays more than he gets? Hard to put a value on the benefits of living in the greatest country.

What I am explaining is why the rich owe a higher percent. They consume more relative to joe average so hence the higher rate.

The rich "consume more?"

 

[Brain357]

Yes, HE DID and helps to maintain them

Now maybe you mean he helped pay for them with taxes and helps maintain them with taxes. That would be correct. But he did not break the shovel out and build them himself, nor does he maintain them. The government does those things. And since he puts way more wear on them than the guy who has a single car, it makes sense he pays more.

He does pay more, nimrod. Don't you know anything about the taxes truckers pay?

You are very simple aren't you? I was arguing why it is fair he pays more. I have not stated that he doesn't, just explained why it is fair that he pays more. Please read slowly and think before responding.

 

[The Rabbi]

I guess your saying then that the trucking company owner should pay more than the individual with one car. That was my point. I am proving that the rich guy pays more in taxes because he gets more benefits. Which is something you clearly cannot refute.

He pays more in taxes than he gets in benefits. Something you cannot refute.

Who benefits from programs to teach Chinese hookers how to drink alcohol responsibly? Who should pay for that?

I'm not arguing that people are getting the most for there money. I would say they don't. There is a ton I would cut starting with foreign aid.

Can you really say he pays more than he gets? Hard to put a value on the benefits of living in the greatest country.

What I am explaining is why the rich owe a higher percent. They consume more relative to joe average so hence the higher rate.

No, they dont consume more. And if they do, they pay sales taxes on everything they buy.
You are all over the place here. First you claim the rich ought to pay more because they have more assets to protect. Now you claim they ought to pay more because they consume more. Do you even know what you are arguing about??
Geez, guy. Dont take this the wrong way but you are one dumb SOB.

 

[Norman]

Income disparity is a problem batted back and forth between Conservatives and Liberals like a shuttlecock. But the problem isn't merely a parlor game nor is it something easily dismissed as envy or resentment.

The actual problem leads to s lowing economy. If the wealth is held by the very few and the very many are not compensated adequately, there is less money flowing through the economy. Economic growth is defined as the exchange of capitol for goods and services. If those goods and services are outside the budgets of the majority, those goods and services will not be utilized and the exchange of capital stops.

When a CEO can run a business into the ditch and then get a bonus for doing so, the values have been warped to something unidentifiable as Capitalism. If the workers who are actually producing the wealth for the few are under compensated, there is less and less opportunity open for those workers because the flow of cash is so constricted.

Looking for a working paradigm for this disparity? Read the story of the goose that laid golden eggs.

This is not true in any sense. I am too tired to reply to all of it but just some facts:

Money gains value if someone hoards it, thus other things gain value. Ultimately GDP is a factor of production and it's irrelevant whether someone is hoarding money. If someone is hoarding gluts of money the government can also print bunch of it without political pressure and "steal" that money very easily. It makes very little sense to just hoard money due to inflation and poor return, for anyone, in the first place. Interest is the cost of holding money and for a rich guy, it makes zero sense to bare that cost.

The CEO is producing wealth just like the employees are and his value should be determinated just like the employees. If he is valuable he should get paid well, if not then he shouldn't get anything. Yes I agree CEOs are often overpaid and stock holders should do something about it. However, there are many other people who are overpaid as well and that's widely rampant especially in the government. Where it's much harder to do anything about it. So, that should probably not be the first place to look for cure.