Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
The CEO should be paid for doing his job. He is managing employees. Whether the company is being productive or not, he is doing a job and should be paid for it just like the employees under him.
No, they dont consume more. And if they do, they pay sales taxes on everything they buy.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.
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.
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.
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.
Yes he does pay more. He probably pays more than he uses up. But so what? Expenses for maintaining roads are a fraction of fed gov expenditures. Far more--the vast majority--is spent on transfer payments to worthless pieces of shit. Remind me what benefit the wealthy person gets out of paying for Joe Sixpack's high blood pressure or Jane Slut's birth control pills.
No, they dont consume more. And if they do, they pay sales taxes on everything they buy.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.
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.
We've already been over this and you didn't refute it. Here is your chance again:
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.
So again the rich have more stuff which needs protecting, hence the higher bill for Police and military. If they don't consume more, then explain how policing several houses, warehouses, and offices buildings is not consuming more than joe average who needs one house protected?
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.
We've already been over this and you didn't refute it. Here is your chance again:
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.
So again the rich have more stuff which needs protecting, hence the higher bill for Police and military. If they don't consume more, then explain how policing several houses, warehouses, and offices buildings is not consuming more than joe average who needs one house protected?
Just who are4 these people that have the several houses, warehouses full of stuff and office buildings that require MORE police and military? Is there a ruling class I am not aware of?
No, they dont consume more. And if they do, they pay sales taxes on everything they buy.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.
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.
We've already been over this and you didn't refute it. Here is your chance again:
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.
So again the rich have more stuff which needs protecting, hence the higher bill for Police and military. If they don't consume more, then explain how policing several houses, warehouses, and offices buildings is not consuming more than joe average who needs one house protected?
No, they dont consume more. And if they do, they pay sales taxes on everything they buy.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.
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.
We've already been over this and you didn't refute it. Here is your chance again:
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.
So again the rich have more stuff which needs protecting, hence the higher bill for Police and military. If they don't consume more, then explain how policing several houses, warehouses, and offices buildings is not consuming more than joe average who needs one house protected?
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.
We've already been over this and you didn't refute it. Here is your chance again:
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.
So again the rich have more stuff which needs protecting, hence the higher bill for Police and military. If they don't consume more, then explain how policing several houses, warehouses, and offices buildings is not consuming more than joe average who needs one house protected?
The security example sucked. If I have 5 warehouses on one lot it doesn't cost much more to protect all of them than if I had 3 on the same lot. If they are scattered throughout the country then it costs much more.
But so what? What if my assets consist of Microsoft stock? Or Berkshire Hathaway stock? Not much protection needed there.
In any case, the majority of fed expenditure is not made to protect anything. It is made on transfer payments from working taxpayers to non working poor. Or working poor. Or whatever.
Why should a high income person pay more for Joe's blood pressure meds than a lower income person?
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.
We've already been over this and you didn't refute it. Here is your chance again:
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.
So again the rich have more stuff which needs protecting, hence the higher bill for Police and military. If they don't consume more, then explain how policing several houses, warehouses, and offices buildings is not consuming more than joe average who needs one house protected?
We all know that most of the money goes to ticks on the ass of society, not to pay for security. Your argument is idiotic.
We've already been over this and you didn't refute it. Here is your chance again:
So again the rich have more stuff which needs protecting, hence the higher bill for Police and military. If they don't consume more, then explain how policing several houses, warehouses, and offices buildings is not consuming more than joe average who needs one house protected?
We all know that most of the money goes to ticks on the ass of society, not to pay for security. Your argument is idiotic.
Do you always blame the victim?
Last I checked welfare was about 12% of the budget, defense is about 23%.
We've already been over this and you didn't refute it. Here is your chance again:
So again the rich have more stuff which needs protecting, hence the higher bill for Police and military. If they don't consume more, then explain how policing several houses, warehouses, and offices buildings is not consuming more than joe average who needs one house protected?
The security example sucked. If I have 5 warehouses on one lot it doesn't cost much more to protect all of them than if I had 3 on the same lot. If they are scattered throughout the country then it costs much more.
But so what? What if my assets consist of Microsoft stock? Or Berkshire Hathaway stock? Not much protection needed there.
In any case, the majority of fed expenditure is not made to protect anything. It is made on transfer payments from working taxpayers to non working poor. Or working poor. Or whatever.
Why should a high income person pay more for Joe's blood pressure meds than a lower income person?
Nobody said they are on the same lot. Anywhere in the country gets the protection of the military and police. Most people with more than one house don't have them all next to each other. That would be silly. Regardless it costs more, and that was my point.
Well if we were taken over by the wrong country then you bet they could take your stocks. They could take all your assets. So I guess if you have more assets you should pay more to protect them.
Well why are there so many people not working? Maybe it is because the rich moved jobs elsewhere to save a few dollars. It certainly isn't the fault of the poor. It's the rich who creates the jobs right? I guess they aren't doing such a good job if so much money is going to the poor.
We all know that most of the money goes to ticks on the ass of society, not to pay for security. Your argument is idiotic.
Do you always blame the victim?
Last I checked welfare was about 12% of the budget, defense is about 23%.
Incorrect.. entitlements and 'assistance programs' are actually now the LARGEST part of the budget... well, if we actually HAD a budget.. but it is the largest expenditure
The security example sucked. If I have 5 warehouses on one lot it doesn't cost much more to protect all of them than if I had 3 on the same lot. If they are scattered throughout the country then it costs much more.
But so what? What if my assets consist of Microsoft stock? Or Berkshire Hathaway stock? Not much protection needed there.
In any case, the majority of fed expenditure is not made to protect anything. It is made on transfer payments from working taxpayers to non working poor. Or working poor. Or whatever.
Why should a high income person pay more for Joe's blood pressure meds than a lower income person?
Nobody said they are on the same lot. Anywhere in the country gets the protection of the military and police. Most people with more than one house don't have them all next to each other. That would be silly. Regardless it costs more, and that was my point.
Well if we were taken over by the wrong country then you bet they could take your stocks. They could take all your assets. So I guess if you have more assets you should pay more to protect them.
Well why are there so many people not working? Maybe it is because the rich moved jobs elsewhere to save a few dollars. It certainly isn't the fault of the poor. It's the rich who creates the jobs right? I guess they aren't doing such a good job if so much money is going to the poor.
Well. Anywhere in the country that doesn't border Mexico.
Kuwait managed to export its sovereign wealth as the Iraqis were invading. Individuals could too.
Your arguments are so absurd and full of shit there is no arguing with them.
Do you always blame the victim?
Last I checked welfare was about 12% of the budget, defense is about 23%.
Incorrect.. entitlements and 'assistance programs' are actually now the LARGEST part of the budget... well, if we actually HAD a budget.. but it is the largest expenditure
Well which entitlements do you mean?
Nobody said they are on the same lot. Anywhere in the country gets the protection of the military and police. Most people with more than one house don't have them all next to each other. That would be silly. Regardless it costs more, and that was my point.
Well if we were taken over by the wrong country then you bet they could take your stocks. They could take all your assets. So I guess if you have more assets you should pay more to protect them.
Well why are there so many people not working? Maybe it is because the rich moved jobs elsewhere to save a few dollars. It certainly isn't the fault of the poor. It's the rich who creates the jobs right? I guess they aren't doing such a good job if so much money is going to the poor.
Well. Anywhere in the country that doesn't border Mexico.
Kuwait managed to export its sovereign wealth as the Iraqis were invading. Individuals could too.
Your arguments are so absurd and full of shit there is no arguing with them.
I didn't think you could refute them.
Federal assistance programs for citizens.. whether it be welfare, food stamps, medicaid, etc.. it is indeed the largest expenditure in the federal government.... it is not defense spending (even though the fed is actually charged with national defense and providing for the military and not constitutionally charged to take care of the personal wants and needs of individuals)Do you always blame the victim?
Last I checked welfare was about 12% of the budget, defense is about 23%.
Incorrect.. entitlements and 'assistance programs' are actually now the LARGEST part of the budget... well, if we actually HAD a budget.. but it is the largest expenditure
Well which entitlements do you mean?
Well. Anywhere in the country that doesn't border Mexico.
Kuwait managed to export its sovereign wealth as the Iraqis were invading. Individuals could too.
Your arguments are so absurd and full of shit there is no arguing with them.
I didn't think you could refute them.
You can't refute bullshit.
In any case I've already refuted them.
If I have 5 warehouses on one lot it doesn't cost much more to protect all of them than if I had 3 on the same lot. If they are scattered throughout the country then it costs much more.
