Why is wanting to keep what you earned greed, but wanting what you didn't earn isn't?

[Desperado]

You don't have a problem when the covetous greedily demand that someone else's "excessive wealth" be forcibly taken so that they can benefit from what they have not earned?

Let's begin with this question: How do you suppose one goes about "earning" fifty billion dollars?

Please answer that and we'll take it from there.

Ask Bill Gates for one.
Seems that he hs the answer you are looking for. Then of course you would have limited his income to only 20 mil and that would have eliminated all the charitable work he has done.
I guess that is one of the unintended consequences.
Just for clarification, your 20Million dollar limit, is that yearly or as a total wealth for life?
Would you also limit the choice of cars you could buy? Seems like you would since only basic transportation would be required. Any thing else would just be a blatant display of wealth that only makes the poor feel bad about themselves.

The more I think of your ideas, more I see that you are a flaming communist that makes even Stalin look like a Henry Ford.

 

[kaz]

the simple FACT is that this whole system was set up and enforced by the 1% who benefit wildly from it while the use it to keep us under and empty shell that never sees the pea...

How do we fund the government if you keep all your money?

We don't. That's the whole point.

The 1% who earn 20% of income and pay 40% of taxes are only ones who benefit. The 50% who pay zero and get welfare and "refundable tax credits" are their victims. Got it. Let me write this down...

 

[Smilodonfatalis]

I don't get it liberals, please explain

You propose a stupid dichotomy.

Some people need money to stave off...starvation. Especially low wage earners who do work long hard hours.

Other people want to keep more of their money (usually earned by sitting on their butts making business gambles, not by hard work) so they can buy yachts, million dollar mansions, and thousand dollar an hour whores.

Think about it.

Maybe you will realize how stupid your question really is.

 

[kaz]

I don't get it liberals, please explain

You propose a stupid dichotomy.

Some people need money to stave off...starvation. Especially low wage earners who do work long hard hours.

Other people want to keep more of their money (usually earned by sitting on their butts making business gambles, not by hard work) so they can buy yachts, million dollar mansions, and thousand dollar an hour whores.

Think about it.

Maybe you will realize how stupid your question really is.

You blame the victim and rationalize confiscating their money by force instead of spending your own money. And you justify it all with the tiny percent that's spent on people who are "starving."

Face it Skippy, you demonstrated the answer. You're greedy.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Why 20 million? Why not 25 million? Why not 15 million? We can't peg down an exact number, so we can't do it. Who are you to say? Bwah bwahh bwahh boo hoo wa wa wa.

Of course the $20 million figure is not carved in stone and is subject to review. I arrived at that figure because it is a sum which enables one to afford a comfortable, secure, healthy, and reasonably luxurious life minus the kind of extravagance which is typically associated with aristocracy and the ability to influence legislation.

I disagree. At present interest rates 20 million returns only $600,000 a year if invested in a 30 year treasury. $600k is way upper class but if you have 4 kids you won't be buying them all yachts.

I think its better to tax income than accumulated wealth. The amount of money you accumulate depends not only on what you make, but inversely on what you spend. Taxing accumulated wealth disincentivizes saving. Of course - consumption taxes disincentivizes spending, which is bad for the overall economy. Income taxation prefers neither behavior.

 

[Dragonlady]

The difference is that everything the investors receives is through voluntary exchanges, whereas the money the welfare parasite receives is taken by force from the people who earned it

Bullshit. Trust fund babies don't earn a penny. They inherit and then they sit on their asses and collect dividends. Not every rich person earned the money they have. Many people with income of over a million dollars don't pay any taxes at all.

The obsession that right wingers have with welfare recipients is ridiculous. Pay no attention to the rich paying no taxes, to the corporations shipping jobs overseas, or to the Wall Street bankers ripping you off at every turn. Pay no attention to the REAL issues causing poverty in the US, and blame it all on those who have the least.

And you think liberals are dumb.

 

[kaz]

Pay no attention to the rich paying no taxes

Riddle me this batman. According to the IRS, the top 1% pay 40% of all taxes and the top 5% pay 60%. How is that "no taxes?"

 

[MikeK]

I disagree. At present interest rates 20 million returns only $600,000 a year if invested in a 30 year treasury. $600k is way upper class but if you have 4 kids you won't be buying them all yachts.

I think its better to tax income than accumulated wealth. The amount of money you accumulate depends not only on what you make, but inversely on what you spend. Taxing accumulated wealth disincentivizes saving. Of course - consumption taxes disincentivizes spending, which is bad for the overall economy. Income taxation prefers neither behavior.

No matter how you cut it accumulated assets in excess of twenty million dollars is excessive wealth and confiscating it will contribute vastly to the overall health and well-being of this Nation.

And I am in favor of taxing income as well as confiscating excess. My concern is with the vast majority of citizens and with the health of America. I'm not concerned with the emerging American aristocracy. After confiscation they will still be rich -- just not as rich as before.

$20 million. No more.

 

[kaz]

I disagree. At present interest rates 20 million returns only $600,000 a year if invested in a 30 year treasury. $600k is way upper class but if you have 4 kids you won't be buying them all yachts.

I think its better to tax income than accumulated wealth. The amount of money you accumulate depends not only on what you make, but inversely on what you spend. Taxing accumulated wealth disincentivizes saving. Of course - consumption taxes disincentivizes spending, which is bad for the overall economy. Income taxation prefers neither behavior.

No matter how you cut it accumulated assets in excess of twenty million dollars is excessive wealth and confiscating it will contribute vastly to the overall health and well-being of this Nation.

And I am in favor of taxing income as well as confiscating excess. My concern is with the vast majority of citizens and with the health of America. I'm not concerned with the emerging American aristocracy. After confiscation they will still be rich -- just not as rich as before.

$20 million. No more.

So the amount people can keep is up to you. Got it. How do you get your head through doorways, comrade?

BTW, were we to go to your Marxist system, the politicos would exempt themselves from your limit...

 

[The2ndAmendment]

How do we fund the government if you keep all your money?

We don't. That's the whole point.

Why do you live here if you have no interest in being a part of society?

Why don't you just go live in a socialist or communist country? Why do you libtards feel the need to destroy the only free country that remains?

 

[Desperado]

And I am in favor of taxing income as well as confiscating excess. My concern is with the vast majority of citizens and with the health of America. I'm not concerned with the emerging American aristocracy. After confiscation they will still be rich -- just not as rich as before.

$20 million. No more.

A true leftist Democrat...
In fact you go way beyond that.... You are even in the wrong country.
Hell you are even left of Fidel.
You are entitled to your ideas, but you have no role in America.

 

[BorisTheAnimal]

We don't. That's the whole point.

Why do you live here if you have no interest in being a part of society?

Why don't you just go live in a socialist or communist country? Why do you libtards feel the need to destroy the only free country that remains?

Because it's all about command and control to the Left. They don't give a shit that lower taxes bring in more, not less revenue because more people are spending more money (well duh!!) It's about Liberals micromanaging the private sector out of existence and replace it with some kind of Socialist/Communist nightmare. I swear they wept when the old USSR finally collapsed.

 

[Erand7899]

The difference is that everything the investors receives is through voluntary exchanges, whereas the money the welfare parasite receives is taken by force from the people who earned it

Bullshit. Trust fund babies don't earn a penny. They inherit and then they sit on their asses and collect dividends. Not every rich person earned the money they have. Many people with income of over a million dollars don't pay any taxes at all.

The obsession that right wingers have with welfare recipients is ridiculous. Pay no attention to the rich paying no taxes, to the corporations shipping jobs overseas, or to the Wall Street bankers ripping you off at every turn. Pay no attention to the REAL issues causing poverty in the US, and blame it all on those who have the least.

And you think liberals are dumb.

I believe that you just proved that you are either dumb or ignorant. Blame your parents for their failure to leave you a trust fund, but don't blame the people whose parents did leave them a trust fund. They are fully entitled to keep it, sit on their ass, and collect dividends. And, you get to be envious, and wish you were in their shoes.

There are no wall street bankers ripping me off, and no corporation is shipping my job overseas. And, I don't give a tinker's damn whether corporations pay taxes or not.

You do not seem to have a clue as to what causes poverty in the US. You have evil entities to blame it on, and that is all you care for. Poverty is caused by a multitude of factors, and most of those factors are personal to the people in poverty.

 

[Smilodonfatalis]

I don't get it liberals, please explain

You propose a stupid dichotomy.

Some people need money to stave off...starvation. Especially low wage earners who do work long hard hours.

Other people want to keep more of their money (usually earned by sitting on their butts making business gambles, not by hard work) so they can buy yachts, million dollar mansions, and thousand dollar an hour whores.

Think about it.

Maybe you will realize how stupid your question really is.

You blame the victim and rationalize confiscating their money by force instead of spending your own money. And you justify it all with the tiny percent that's spent on people who are "starving."

Face it Skippy, you demonstrated the answer. You're greedy.

So you think people with hundreds of millions of dollars are the "victim?"

You must be joking.

Nobody rationally considers a multimillionaire a victim, simply because they have to pay a higher tax rate.

How can you consider poor people greedy when they don't have money to spend as you suggest they should. You do realize there are many people who are literally broke and have no money at all. What is society supposed to do with them when there are rich people blowing money on extravagent stuff they don't need?

You are totally twisted.

It's like your are blaming the rape victim by calling the rapist a victim.

That's how stupid you are.

 

[DiamondDave]

You propose a stupid dichotomy.

Some people need money to stave off...starvation. Especially low wage earners who do work long hard hours.

Other people want to keep more of their money (usually earned by sitting on their butts making business gambles, not by hard work) so they can buy yachts, million dollar mansions, and thousand dollar an hour whores.

Think about it.

Maybe you will realize how stupid your question really is.

You blame the victim and rationalize confiscating their money by force instead of spending your own money. And you justify it all with the tiny percent that's spent on people who are "starving."

Face it Skippy, you demonstrated the answer. You're greedy.

So you think people with hundreds of millions of dollars are the "victim?"

You must be joking.

Nobody rationally considers a multimillionaire a victim, simply because they have to pay a higher tax rate.

How can you consider poor people greedy when they don't have money to spend as you suggest they should. You do realize there are many people who are literally broke and have no money at all. What is society supposed to do with them when there are rich people blowing money on extravagent stuff they don't need?

You are totally twisted.

It's like your are blaming the rape victim by calling the rapist a victim.

That's how stupid you are.

No matter if the person getting robbed has $5 in their pocket or $5000.. they are the victim

When you are forced to pay while someone else is not, for the equal services you are receiving from government... that is being victimized by government

It is greed when you want someone else to pay, while you or those you support do not

The personal situations of an individual are on that individual.. not on society, not on government, and not on 'the rich'

You are the one who is twisted

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

I disagree. At present interest rates 20 million returns only $600,000 a year if invested in a 30 year treasury. $600k is way upper class but if you have 4 kids you won't be buying them all yachts.

I think its better to tax income than accumulated wealth. The amount of money you accumulate depends not only on what you make, but inversely on what you spend. Taxing accumulated wealth disincentivizes saving. Of course - consumption taxes disincentivizes spending, which is bad for the overall economy. Income taxation prefers neither behavior.

No matter how you cut it accumulated assets in excess of twenty million dollars is excessive wealth and confiscating it will contribute vastly to the overall health and well-being of this Nation.

Depends on how the wealth is deployed. If you've got 20 million sitting in the bank its not doing much. If you've got a 20 million dollar tree farm that you are already maximizing production of, its not going to make more jobs or trees just for that farm to change ownership.

And I am in favor of taxing income as well as confiscating excess. My concern is with the vast majority of citizens and with the health of America. I'm not concerned with the emerging American aristocracy. After confiscation they will still be rich -- just not as rich as before.

$20 million. No more.

Yes - but the "excess" you want to confiscate is money saved, not spent. If I make 1 million a year (after taxes), work for 40 years, and save 30 million dollars, you would take 10 million of it just because I saved it - even though I only spent 250k of it every year. If I make 10 million a year (after taxes) for 10 years and spend it all - I would be exempt from your wealth tax even though I was far more "excessive" in my lifestyle by spending 10 million a year.

It also is easier to hide wealth than income. If I take all my money and put it in gold bars and bury it in the backyard, the government will never know about it.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

You blame the victim and rationalize confiscating their money by force instead of spending your own money. And you justify it all with the tiny percent that's spent on people who are "starving."

Face it Skippy, you demonstrated the answer. You're greedy.

So you think people with hundreds of millions of dollars are the "victim?"

You must be joking.

Nobody rationally considers a multimillionaire a victim, simply because they have to pay a higher tax rate.

How can you consider poor people greedy when they don't have money to spend as you suggest they should. You do realize there are many people who are literally broke and have no money at all. What is society supposed to do with them when there are rich people blowing money on extravagent stuff they don't need?

You are totally twisted.

It's like your are blaming the rape victim by calling the rapist a victim.

That's how stupid you are.

No matter if the person getting robbed has $5 in their pocket or $5000.. they are the victim

When you are forced to pay while someone else is not, for the equal services you are receiving from government... that is being victimized by government

It is greed when you want someone else to pay, while you or those you support do not

The personal situations of an individual are on that individual.. not on society, not on government, and not on 'the rich'

You are the one who is twisted

Government can only levy a tax when the governed consent through their representatives.

 

[DiamondDave]

So you think people with hundreds of millions of dollars are the "victim?"

You must be joking.

Nobody rationally considers a multimillionaire a victim, simply because they have to pay a higher tax rate.

How can you consider poor people greedy when they don't have money to spend as you suggest they should. You do realize there are many people who are literally broke and have no money at all. What is society supposed to do with them when there are rich people blowing money on extravagent stuff they don't need?

You are totally twisted.

It's like your are blaming the rape victim by calling the rapist a victim.

That's how stupid you are.

No matter if the person getting robbed has $5 in their pocket or $5000.. they are the victim

When you are forced to pay while someone else is not, for the equal services you are receiving from government... that is being victimized by government

It is greed when you want someone else to pay, while you or those you support do not

The personal situations of an individual are on that individual.. not on society, not on government, and not on 'the rich'

You are the one who is twisted

Government can only levy a tax when the governed consent through their representatives.

It is not about consent.. else we would not have a constitution that is supposed to prevent mob rule... I don't care if 85% of the people want to tax the rich at whatever percent and take from them what others deem as 'excess'... it is not to be done, or it SHOULD NOT be done

And the government HAS levied a tax without the consent or popular support of 'the governed'... see OBAMACARE.. and it was wrong too

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

No matter if the person getting robbed has $5 in their pocket or $5000.. they are the victim

When you are forced to pay while someone else is not, for the equal services you are receiving from government... that is being victimized by government

It is greed when you want someone else to pay, while you or those you support do not

The personal situations of an individual are on that individual.. not on society, not on government, and not on 'the rich'

You are the one who is twisted

Government can only levy a tax when the governed consent through their representatives.

It is not about consent..

Yes it is. Thousands of American colonists in fact died fighting a bloody war that was all about consent to taxation.

else we would not have a constitution that is supposed to prevent mob rule...

Our system of elected representatives don't constitute "mob rule".

I don't care if 85% of the people want to tax the rich at whatever percent and take from them what others deem as 'excess'... it is not to be done, or it SHOULD NOT be done

I know that's what you think. You'd prefer the 1% at the top have 100% of the power. The rest of us disagree. We've expressed this disagreement through our government.

And the government HAS levied a tax without the consent or popular support of 'the governed'... see OBAMACARE.. and it was wrong too

The People express their consent through their elected representatives, not media polls.



It is interesting that you think the People shouldn't be able to raise taxes through their elected representatives but they should be allowed to repeal taxes through media polls.

 

[MikeK]

Yes - but the "excess" you want to confiscate is money saved, not spent. If I make 1 million a year (after taxes), work for 40 years, and save 30 million dollars, you would take 10 million of it just because I saved it - even though I only spent 250k of it every year. If I make 10 million a year (after taxes) for 10 years and spend it all - I would be exempt from your wealth tax even though I was far more "excessive" in my lifestyle by spending 10 million a year.

Spending it is fine. That's called circulation, which is healthy. (Hoarding is very unhealthy.) You can even keep giving it away to those who need it. That's even better. That's called horizontal distribution as opposed to the vertical distribution which is harming the Nation now.

It also is easier to hide wealth than income. If I take all my money and put it in gold bars and bury it in the backyard, the government will never know about it.

We're talking about a situation in which hoarding excessive wealth is damaging to the Economy. You could hoard gold, and there are other things you could do. But would you do them if getting caught carried a twenty-year federal prison sentence (no parole)? You would need to be pathologically gluttonous to do it.