i'm not reading all seven pages, but dont we spread wealth around now anyway?
also, the dollar is coming back so you euros better use it while you can.
also, the dollar is coming back so you euros better use it while you can.
I will make myself feel good by calling it by its proper definition, we all voted for it after all.lowing wrote:
You can make yourself feel as good as you want calling it whatever you want, you have a big govt. dictating your lives.
If you are going to look up the number of millionaires you better also contrast that with inflation as well as population growth. A million dollars doesn't buy what it did 50 years ago, and the population has increases substantially.lowing wrote:
Before I look it up, any bets that there are more millionaires now than there were 20 years ago? Also any bets that quality of life now is better than it was 50 years ago?Agent_Dung_Bomb wrote:
I think he's referring to the bailout.lowing wrote:
What tax money are they "weasling" you out of Turquoise? THEY pay the vast majority of all taxes not us in the first place.
Now about the wealthy paying the most taxes, of course they do, but it's not because they are being taxed to death, it's because more and more of the wealth is being concentrated in the hands of a few. You have to look at the big picture and not a few numbers on a graph posted by the IRS.
As far as quality of life, what does that have to do with the fact that more of this country's wealth is continuing to be funneled into a small group of people, thus making the amount of taxes they pay becoming a larger part of what is collected.
...even counting for inflation, I would lay odds it still holds true. In fact, I would go far as to say it is still true after accounting for inflation AND comparing the number to a % of the general population to account for simple population increase.The Sheriff wrote:
It's called inflation.lowing wrote:
Before I look it up, any bets that there are more millionaires now than there were 20 years ago?
So that means the system is working, because there are a few more millionaires?lowing wrote:
Before I look it up, any bets that there are more millionaires now than there were 20 years ago? Also any bets that quality of life now is better than it was 50 years ago?
Have a look around the globe lowing and you'll see there is more starvation than any other period in the worlds history.
Why not examine infant mortality rates in 3rd world countries.
Now tell me that quality of life is better than it was 50 years ago.
Quality of life is better if you happen to be one of those millionaires.
Well at least you admit your loyalties up front. Whether consciously or subconsciously, you apparently feel that you should be a slave to the wealthy.lowing wrote:
What tax money are they "weasling" you out of Turquoise? THEY pay the vast majority of all taxes not us in the first place.
In fact I will go as far as to say we OWE them.
Or do you honestly think the rich should be obligated to pay the tax bill
obligated to provide us with our jobs and our benefits
obligated to send us to school
obligated to solve all of our self induced financial problems
not to even mention that we expect them to do all of this AND now, to do it and an even greater expense to them, then expect that they will NOT cut back on anything that will hurt us but only THEM?
Yes, the rich pay a lot in taxes -- because they have more money. Even if we had a flat income tax, they'd pay more than me. So your point is moot on that one.
The rich are obligated to pay for what they use. They use our infrastructure the same way that the rest of us do. In fact, they get more out of our system than you or me, because they are legally allowed to essentially bribe people in office (otherwise known as lobbyism).
So yes, I think they should be obligated to fund our system just like the rich of every other First World nation is.
You may label me as a socialist, but you are a corporate fascist.
So are you arguing that infant mortality has increased?TheAussieReaper wrote:
So that means the system is working, because there are a few more millionaires?lowing wrote:
Before I look it up, any bets that there are more millionaires now than there were 20 years ago? Also any bets that quality of life now is better than it was 50 years ago?
Have a look around the globe lowing and you'll see there is more starvation than any other period in the worlds history.
Why not examine infant mortality rates in 3rd world countries.
Now tell me that quality of life is better than it was 50 years ago.
Quality of life is better if you happen to be one of those millionaires.
Are you arguing that overall quality of life world-wide is not better than it was 50 years ago? Not even sure how you would measure that, since it's so regional and subjective in nature.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
usmarine wrote:
but dont we spread wealth around now anyway?
If lowing feels he can equate more millionaires to meaning quality of life has increased I'd like to see him examine the other end of the spectrum and see if he comes to the same conclusion.FEOS wrote:
So are you arguing that infant mortality has increased?TheAussieReaper wrote:
So that means the system is working, because there are a few more millionaires?lowing wrote:
Before I look it up, any bets that there are more millionaires now than there were 20 years ago? Also any bets that quality of life now is better than it was 50 years ago?
Have a look around the globe lowing and you'll see there is more starvation than any other period in the worlds history.
Why not examine infant mortality rates in 3rd world countries.
Now tell me that quality of life is better than it was 50 years ago.
Quality of life is better if you happen to be one of those millionaires.
Are you arguing that overall quality of life world-wide is not better than it was 50 years ago? Not even sure how you would measure that, since it's so regional and subjective in nature.
Last edited by TheAussieReaper (2008-10-23 14:36:21)
that was a cute speech obama had yesterday when he said mccain was for joe "hedge fund" manager. and the crowd of retards cheered. yet obama got almost twice as much as mccain did from the hedge fund peeps. idiots. doubt most of them know what a hedge fund is anyway.
No, actually it is worse now than it has been in the past. I think the peak of wealth equality were the years right after WWII, at least from what I remember reading recently. The US is now on par with Russia as far as wealth inequality, which isn't a good thing. The middle class is becoming bigger, which is a good thing, but we are expanding from the top down more than from the bottom up.usmarine wrote:
usmarine wrote:
but dont we spread wealth around now anyway?
Last edited by KEN-JENNINGS (2008-10-23 15:22:04)
arent taxes essentially spreading the wealth? its not a flat tax.
Last edited by usmarine (2008-10-23 15:21:56)
I stood in line for four hours. They better give me a Wal-Mart gift card, or something. - Rodney Booker, Job Fair attendee.
Depending on where the tax money goes, yes. More tax money flows to the rich than to the poor though, that's one main problem.usmarine wrote:
arent taxes essentially spreading the wealth? its not a flat tax.
and that's a blanket statement that needs more explanation, which I don't have time for right now.
Last edited by KEN-JENNINGS (2008-10-23 15:33:28)
Oh... we can go there if you want....DBBrinson1 wrote:
Obama's wealth spreading plan.
http://drudgereport.com/cut.jpg
http://www.thepittsburghchannel.com/new … etail.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeff-dorc … 36003.html
Where do you get that assessment? Are you saying that from a ratio of taxes paid to benefits received or what?KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
Depending on where the tax money goes, yes. More tax money flows to the rich than to the poor though, that's one main problem.usmarine wrote:
arent taxes essentially spreading the wealth? its not a flat tax.
and that's a blanket statement that needs more explanation, which I don't have time for right now.
A more accurate statement would be more tax money flows from the rich than to the poor.
Please, do explain when you have more time, because it seems counterintuitive right now.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
I can as well:Turquoise wrote:
Oh... we can go there if you want....DBBrinson1 wrote:
Obama's wealth spreading plan.
http://drudgereport.com/cut.jpg
http://www.thepittsburghchannel.com/new … etail.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeff-dorc … 36003.html
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27251664/wid/17621070/
and:
http://www.local6.com/politics/17784129/detail.html
The guy's house got shot up.
Let me repeat that:
The guy's house got shot up.
Sorry Aussie, I am not competing for a beauty contest, my lifes ambition is not to solve world hunger. I have relagated myself to taking care of feeding my family. We elect people, as do you, to take care of the worlds problems. So go bitch to them.TheAussieReaper wrote:
So that means the system is working, because there are a few more millionaires?lowing wrote:
Before I look it up, any bets that there are more millionaires now than there were 20 years ago? Also any bets that quality of life now is better than it was 50 years ago?
Have a look around the globe lowing and you'll see there is more starvation than any other period in the worlds history.
Why not examine infant mortality rates in 3rd world countries.
Now tell me that quality of life is better than it was 50 years ago.
Quality of life is better if you happen to be one of those millionaires.
My quality of life IS better, and I am not a millionaire I assure you.
I see, and how many poor people have you applied for a job with? Ya know, the means to build YOUR wealth and feed YOUR family and provide health insurance? I am not a fascist, I simply know who we have to thank for the world we live in and it is the rich people that put up the capital, build the businesses, and fund the govt. for the rest of us to go to work and provide for our families and it isn't the poor you have to thank.Turquoise wrote:
Well at least you admit your loyalties up front. Whether consciously or subconsciously, you apparently feel that you should be a slave to the wealthy.lowing wrote:
What tax money are they "weasling" you out of Turquoise? THEY pay the vast majority of all taxes not us in the first place.
In fact I will go as far as to say we OWE them.
Or do you honestly think the rich should be obligated to pay the tax bill
obligated to provide us with our jobs and our benefits
obligated to send us to school
obligated to solve all of our self induced financial problems
not to even mention that we expect them to do all of this AND now, to do it and an even greater expense to them, then expect that they will NOT cut back on anything that will hurt us but only THEM?
Yes, the rich pay a lot in taxes -- because they have more money. Even if we had a flat income tax, they'd pay more than me. So your point is moot on that one.
The rich are obligated to pay for what they use. They use our infrastructure the same way that the rest of us do. In fact, they get more out of our system than you or me, because they are legally allowed to essentially bribe people in office (otherwise known as lobbyism).
So yes, I think they should be obligated to fund our system just like the rich of every other First World nation is.
You may label me as a socialist, but you are a corporate fascist.
that's an intersting perspective.lowing wrote:
I see, and how many poor people have you applied for a job with? Ya know, the means to build YOUR wealth and feed YOUR family and provide health insurance? I am not a fascist, I simply know who we have to thank for the world we live in and it is the rich people that put up the capital, build the businesses, and fund the govt. for the rest of us to go to work and provide for our families and it isn't the poor you have to thank.
When you say rich people are you strictly referring to rich individuals?
Who's opinion has weight? Warren Buffett's? the wealthiest man on planet earth?
or lowing? one of millions of not-rich Americans, still grasping for the American dream but angry that the government wants to raid their fantasy wealth with a fantasy tax burden. While worshiping the aristocracy, who would sooner fire their middle-class ass, than lose 3 points on their company's shares.
Last edited by Reciprocity (2008-10-23 20:52:29)
And do they do this all by themselves? Money is worthless unless you have the manpower available to make use of it. The only reason money is worth anything is because we put faith in it.lowing wrote:
I see, and how many poor people have you applied for a job with? Ya know, the means to build YOUR wealth and feed YOUR family and provide health insurance? I am not a fascist, I simply know who we have to thank for the world we live in and it is the rich people that put up the capital, build the businesses, and fund the govt. for the rest of us to go to work and provide for our families and it isn't the poor you have to thank.
So, it's really not the rich we have to thank -- it's people in general. Microsoft isn't a one-man business with Gates doing everything. The rich actually depend on us more than we depend on them, because if the working class decided to just start their own businesses or go out into the wild to live as survivalists, the rich would suddenly lack the manpower to do anything.
So no... They have us to thank for doing their labor and for putting faith in their money.
Do you have any idea as to the how many people are employed due to the ventures, risks, and wealth of Warren Buffet? Like it or not there are a significant amount of people with a quality of life and an income because of him. A rich man.Reciprocity wrote:
that's an intersting perspective.lowing wrote:
I see, and how many poor people have you applied for a job with? Ya know, the means to build YOUR wealth and feed YOUR family and provide health insurance? I am not a fascist, I simply know who we have to thank for the world we live in and it is the rich people that put up the capital, build the businesses, and fund the govt. for the rest of us to go to work and provide for our families and it isn't the poor you have to thank.
When you say rich people are you strictly referring to rich individuals?
Who's opinion has weight? Warren Buffett's? the wealthiest man on planet earth?
or lowing? one of millions of not-rich Americans, still grasping for the American dream but angry that the government wants to raid their fantasy wealth with a fantasy tax burden. While worshiping the aristocracy, who would sooner fire their middle-class ass, than lose 3 points on their company's shares.
Bullshit Turquoise! and offer the very fact that you yourself make claims to the "few rich". If it were as easy as, "just start my own business" we all would have our own businesses and we would all be rich. Like it or not, the rich provide the means for the rest of us to live. If they didn't then we wouldn't be asking them for jobs now would we?Turquoise wrote:
And do they do this all by themselves? Money is worthless unless you have the manpower available to make use of it. The only reason money is worth anything is because we put faith in it.lowing wrote:
I see, and how many poor people have you applied for a job with? Ya know, the means to build YOUR wealth and feed YOUR family and provide health insurance? I am not a fascist, I simply know who we have to thank for the world we live in and it is the rich people that put up the capital, build the businesses, and fund the govt. for the rest of us to go to work and provide for our families and it isn't the poor you have to thank.
So, it's really not the rich we have to thank -- it's people in general. Microsoft isn't a one-man business with Gates doing everything. The rich actually depend on us more than we depend on them, because if the working class decided to just start their own businesses or go out into the wild to live as survivalists, the rich would suddenly lack the manpower to do anything.
So no... They have us to thank for doing their labor and for putting faith in their money.
Also, they do thank us, they pay us do they not? I will bet you have thanked the company that hired you for the opportunity to work for them when they called you to tell you that you had the job. Or are you really telling me that you told them they were lucky they hired you,
Last edited by lowing (2008-10-23 23:19:03)
Yes I do. and Mr. Buffett also thinks it's absurd that he's pays a lower percentage of income tax than the people below him, i.e. every citizen of the United States.lowing wrote:
Do you have any idea as to the how many people are employed due to the ventures, risks, and wealth of Warren Buffet? Like it or not there are a significant amount of people with a quality of life and an income because of him. A rich man.
The way I look at it, our wealth is measured in our currency which is created and backed by our Federal Govermnent. Since paying taxes pays for the government Mr. Buffett is paying his percentage to the goverment to protect and back his wealth, just as I'm paying for the goverment to protect and back my wealth. Why should he get a discount because he's got more money?
It's not about dollar amount, it's about percentages.
He isn't getting a discount, he already pays waaaaaaaaaaay more than us. The problem is, you think it isn't enough and you want more of his money, not for maintaining the functions of govt. but for no other reason that to give it someone else to make life "fair". That simply is not the roll of the US govt.Reciprocity wrote:
Yes I do. and Mr. Buffett also thinks it's absurd that he's pays a lower percentage of income tax than the people below him, i.e. every citizen of the United States.lowing wrote:
Do you have any idea as to the how many people are employed due to the ventures, risks, and wealth of Warren Buffet? Like it or not there are a significant amount of people with a quality of life and an income because of him. A rich man.
The way I look at it, our wealth is measured in our currency which is created and backed by our Federal Govermnent. Since paying taxes pays for the government Mr. Buffett is paying his percentage to the goverment to protect and back his wealth, just as I'm paying for the goverment to protect and back my wealth. Why should he get a discount because he's got more money?
It's not about dollar amount, it's about percentages.