Wesley Snipes.Red Forman wrote:
why doesnt the govt go after tiger woods? celebs? musicians? look how much they make a year. is that necessary?
They do get taxed at a higher rate, should probably be a bit higher IMO.
Fuck Israel
they dont go after him for what he makes. like the govt wanting to cap exec pay.AussieReaper wrote:
Wesley Snipes.Red Forman wrote:
why doesnt the govt go after tiger woods? celebs? musicians? look how much they make a year. is that necessary?
They'll still go after the execs of the movie industry. And as the above case shows, they don't turn a blind eye to tax cheats who happen to be celebrities. I agree with you that they should be capped though too. Might make the small time actors who do struggle worth a bit more too.Red Forman wrote:
they dont go after him for what he makes. like the govt wanting to cap exec pay.AussieReaper wrote:
Wesley Snipes.Red Forman wrote:
why doesnt the govt go after tiger woods? celebs? musicians? look how much they make a year. is that necessary?
I think part of the problem is celebs do actually 'earn' a market rate for their services.
Contracts are negotiated, neither party is forced to sign.
Bank execs, company execs etc live in a cosy little club where they all sign off on each others bonus schemes.
They are also able to manipulate the situation to their advantage but to the detriment of shareholders and the economy as a whole.
Contracts are negotiated, neither party is forced to sign.
Bank execs, company execs etc live in a cosy little club where they all sign off on each others bonus schemes.
They are also able to manipulate the situation to their advantage but to the detriment of shareholders and the economy as a whole.
Fuck Israel
You don't often see an exec vote against their own pay rise...
bah... what about a celeb who earns like 5mil minimum per movie then the movie turns out to be shit?
They find themselves out of work pretty promptly.Red Forman wrote:
bah... what about a celeb who earns like 5mil minimum per movie then the movie turns out to be shit?
Fuck Israel
bollocks. thin red line, pushing tin, etcDilbert_X wrote:
They find themselves out of work pretty promptly.Red Forman wrote:
bah... what about a celeb who earns like 5mil minimum per movie then the movie turns out to be shit?
Actors are allowed the occasional failure, its not always about the actor.
But if they lose their 'draw' they'll be out promptly.
Tom Cruise is a turd no-one will touch right now for example.
But if they lose their 'draw' they'll be out promptly.
Tom Cruise is a turd no-one will touch right now for example.
Fuck Israel
The rich don't need voes to put people in office. They PAY for it. The rich hold far more power in our political system then he poor could ever dream of having.JohnG@lt wrote:
It's fairer because the proportion remains the same. I can live with my taxes going up if I know that it is hitting everyone equally. This will make my government think twice about increasing spending. When you can just pile on tax after tax onto 1% of the population there are almost no repercussions because they don't have the numbers to vote you out of office.Dilbert_X wrote:
But according to lowing 'fairness' shouldn't be part of the argument.To me 'fair' means everyone is treated equal and a flat tax fits that definition for me.
I don't see how a flat tax is any 'fairer' than a sliding scale, the rich still pay more tax than the poor.
The poor still pay less than their share for the services they use, the rich still pay more than the poor for services they probably don't use at all.
How about everyone just pays $20,000 a year to live in the US?
Or pay for the services you use, and a fixed sum for the army, police, govt etc.
Can't pay GTFO?
Money is a neccesity in life. If you make 30 grand a year there isn't much left over after the neccesities are paid for. A guy that makes a million a year will have pleny left over after the neccesiies are paid for.
Would you consider corporate bailouts a social program?LividBovine wrote:
Or too many forms of trying to take advantage of the system and trying to keep loopholes open for special interests. Flat tax rate. Of course there will be some special circumstances to be addressed, but in general, flatter tax rate and less social programs from the fed.Pug wrote:
Too many different forms of making a living = need for complicated tax code
nlsme1 wrote:
He most certainly did steal from the poor as well. He stole from the poorest of poor. He stole from charities. He sole from people making less hen 60 grand a year. He stole from elderly people on fixed incomes. To say he did not steal from the poor is down right IDIOTIC.lowing wrote:
Pathetic that you automatically assume if someone has money he stole it somehow or did not earn it, and therefore should be forced to give it to you. That is wealth envy at its finest.Dilbert_X wrote:
Some people achieve success through corruption, squashing the little guy, unethical business practices, their Daddy handing over a business to them, contacts, paying off the right people (via bribes or 'campaign contributions') and so on.Also, wtf...not everyone is honest who's rich? Is it hate rich peoples day or something?
Not sure TBH. The corrupt and dishonest do gain an unfair advantage - unless they get caught.
Shit does tend to float to the top - look at the British MPs for an example.
And obviously a corrupt big wheel can do far more damage than 1,000 dishonest little guys - look at Madoff for example.
Maddoff stole from rich people not poor people.
dont quote yourself. thats an AWM btw.nlsme1 wrote:
nlsme1 wrote:
He most certainly did steal from the poor as well. He stole from the poorest of poor. He stole from charities. He sole from people making less hen 60 grand a year. He stole from elderly people on fixed incomes. To say he did not steal from the poor is down right IDIOTIC.lowing wrote:
Pathetic that you automatically assume if someone has money he stole it somehow or did not earn it, and therefore should be forced to give it to you. That is wealth envy at its finest.
Maddoff stole from rich people not poor people.
Was a mistake. Point still made.
I don't have to justify it, and who exactly are you to say who justifies it? They are already taxed at a higher rate, the issue is punishing them even more, not for the functions of govt. but to redistribute their wealth to others who did not earn it.nlsme1 wrote:
How can you justify making $57,000 a fucking hour as "EARNING" it? Damn right they should be taxed at a higher rate. BTW, the 57 grand is what the CEO of Humana averaged last year. The PRIVATE healh insurance company under investigation for sending scare letters to seniors.lowing wrote:
Excess earnings??!! Who the hell do you think you are to decide whose income is exessive and should therefore be taken from him. Please note you yourself called it "EARNINGS", meaning they EARNED it. Fuckin' liberals.Dilbert_X wrote:
I'm not talking about smalll businesses, I'm talking about the people earning megabucks.
As far as I'm concerned:
If you're taking home $1m a year - Good for you.
If you're taking home $10m a year - Great, have you thought about maybe donating to charity, medical research or a hospital? Lets help you think, by taxing your excess earnings at a high rate. You can take some of it home, or give it away - effectively paying tax but you get to choose what its spent on instead of the govt deciding.
If you're taking home $100m a year - Are you sure you haven't gone nuts? You couldn't spend that in your lifetime if you tried. Take a holiday.
read upDilbert_X wrote:
Pretty well every country in the world has a progressive tax system - including the fuckin' liberal US.lowing wrote:
Excess earnings??!! Who the hell do you think you are to decide whose income is exessive and should therefore be taken from him. Please note you yourself called it "EARNINGS", meaning they EARNED it. Fuckin' liberals.
really? link pleasenlsme1 wrote:
nlsme1 wrote:
He most certainly did steal from the poor as well. He stole from the poorest of poor. He stole from charities. He sole from people making less hen 60 grand a year. He stole from elderly people on fixed incomes. To say he did not steal from the poor is down right IDIOTIC.lowing wrote:
Pathetic that you automatically assume if someone has money he stole it somehow or did not earn it, and therefore should be forced to give it to you. That is wealth envy at its finest.
Maddoff stole from rich people not poor people.
Do some research on your own. Or provide a link stating he didn't. He stole from thousands. You really think he cared who hey were. Or was he like "oh noes they are poor, can't steal from them!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"
He practicly ruined jewish philanthropy. Who really hurts when charities go belly up? The rich?
He practicly ruined jewish philanthropy. Who really hurts when charities go belly up? The rich?
http://www.docstoc.com/docs/3991843/Madoff-Victims-Listlowing wrote:
really? link pleasenlsme1 wrote:
nlsme1 wrote:
He most certainly did steal from the poor as well. He stole from the poorest of poor. He stole from charities. He sole from people making less hen 60 grand a year. He stole from elderly people on fixed incomes. To say he did not steal from the poor is down right IDIOTIC.
162 Pages but it does not list how much the people were making.
This is better: http://www.forbes.com/2009/02/05/bernar … adoff.html
I see, so you make a claim and you want me to prove you right, sorry that ain't how this works.nlsme1 wrote:
Do some research on your own. Or provide a link stating he didn't. He stole from thousands. You really think he cared who hey were. Or was he like "oh noes they are poor, can't steal from them!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"
He practicly ruined jewish philanthropy. Who really hurts when charities go belly up? The rich?
A great list, but it does not show that Madoff stole from poor people.12/f/taiwan wrote:
http://www.docstoc.com/docs/3991843/Madoff-Victims-Listlowing wrote:
really? link pleasenlsme1 wrote:
162 Pages but it does not list how much the people were making.
This is better: http://www.forbes.com/2009/02/05/bernar … adoff.html
Whoever he stole from, they're poor now.A great list, but it does not show that Madoff stole from poor people.
Fuck Israel
don't you guys ever get sick of not being able to back up your arguments. I mean if you ain't got, racism, bigotry, selfishness, or personal attacks etc. to argue a point you really don't have shit, and if those are all you have, you really don't have shit.Dilbert_X wrote:
Whoever he stole from, they're poor now.A great list, but it does not show that Madoff stole from poor people.
Where is your source? I know for a fact he did not only steal from the rich. Disprove me. Thats how this works.