BF2S Forums Donald Trump screws investors.

..teddy..jimmy wrote:

lowing wrote:

..teddy..jimmy wrote:

Although I was serious about one thing. Tax the rich=more cash.

Sorry, didn't mean to insult you, but if you really believe this, then you do not know as much as you think you do.

Anyway, why not just come out and say what ya mean?


Punish the rich for achieving.

That's not at all what I mean... I'm doing a law degree in hopes of becoming rich. I come from a family who got rich off investments like these (no mean to sound snobbish but it's true). It may not work in America and I may be wrong about it but increased taxes worked in Scandinavia and look at our society. At least I have something to base my assertion on.

If you wanna compare, try comparing the sizes, the diverity of the population, the presence on the economic and world stage as well. Or do you not think all of these factors comes into play when comparing social economic issues. There is a reason the US grew to the most powerful country in the world in 200 years, and it isn't because the govt. kept the rich people down, while pumping up welfare. Now, compare that to Scandinavia and its presence in the world.

Not many turn to Scandinavia for guidance in this world. I also doubt anything that happens in Scandinavia will affect the globe.

Bertster7 wrote:

lowing wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

A car was a great example.

You put a deposit down on a car that the dealer has bought on credit from a supplier that he doesn't pay. When you go to collect the car it has been repossessed by the supplier. But the dealer points out you can't have your money back since the contract you signed stipulates that he can keep your deposit and spend it no matter what.

That is what has happened here.

Is that what happened? Kinda makes ya wonder why someone would SIGN your investment away without protection. Anyway, based on this, I am sure you will be looking for some sort of stimulous for these people. Ya know, because the evil banks ( in this case Trump) took advantage of them and they didn't "know any better"?

Yes. That's exactly what happened.

The contract they had with Trump allowed him to fritter away their money without consequence - according to the quote in mikkel's post.

The deal fell through because Trump did not fulfill his obligations to pay back the banks.

They were stupid, they got screwed by Trump. He's a prick, but hasn't broken the law in this instance. Not paying his loans to the banks on the other hand.....

No argument there, but shall we not "bailout" thse people, ya know, with some Obamabucks, just like the rest of the citizens that lost and is of no fault of their own?

Bertster7 wrote:

lowing wrote:

Not many turn to Scandinavia for guidance in this world.

That's bullshit.

Scandanavia is extremely often looked to as an example of social programs working. Loads of other governments copy their social programs.

berster don't be thick, the world is america

lowing wrote:

..teddy..jimmy wrote:

lowing wrote:

Sorry, didn't mean to insult you, but if you really believe this, then you do not know as much as you think you do.

Anyway, why not just come out and say what ya mean?


Punish the rich for achieving.

That's not at all what I mean... I'm doing a law degree in hopes of becoming rich. I come from a family who got rich off investments like these (no mean to sound snobbish but it's true). It may not work in America and I may be wrong about it but increased taxes worked in Scandinavia and look at our society. At least I have something to base my assertion on.

If you wanna compare, try comparing the sizes, the diverity of the population, the presence on the economic and world stage as well. Or do you not think all of these factors comes into play when comparing social economic issues. There is a reason the US grew to the most powerful country in the world in 200 years, and it isn't because the govt. kept the rich people down, while pumping up welfare. Now, compare that to Scandinavia and its presence in the world.

Not many turn to Scandinavia for guidance in this world. I also doubt anything that happens in Scandinavia will affect the globe.

Tax the rich doesn't necessarily mean taxing everyone else ...and yes, America grew to a very powerful nation in 200 years without taxing the rich but are now on the verge of a complete financial meltdown. Tell me, why wouldn't taxing the rich help at all?

I also doubt anything that happens in Scandinavia will affect the globe.

That is pretty damn naive lowing...we provide gas and oil to much of Europe of which they are very dependent. I see your logic though, just because America wouldn't necessarily be affected then neither would the whole world.

Bertster7 wrote:

lowing wrote:

Not many turn to Scandinavia for guidance in this world.

That's bullshit.

Scandanavia is extremely often looked to as an example of social programs working. Loads of other governments copy their social programs.

I guess, how many of those countries are as big influencial and powerful as the US? you are comparing apples to apples, and calling it success when the US is an orange

Bertster7 wrote:

lowing wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

Yes. That's exactly what happened.

The contract they had with Trump allowed him to fritter away their money without consequence - according to the quote in mikkel's post.

The deal fell through because Trump did not fulfill his obligations to pay back the banks.

They were stupid, they got screwed by Trump. He's a prick, but hasn't broken the law in this instance. Not paying his loans to the banks on the other hand.....

No argument there, but shall we not "bailout" thse people, ya know, with some Obamabucks, just like the rest of the citizens that lost and is of no fault of their own?

Bail them out for what? Being stupid?

Of course not. I'm against bailouts in the vast majority of cases. Individuals should NEVER get bailouts. Occasionally it may be in the national interest to keep a company going whose collapse would have severe reprecussions, provided it looks likely that company will be profitable again in the short/mid-term. I am deeply opposed to the widespread bailouts that have been going on recently.

So am I, I do not feel sorry these rich people that lost and I do not feel sorry for the idiots that took on mortgages they could not afford. Yet you all are thumping the banks and giving these poor "victims" a pass with shit like, " they didn' know any better" or, "the banks took advantage of them". Seems to me, I am the only one who does not flip flop on my convictions.

lowing wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

lowing wrote:

No argument there, but shall we not "bailout" thse people, ya know, with some Obamabucks, just like the rest of the citizens that lost and is of no fault of their own?

Bail them out for what? Being stupid?

Of course not. I'm against bailouts in the vast majority of cases. Individuals should NEVER get bailouts. Occasionally it may be in the national interest to keep a company going whose collapse would have severe reprecussions, provided it looks likely that company will be profitable again in the short/mid-term. I am deeply opposed to the widespread bailouts that have been going on recently.

So am I, I do not feel sorry these rich people that lost and I do not feel sorry for the idiots that took on mortgages they could not afford. Yet you all are thumping the banks and giving these poor "victims" a pass with shit like, " they didn' know any better" or, "the banks took advantage of them". Seems to me, I am the only one who does not flip flop on my convictions.

"You are all"?

When have I said anything like that ever?

I'm opposed to dodgy loans companies with TV advertising and ridiculous terms and conditions (practically loan sharks). But I believe it is upto better financial regulation to avoid these things happening in the first place. I am not talking about people being sold mortgages they can't afford here - you get horror stories of old people being tricked into remortgaging and ending up paying upto 90% interest and losing their homes.

I pity ordinary idiots who are tricked into throwing their money away - but I don't support them getting their money back.

I don't pity rich idiots investing millions in projects without having lawyers go over the contract properly.

Last edited by Bertster7 (2009-03-07 06:44:47)

lowing wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

lowing wrote:

I guess, how many of those countries are as big influencial and powerful as the US? you are comparing apples to apples, and calling it success when the US is an orange

The EU is bigger and more economically powerful than the US. The EU look to Scandanavia as a precedent for things working. Typically it is slightly smaller nations - but we're still talking G7.

You are seporate countries with seporate issues and seporate identities. You are a bunch of Scandinavian size countries wh osee success in Scandinavia, so naturally you want to copy her. The US can not, we are too big with unique issues to deal with.

You are a bunch of states with a centralised government.

The EU is a bunch of states with a centralised parliament.

The EU is bigger than the US.

There are differences absolutely. But there are also resounding similarities.

lowing wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

lowing wrote:

Not many turn to Scandinavia for guidance in this world.

That's bullshit.

Scandanavia is extremely often looked to as an example of social programs working. Loads of other governments copy their social programs.

I guess, how many of those countries are as big influencial and powerful as the US? you are comparing apples to apples, and calling it success when the US is an orange

Not that I agree with Scandinavian politics, but consider the population.

Scandinavia: ~20mn
US: ~300mn

You're comparing one big orange to five small tangerines when making a point about global presence. That doesn't make much sense.

..teddy..jimmy wrote:

lowing wrote:

..teddy..jimmy wrote:

lowing wrote:

If you wanna compare, try comparing the sizes, the diverity of the population, the presence on the economic and world stage as well. Or do you not think all of these factors comes into play when comparing social economic issues. There is a reason the US grew to the most powerful country in the world in 200 years, and it isn't because the govt. kept the rich people down, while pumping up welfare. Now, compare that to Scandinavia and its presence in the world.

Not many turn to Scandinavia for guidance in this world. I also doubt anything that happens in Scandinavia will affect the globe.

Tax the rich doesn't necessarily mean taxing everyone else ...and yes, America grew to a very powerful nation in 200 years without taxing the rich but are now on the verge of a complete financial meltdown. Tell me, why wouldn't taxing the rich help at all?


That is pretty damn naive lowing...we provide gas and oil to much of Europe of which they are very dependent. I see your logic though, just because America wouldn't necessarily be affected then neither would the whole world.

1. We are on the verge of collapse because people refused to pay thier bills and it snowballed.

Taxing ( punishing) the rich does not provide incentive for growth. Why should they work, sweat and bleed for anyone other than themselves? They will take their money and invest elsewhere, in some tax friendly places who will welcome their money sand the growth they bring. That is why you do not tax ( punish) the rich exessively.

2. Good point, I guess I am a little too consumed with my own country's problems, no disrespect intended.

1.) You're right, excessive taxing is detrimental but I never strictly said anything about excessive taxing. Before I say anything else what is the current tax rate in the US for people who earn over $150 000 a year? Every little bit helps so even a small increase will do some good especially considering the size of your stimulus package. Also, why say punish? I prefer helping the community at large.

2.) No disrespect taken.

The rich already are paying the VAST majority of the tax bill in the US, so yeah what is happening now is exessive, and since rich people like money just as much as anyone else, to take it from them is punishment, just like if you were going to cut welfare, those who would get small welfare checks would consider it punishemnt and in fact be pissed off thsat they were cut off from what was never theirs.

Turquoise wrote:

Hopefully, Trump will piss off someone rich and powerful enough for them to hire someone to kill him.

Like Deutsche Bank?

lowing wrote:

The rich already are paying the VAST majority of the tax bill in the US, so yeah what is happening now is exessive, and since rich people like money just as much as anyone else, to take it from them is punishment, just like if you were going to cut welfare, those who would get small welfare checks would consider it punishemnt and in fact be pissed off thsat they were cut off from what was never theirs.

One thing to consider is that, if you're defining rich as being everyone in the top tax bracket, those people have the vast majority of wealth in this society.

If you want to see good evidence of how much influence the elite rich have on the income tax system, observe the fact that an individual who makes just over $357,000 pays the same percentage as Bill Gates.  There's obviously a vast difference between the wealth of someone making $357,000 and someone making several billion.

So, in effect, you could essentially say that the rich have a flat income tax among themselves.  Obviously, there are multiple levels of wealth, and they all pay the same percentage (although the AMT changes a bit within that income bracket).

Also, it's rare for someone to pay the official tax percentage within that bracket.  Generally speaking, wealthy people have a lot of tax write-offs.  Usually, they end up paying the AMT, which is considerably lower than the official tax percentage.

So, when comparing how much wealthy individuals pay in America in taxes vs. how much they would pay in most of the First World, they actually have it pretty good here.  It seems rather greedy for them to be bitching about taxes, and another thing that benefits the rich is that payroll taxes have a cap.  You don't have to pay Social Security taxes beyond the first $100,000 or so you make in income.  So this makes the payroll tax affect the working class much more than the rich.

I've always thought we needed more payroll tax reform than income tax reform, but few politicians even talk about that.