IT IS NOT YOUR MONEY TO TAKE, you should not be entitled to someone elses efforts simply because,well, he has it for the taking...teddy..jimmy wrote:
omg, it's still an equal punishment because atleast the high earner will have another god knows how many millions to fall back on. Plus his already mahousive million dollar bank account that counts as wealth is not so heavily taxed so who comes out better?!lowing wrote:
to ANY individual, 90,000 is a lot of money, and 90,000,000 is a lot MORE money, whichever way you choose to look at it...teddy..jimmy wrote:
$90 000 is a lot of money to someone who only has 300 and whatever thousand income a year. Theoretically it is an equal "punishment" whichever way you choose to look at.
So to summarise;lowing wrote:
IT IS NOT YOUR MONEY TO TAKE, you should not be entitled to someone elses efforts simply because,well, he has it for the taking...teddy..jimmy wrote:
omg, it's still an equal punishment because atleast the high earner will have another god knows how many millions to fall back on. Plus his already mahousive million dollar bank account that counts as wealth is not so heavily taxed so who comes out better?!lowing wrote:
to ANY individual, 90,000 is a lot of money, and 90,000,000 is a lot MORE money, whichever way you choose to look at it.
Do well, earn millions billions and squillions and well done
Do bad, earn nothing and sit in poverty, and well, tough luck.
Nice society.
Small hourglass island
Always raining and foggy
Use an umbrella
Always raining and foggy
Use an umbrella
I see, so each country will do whatever the EU says, even if it is not in their best interests. Yeah rightBertster7 wrote:
Remember this?lowing wrote:
We have one central govt. You do not, you have a union that you can either join or not, pick and choose what you want to agree to or not. YOU are not the same as the US.Bertster7 wrote:
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.
You're neglecting to mention the influence wealthy people can buy that working class people can't afford. Our system is somewhat plutocratic, just like any other system.lowing wrote:
and how can you not look at it as punishing achievment?
you have 2 individuals who live in the US
one person makes 20,000 a year didn't start a company has no vested interesting anything he is just along for the ride and pays for his freedoms
another who makes 1,000,000 a year took risks, employed others and brought economic stabilty to a community, yet he has to pay far more for the same freedoms as the other guy, who hasn't done shit, except ask the rich guy for a job. THe rich guy has to pay more EVEN after he has already contributed so much more to society. They are both free to do as they wish in this country, as it is, the more you do, the more you are punished for it. That is the bottom line.
If you succeed in business, the rewards are the money you make, but with that money, you can buy influence. That influence is not something that is earned.
If you believe everyone is equal on a fundamental level in terms of rights and representation, then any additional influence gained with money should be taxed. That is essentially what a graduated tax system does. It taxes that additional influence that wealth brings. It is not a punishment but instead an arbiter of social equality.
It's far from being a perfect system, but it seems to be one of the more practical ways of keeping the rich from having absolute rule over things.
Well what about the guy who made 300 000% why should you be able to take a greater value proportionately to his income? He has put efforts into making that money too.lowing wrote:
IT IS NOT YOUR MONEY TO TAKE, you should not be entitled to someone elses efforts simply because,well, he has it for the taking...teddy..jimmy wrote:
omg, it's still an equal punishment because atleast the high earner will have another god knows how many millions to fall back on. Plus his already mahousive million dollar bank account that counts as wealth is not so heavily taxed so who comes out better?!lowing wrote:
to ANY individual, 90,000 is a lot of money, and 90,000,000 is a lot MORE money, whichever way you choose to look at it.
You also forget that a lot of the wealthy didn't just instantaneously make their money but also inherited it giving them a greater chance to actually get richer. What about the poor bloke who worked himself up from a low income family and is now making 300 000+ a year? Chances are he's put in more work than the other guy.
Last edited by ..teddy..jimmy (2009-03-07 08:44:30)
Not whatever, but lots of thigns that are not in their best interests certainly.lowing wrote:
I see, so each country will do whatever the EU says, even if it is not in their best interests. Yeah rightBertster7 wrote:
Remember this?lowing wrote:
We have one central govt. You do not, you have a union that you can either join or not, pick and choose what you want to agree to or not. YOU are not the same as the US.Bertster7 wrote:
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.
The UK contributes a lot to the CAP for example.
Anyway, you've entirely avoided the point of that post which was glaringly obvious, even to someone as obtuse as you.
You are speaking of lobbying and I am against it, it is also a different topicTurquoise wrote:
You're neglecting to mention the influence wealthy people can buy that working class people can't afford. Our system is somewhat plutocratic, just like any other system.lowing wrote:
and how can you not look at it as punishing achievment?
you have 2 individuals who live in the US
one person makes 20,000 a year didn't start a company has no vested interesting anything he is just along for the ride and pays for his freedoms
another who makes 1,000,000 a year took risks, employed others and brought economic stabilty to a community, yet he has to pay far more for the same freedoms as the other guy, who hasn't done shit, except ask the rich guy for a job. THe rich guy has to pay more EVEN after he has already contributed so much more to society. They are both free to do as they wish in this country, as it is, the more you do, the more you are punished for it. That is the bottom line.
If you succeed in business, the rewards are the money you make, but with that money, you can buy influence. That influence is not something that is earned.
If you believe everyone is equal on a fundamental level in terms of rights and representation, then any additional influence gained with money should be taxed. That is essentially what a graduated tax system does. It taxes that additional influence that wealth brings. It is not a punishment but instead an arbiter of social equality.
It's far from being a perfect system, but it seems to be one of the more practical ways of keeping the rich from having absolute rule over things.
I have not avoided anything, I simply do not agree, your EU is not the same as the US govt.Bertster7 wrote:
Not whatever, but lots of thigns that are not in their best interests certainly.lowing wrote:
I see, so each country will do whatever the EU says, even if it is not in their best interests. Yeah rightBertster7 wrote:
Remember this?lowing wrote:
We have one central govt. You do not, you have a union that you can either join or not, pick and choose what you want to agree to or not. YOU are not the same as the US.
The UK contributes a lot to the CAP for example.
Anyway, you've entirely avoided the point of that post which was glaringly obvious, even to someone as obtuse as you.
ffs, that's what was said before, and then highlighted just so you'd notice.lowing wrote:
I have not avoided anything, I simply do not agree, your EU is not the same as the US govt.Bertster7 wrote:
Not whatever, but lots of thigns that are not in their best interests certainly.lowing wrote:
I see, so each country will do whatever the EU says, even if it is not in their best interests. Yeah right
The UK contributes a lot to the CAP for example.
Anyway, you've entirely avoided the point of that post which was glaringly obvious, even to someone as obtuse as you.
Small hourglass island
Always raining and foggy
Use an umbrella
Always raining and foggy
Use an umbrella
You shouldn't, our tax system sucks. I do not believe in income tax at all. Tax on what you spend should be all the govt. is entitled to...teddy..jimmy wrote:
Well what about the guy who made 300 000% why should you be able to take a greater value proportionately to his income? He has put efforts into making that money too.lowing wrote:
IT IS NOT YOUR MONEY TO TAKE, you should not be entitled to someone elses efforts simply because,well, he has it for the taking...teddy..jimmy wrote:
omg, it's still an equal punishment because atleast the high earner will have another god knows how many millions to fall back on. Plus his already mahousive million dollar bank account that counts as wealth is not so heavily taxed so who comes out better?!
You also forget that a lot of the wealthy didn't just instantaneously make their money but also inherited it giving them a greater chance to actually get richer. What about the poor bloke who worked himself up from a low income family and is now making 300 000+ a year? Chances are he's put in more work than the other guy.
Look, the EU does notr fight together, some countries go to war while others stay behind and bitch. It is not the same thing not even close. Do not think that because you share a Euro that you areFatherTed wrote:
ffs, that's what was said before, and then highlighted just so you'd notice.lowing wrote:
I have not avoided anything, I simply do not agree, your EU is not the same as the US govt.Bertster7 wrote:
Not whatever, but lots of thigns that are not in their best interests certainly.
The UK contributes a lot to the CAP for example.
Anyway, you've entirely avoided the point of that post which was glaringly obvious, even to someone as obtuse as you.
I think we can agree that lobbying is one of the worst parts of our system, but the problem is that it is inevitable. Any representative form of government is going to have lobbyists. Wealthy people will always have more influence than working class people.lowing wrote:
You are speaking of lobbying and I am against it, it is also a different topicTurquoise wrote:
You're neglecting to mention the influence wealthy people can buy that working class people can't afford. Our system is somewhat plutocratic, just like any other system.lowing wrote:
and how can you not look at it as punishing achievment?
you have 2 individuals who live in the US
one person makes 20,000 a year didn't start a company has no vested interesting anything he is just along for the ride and pays for his freedoms
another who makes 1,000,000 a year took risks, employed others and brought economic stabilty to a community, yet he has to pay far more for the same freedoms as the other guy, who hasn't done shit, except ask the rich guy for a job. THe rich guy has to pay more EVEN after he has already contributed so much more to society. They are both free to do as they wish in this country, as it is, the more you do, the more you are punished for it. That is the bottom line.
If you succeed in business, the rewards are the money you make, but with that money, you can buy influence. That influence is not something that is earned.
If you believe everyone is equal on a fundamental level in terms of rights and representation, then any additional influence gained with money should be taxed. That is essentially what a graduated tax system does. It taxes that additional influence that wealth brings. It is not a punishment but instead an arbiter of social equality.
It's far from being a perfect system, but it seems to be one of the more practical ways of keeping the rich from having absolute rule over things.
The only realistic way to counter this somewhat is through graduated taxation. It doesn't solve the problem, but it places certain responsibilities on the wealthy.
The main problem I see with a flat tax or the fair tax is that they are conducive to feudalism. We talk a lot about the evils of socialism, but I think feudalism is much worse. It wasn't that long ago that feudalism was the norm for societies. Feudalism was even a lot of what inspired people to leave Europe and settle in the New World, because of the near absolute power it granted for the rich of those societies.
The problem right now is that the worse wealth disparity gets in this country, the closer we get to feudalism, where the rich call all the shots. These bailouts don't seem to be helping things much either in that respect. So, in my opinion, the least we can do is tax the rich more. They have a responsibility to pay more into a system that favors them.
No offense man but that's more stupid than not having an income tax. Anyways, I'm done here...too much tax talk for my little head.lowing wrote:
You shouldn't, our tax system sucks. I do not believe in income tax at all. Tax on what you spend should be all the govt. is entitled to...teddy..jimmy wrote:
Well what about the guy who made 300 000% why should you be able to take a greater value proportionately to his income? He has put efforts into making that money too.lowing wrote:
IT IS NOT YOUR MONEY TO TAKE, you should not be entitled to someone elses efforts simply because,well, he has it for the taking.
You also forget that a lot of the wealthy didn't just instantaneously make their money but also inherited it giving them a greater chance to actually get richer. What about the poor bloke who worked himself up from a low income family and is now making 300 000+ a year? Chances are he's put in more work than the other guy.
Remember original context.lowing wrote:
Look, the EU does notr fight together, some countries go to war while others stay behind and bitch. It is not the same thing not even close. Do not think that because you share a Euro that you areFatherTed wrote:
ffs, that's what was said before, and then highlighted just so you'd notice.lowing wrote:
I have not avoided anything, I simply do not agree, your EU is not the same as the US govt.
We are talking about Scandinavian influence in the social arena - how is any of that stuff about going to war relevant?Bertster7 wrote:
That's bullshit.lowing wrote:
Not many turn to Scandinavia for guidance in this world.
Scandanavia is extremely often looked to as an example of social programs working. Loads of other governments copy their social programs.
Going to war is hardly a social project - whereas many social programs and rights issues are very much under EU control.
Therefore Scandinavia has an impact on the largest social programs in the world - because the central parliament of the largest economic block in the world looks to them for guidance. Therefore your original point is complete twoddle.
The EU being the same as the US is completely irrelevant in this context.
Last edited by Bertster7 (2009-03-07 09:21:59)
you are still comparing apples and oranges. If France folds that does not mean England will tank, you are linked by a Euro, and can easily cut a man loose if they become a burdon. THe EU is not the same as the US. YOu can pick and choose what you want and what you don't from the EU it is not a take all or leave all proposal.Bertster7 wrote:
Remember original context.lowing wrote:
Look, the EU does notr fight together, some countries go to war while others stay behind and bitch. It is not the same thing not even close. Do not think that because you share a Euro that you areFatherTed wrote:
ffs, that's what was said before, and then highlighted just so you'd notice.We are talking about Scandinavian influence in the social arena - how is any of that stuff about going to war relevant?Bertster7 wrote:
That's bullshit.lowing wrote:
Not many turn to Scandinavia for guidance in this world.
Scandanavia is extremely often looked to as an example of social programs working. Loads of other governments copy their social programs.
Going to war is hardly a social project - whereas many social programs and rights issues are very much under EU control.
Therefore Scandinavia has an impact on the largest social programs in the world - because the central parliament of the largest economic block in the world looks to them for guidance. Therefore your original point is complete twoddle.
The EU being the same as the US is completely irrelevant in this context.
THerefore to compare the US and countries in the EU as having the same challenges and issues is rediculous.
It should not be a problem with a govt. "of the people, by the people, for the people". We need to go back to our roots. Our govt. has taken cotrol away from the people.Turquoise wrote:
I think we can agree that lobbying is one of the worst parts of our system, but the problem is that it is inevitable. Any representative form of government is going to have lobbyists. Wealthy people will always have more influence than working class people.lowing wrote:
You are speaking of lobbying and I am against it, it is also a different topicTurquoise wrote:
You're neglecting to mention the influence wealthy people can buy that working class people can't afford. Our system is somewhat plutocratic, just like any other system.
If you succeed in business, the rewards are the money you make, but with that money, you can buy influence. That influence is not something that is earned.
If you believe everyone is equal on a fundamental level in terms of rights and representation, then any additional influence gained with money should be taxed. That is essentially what a graduated tax system does. It taxes that additional influence that wealth brings. It is not a punishment but instead an arbiter of social equality.
It's far from being a perfect system, but it seems to be one of the more practical ways of keeping the rich from having absolute rule over things.
The only realistic way to counter this somewhat is through graduated taxation. It doesn't solve the problem, but it places certain responsibilities on the wealthy.
The main problem I see with a flat tax or the fair tax is that they are conducive to feudalism. We talk a lot about the evils of socialism, but I think feudalism is much worse. It wasn't that long ago that feudalism was the norm for societies. Feudalism was even a lot of what inspired people to leave Europe and settle in the New World, because of the near absolute power it granted for the rich of those societies.
The problem right now is that the worse wealth disparity gets in this country, the closer we get to feudalism, where the rich call all the shots. These bailouts don't seem to be helping things much either in that respect. So, in my opinion, the least we can do is tax the rich more. They have a responsibility to pay more into a system that favors them.
No I'm not.lowing wrote:
you are still comparing apples and oranges. If France folds that does not mean England will tank, you are linked by a Euro, and can easily cut a man loose if they become a burdon. THe EU is not the same as the US. YOu can pick and choose what you want and what you don't from the EU it is not a take all or leave all proposal.Bertster7 wrote:
Remember original context.lowing wrote:
Look, the EU does notr fight together, some countries go to war while others stay behind and bitch. It is not the same thing not even close. Do not think that because you share a Euro that you areWe are talking about Scandinavian influence in the social arena - how is any of that stuff about going to war relevant?Bertster7 wrote:
That's bullshit.
Scandanavia is extremely often looked to as an example of social programs working. Loads of other governments copy their social programs.
Going to war is hardly a social project - whereas many social programs and rights issues are very much under EU control.
Therefore Scandinavia has an impact on the largest social programs in the world - because the central parliament of the largest economic block in the world looks to them for guidance. Therefore your original point is complete twoddle.
The EU being the same as the US is completely irrelevant in this context.
THerefore to compare the US and countries in the EU as having the same challenges and issues is rediculous.
You said:
I disagreed. Because many do. The EU being a prime example. Since then you have just spewed forth a load of verbal diarrhoea about the EU not being the US. Regardless of that fact, it is composed of many more people and is economically more powerful. Therefore it is a bigger and more powerful entity than the US - or at least comparable in those terms. It is an entity that is (at least) as big and powerful as the US and looks to Scandanavia for guidance in many instances.lowing wrote:
Not many turn to Scandinavia for guidance in this world.
I haven't ever said they're the same. I've said there are many similarities and differences - but ultimately the EU is a vast political body which does look to Scandanavia for guidance.
Also, France and England linked by a Euro? Ha. Shows how up on your European politics you are.
Last edited by Bertster7 (2009-03-07 09:45:55)
Us and france use the same money?
since...?
since...?
Small hourglass island
Always raining and foggy
Use an umbrella
Always raining and foggy
Use an umbrella
Whilst in the dreamland you live in that's all well and good, sadly in reality society would probably collapse were the government simply to kill off income tax.lowing wrote:
You shouldn't, our tax system sucks. I do not believe in income tax at all. Tax on what you spend should be all the govt. is entitled to...teddy..jimmy wrote:
Well what about the guy who made 300 000% why should you be able to take a greater value proportionately to his income? He has put efforts into making that money too.lowing wrote:
IT IS NOT YOUR MONEY TO TAKE, you should not be entitled to someone elses efforts simply because,well, he has it for the taking.
You also forget that a lot of the wealthy didn't just instantaneously make their money but also inherited it giving them a greater chance to actually get richer. What about the poor bloke who worked himself up from a low income family and is now making 300 000+ a year? Chances are he's put in more work than the other guy.
Why would it? Several studies show user tax could work. The bad thing is the lower ranks will actually see a tax increase while the fat cats see an effective massive tax cut.ghettoperson wrote:
Whilst in the dreamland you live in that's all well and good, sadly in reality society would probably collapse were the government simply to kill off income tax.lowing wrote:
You shouldn't, our tax system sucks. I do not believe in income tax at all. Tax on what you spend should be all the govt. is entitled to...teddy..jimmy wrote:
Well what about the guy who made 300 000% why should you be able to take a greater value proportionately to his income? He has put efforts into making that money too.
You also forget that a lot of the wealthy didn't just instantaneously make their money but also inherited it giving them a greater chance to actually get richer. What about the poor bloke who worked himself up from a low income family and is now making 300 000+ a year? Chances are he's put in more work than the other guy.
It seems stupid to me to just tax the rich more, though, at this point I am not optimistic about anytihing the government is doing.lowing wrote:
1. We are on the verge of collapse because people refused to pay thier bills and it snowballed...teddy..jimmy wrote:
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?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.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.I also doubt anything that happens in Scandinavia will affect the globe.
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.
Well, if there's anything we can agree on... it's this...lowing wrote:
It should not be a problem with a govt. "of the people, by the people, for the people". We need to go back to our roots. Our govt. has taken cotrol away from the people.
off topic... I live right near the Golf Course he bought in Northern Va... Lowes Island Golf Course... 36 holes... It already was an awesome golf course...FatherTed wrote:
wonder if this means he might give up on that golfcourse
He paid 18 million for it according to news stories... Hope to play on it someday...lol...
and i don't know all the facts on Trump and the bank and the investors... Sounds like they are all pretty wealthy and all will have plenty of attorneys...
I like this...
"Investors were told last month their money was spent and they won't get a penny back. A single mother in suburban Los Angeles lost $200,000 and won't be able to send her sons to private universities. A Los Angeles-area businessman lost a deposit of more than $1 million on four Trump units, including two penthouses. "
a single mother might not be able to send her 2 sons to private school... wahhhhhh
She is a single mom who saved up 200k and all she thought to do was invest in a resort condo?
Maybe she should have focused on her sons education....?
and
"The bottom line in Mexico is caveat emptor, buyer beware," said Art Spaulding, an Irvine, Calif., real estate attorney who does business south of the border.
You pays your money.... you takes your chances....
and this rocket scientist
"I did it in less than a minute," said Mendoza, an administrator in the Los Angeles County Office of Education. "I remember my head was hurting and thinking, 'My God, what was that?' I was thinking maybe I should have asked questions. It was like a roller-coaster ride."
and
In response to a request to interview Donald and Ivanka Trump, the Trump Organization issued a statement that said its partner violated an agreement to license the Trump name, missing deadlines to obtain financing and begin construction.
Lets see how this all turns out in court...?
Last edited by [TUF]Catbox (2009-03-07 22:43:22)
Love is the answer
Not if the govt. streamlined itself and stopped with their pet projects that have nothing to do with the function of govt.ghettoperson wrote:
Whilst in the dreamland you live in that's all well and good, sadly in reality society would probably collapse were the government simply to kill off income tax.lowing wrote:
You shouldn't, our tax system sucks. I do not believe in income tax at all. Tax on what you spend should be all the govt. is entitled to...teddy..jimmy wrote:
Well what about the guy who made 300 000% why should you be able to take a greater value proportionately to his income? He has put efforts into making that money too.
You also forget that a lot of the wealthy didn't just instantaneously make their money but also inherited it giving them a greater chance to actually get richer. What about the poor bloke who worked himself up from a low income family and is now making 300 000+ a year? Chances are he's put in more work than the other guy.
Tax consumption, that is fair.
how so? IS the tax on yachts, planes, cars, property homes, resorts etc, not that high?ATG wrote:
Why would it? Several studies show user tax could work. The bad thing is the lower ranks will actually see a tax increase while the fat cats see an effective massive tax cut.ghettoperson wrote:
Whilst in the dreamland you live in that's all well and good, sadly in reality society would probably collapse were the government simply to kill off income tax.lowing wrote:
You shouldn't, our tax system sucks. I do not believe in income tax at all. Tax on what you spend should be all the govt. is entitled to.