proof that punishing the rich does not work

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5

Index »
Community »
Debate and Serious Talk »
proof that punishing the rich does not work

2009-05-19 05:28:00

Spark: liquid fluoride thorium reactor; +874|7083|Canberra, AUS

lowing wrote:
Spark wrote:
lowing wrote:
bottomline is folks, we have got to let the rich be rich, and not steal from them their money or incentive to produce.

We need them to continue to grow their businesses so we can continue to EARN ( note I said EARN) a living from their growth.

All that is happening with taxes such as this is removing the incentive for the rich to produce and grow. Nothing more.
And you haven't yet explained why someone earning a million a year is any less able to do such a thing than someone earning one and a half.
You hit the key word, the EARNED it, you didn't. It should not be for you to decide what should be done with others money simply because you don't have it. The rich do enough for society by providing jobs and opportunity for the rest of us. They should not be charged with baby sitting as well. they have lives they wish to get on with, lives they have WORKED FOR and EARNED. Why do you feel they should be obligated to spend their lives looking after the rest of us when they have already contributed MORE than anyone else to the growth of a community? How about you start pulling your own load before you insist on someone else taking up your slack

You haven't answered my question.

They are not obligated to spend the rest of their lives working for other people and no one said they should. You notice how they tend to have MORE than most? That would suggest that they have the ability to satisfy their own interests to a larger degree? I don't comprehend how paying income tax construes forced labour.

Oh, and by the way: earning wealth is not that fucking easy, if you hadn't noticed. Not anyone can do it.

Last edited by Spark (2009-05-19 05:29:06)

The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
^{~ Richard Feynman}

2009-05-19 07:12:19

oug: Calmer than you are.; +380|6927|Πάϊ

lowing wrote:
The poors incentive to produce is taken away by your insistance that they get paid for nothing, for NOT producing.

I don't insist that they get paid for nothing. Where did I say that? Where I'm from people don't work only for luxury items. They work because they have to. To survive. I'm sure that is the case all around the world. If not then tell me where people get paid to do nothing and I'm moving there right away.

lowing wrote:
The rich spend, they spend way more than you do.

The rich don't spend more than me. The rich are 2% of the planet's population. On the other hand, "me" being middle to lower class, (that is probably the majority of the people worldwide) I'd say fairly surely that I spend a lot more than them.

lowing wrote:
So you really are suggesting that we live in a country where if you refuse to spend your money it will taken from you and soent for you? How about you? when do we get to come after your investments and savings?

No, I'm not suggesting that either. Although technically speaking, the government is coming after my puny savings in a percentage much higher than the rich folks'.

In essence, if the majority of the people cannot afford to spend for their basic needs then the economy will crumple as it cannot rely on the spending of an elite for luxury items. And it is the government's job to make sure that the masses do get the basics.

_ƒ³

2009-05-19 07:44:39

lowing: Banned; +1,662|7060|USA

Spark wrote:
lowing wrote:
Spark wrote:

And you haven't yet explained why someone earning a million a year is any less able to do such a thing than someone earning one and a half.
You hit the key word, the EARNED it, you didn't. It should not be for you to decide what should be done with others money simply because you don't have it. The rich do enough for society by providing jobs and opportunity for the rest of us. They should not be charged with baby sitting as well. they have lives they wish to get on with, lives they have WORKED FOR and EARNED. Why do you feel they should be obligated to spend their lives looking after the rest of us when they have already contributed MORE than anyone else to the growth of a community? How about you start pulling your own load before you insist on someone else taking up your slack
You haven't answered my question.

They are not obligated to spend the rest of their lives working for other people and no one said they should. You notice how they tend to have MORE than most? That would suggest that they have the ability to satisfy their own interests to a larger degree? I don't comprehend how paying income tax construes forced labour.

Oh, and by the way: earning wealth is not that fucking easy, if you hadn't noticed. Not anyone can do it.

Ok I am lost with your argument, I have no idea what the hell you are arguing or your point.

2009-05-19 07:49:41

lowing: Banned; +1,662|7060|USA

oug wrote:
lowing wrote:
The poors incentive to produce is taken away by your insistance that they get paid for nothing, for NOT producing.
I don't insist that they get paid for nothing. Where did I say that? Where I'm from people don't work only for luxury items. They work because they have to. To survive. I'm sure that is the case all around the world. If not then tell me where people get paid to do nothing and I'm moving there right away.

lowing wrote:
The rich spend, they spend way more than you do.
The rich don't spend more than me. The rich are 2% of the planet's population. On the other hand, "me" being middle to lower class, (that is probably the majority of the people worldwide) I'd say fairly surely that I spend a lot more than them.

lowing wrote:
So you really are suggesting that we live in a country where if you refuse to spend your money it will taken from you and soent for you? How about you? when do we get to come after your investments and savings?
No, I'm not suggesting that either. Although technically speaking, the government is coming after my puny savings in a percentage much higher than the rich folks'.

In essence, if the majority of the people cannot afford to spend for their basic needs then the economy will crumple as it cannot rely on the spending of an elite for luxury items. And it is the government's job to make sure that the masses do get the basics.

you= generally speaking. I am quite sure no one cares what YOU as an individual has to say about it.

you are wrong, pound for pound, the rich spend more on a car than you will on a house. They buy planes, yachts, mansions etc..you do not spend more than they do. Although I will bet you probably CHARGE more than they do.

Then perhaps the "majority", should live within their means, stop buys shit on credit, and stop expecting the rich to cover their tab. The rich provide us with jobs, what we do with our earnings is not their responsibility.

2009-05-19 07:53:31

AussieReaper: ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°); +5,761|6561|what

lowing wrote:
Ok I am lost with your argument, I have no idea what the hell you are arguing or your point.

Lowing, does earning a million pa mean that an individual has worked to earn exactly one million? Otherwise he didn't earn it fairly.

You should know very well that there is disparity between a females wages and a males. If I woman can't make as much as a man, even when she has worked identical to the man, what makes you think a millionaire has worked a hundred times better than someone who made $10 thousand for the year?

Your belief that they have worked to earn a million a year is flawed as soon as you believe they worked hard to earn it while someone could work harder and make nowhere near that figure.

2009-05-19 07:55:41

Cybargs: Moderated; +2,285|7124

lowing wrote:
Cybargs wrote:
lowing wrote:

You hit the key word, the EARNED it
Or get it from Daddy.
ya mean like Ted Kennedy?

Anyway, it is daddy's money to give, not yours. I sense wealth envy. If you love wealth so much, go earn it, don't steal it.

=/ Wealth envy lol. Not to brag but, my family has always been wealthy pre-ww2. Chinese class society favored me ftw.

But still, great wealth disparities make shit worst, not better. Having a smaller range in distribution of wealth makes the country better.

https://cache.www.gametracker.com/server_info/203.46.105.23:21300/b_350_20_692108_381007_FFFFFF_000000.png

2009-05-19 08:06:44

Flecco: iPod is broken.; +1,048|7073|NT, like Mick Dundee

Cybargs wrote:
lowing wrote:
Cybargs wrote:

Or get it from Daddy.
ya mean like Ted Kennedy?

Anyway, it is daddy's money to give, not yours. I sense wealth envy. If you love wealth so much, go earn it, don't steal it.
=/ Wealth envy lol. Not to brag but, my family has always been wealthy pre-ww2. Chinese class society favored me ftw.

But still, great wealth disparities make shit worst, not better. Having a smaller range in distribution of wealth makes the country better.

Enemy Switzerland spotted!

Whoa... Can't believe these forums are still kicking.

2009-05-19 08:40:08

oug: Calmer than you are.; +380|6927|Πάϊ

lowing wrote:
you= generally speaking. I am quite sure no one cares what YOU as an individual has to say about it.

you are wrong, pound for pound, the rich spend more on a car than you will on a house. They buy planes, yachts, mansions etc..you do not spend more than they do. Although I will bet you probably CHARGE more than they do.

Then perhaps the "majority", should live within their means, stop buys shit on credit, and stop expecting the rich to cover their tab. The rich provide us with jobs, what we do with our earnings is not their responsibility.

I didn't take it personally, I just pointed out that I - like most of us - belong to the middle class. Which spends a lot more than the 2% of rich people in the world. Do you honestly believe that 2% of people spend more than the other 70%?

Btw I didn't get that "CHARGE" bit... sounded like an accusation. Care to explain?

Also, the rich have nothing to do with our jobs, the poor are not poor only because of bad management, and the rich don't cover anybody's tab.

_ƒ³

2009-05-19 09:04:40

DrunkFace: Germans did 911; +427|7089|Disaster Free Zone

lowing wrote:
you= generally speaking. I am quite sure no one cares what YOU as an individual has to say about it.

you are wrong, pound for pound, the rich spend more on a car than you will on a house. They buy planes, yachts, mansions etc..you do not spend more than they do. Although I will bet you probably CHARGE more than they do.

Then perhaps the "majority", should live within their means, stop buys shit on credit, and stop expecting the rich to cover their tab. The rich provide us with jobs, what we do with our earnings is not their responsibility.

The rich don't provide jobs, companies do.

2009-05-19 09:06:40

Cybargs: Moderated; +2,285|7124

DrunkFace wrote:
lowing wrote:
you= generally speaking. I am quite sure no one cares what YOU as an individual has to say about it.

you are wrong, pound for pound, the rich spend more on a car than you will on a house. They buy planes, yachts, mansions etc..you do not spend more than they do. Although I will bet you probably CHARGE more than they do.

Then perhaps the "majority", should live within their means, stop buys shit on credit, and stop expecting the rich to cover their tab. The rich provide us with jobs, what we do with our earnings is not their responsibility.
The rich don't provide jobs, companies do.

Goddamit

2009-05-19 09:18:52

mikkel: Member; +383|7009

DrunkFace wrote:
lowing wrote:
you= generally speaking. I am quite sure no one cares what YOU as an individual has to say about it.

you are wrong, pound for pound, the rich spend more on a car than you will on a house. They buy planes, yachts, mansions etc..you do not spend more than they do. Although I will bet you probably CHARGE more than they do.

Then perhaps the "majority", should live within their means, stop buys shit on credit, and stop expecting the rich to cover their tab. The rich provide us with jobs, what we do with our earnings is not their responsibility.
The rich don't provide jobs, companies do.

Companies funded by investment capital that magically appeared out of nowhere and made its way to the corporate accounts.

2009-05-19 09:37:36

Pug: UR father's brother's nephew's former roommate; +652|6950|Texas - Bigger than France

Being rich is wrong, while being poor is bad.

If we could just make everyone average, that would be great.

2009-05-19 09:38:04

DrunkFace: Germans did 911; +427|7089|Disaster Free Zone

The majority of jobs are from small businesses where the owners pay themselves a livable wage but reinvest most of the profits into the business which means they are neither taxed on their personal income nor on the business income.

Large corporations start to grow mainly using debt finance until thy get big enough to float on the share market where it is other businesses primarily which invest in them. There are some but very few examples of where 1 person controls a business, the 'rich' are usually just the people highly placed in the large organisations getting million dollar salaries for doing very little to warrant it. Then there are those who just invest in the futures/share/commodities markets which helps next to no one but themselves.

2009-05-19 09:57:37

lowing: Banned; +1,662|7060|USA

AussieReaper wrote:
lowing wrote:
Ok I am lost with your argument, I have no idea what the hell you are arguing or your point.
Lowing, does earning a million pa mean that an individual has worked to earn exactly one million? Otherwise he didn't earn it fairly.

You should know very well that there is disparity between a females wages and a males. If I woman can't make as much as a man, even when she has worked identical to the man, what makes you think a millionaire has worked a hundred times better than someone who made $10 thousand for the year?

Your belief that they have worked to earn a million a year is flawed as soon as you believe they worked hard to earn it while someone could work harder and make nowhere near that figure.

Nope, he is worth it because someone felt his services warranted it. regardless, he was paid, the money is still his. Or are you now pushing for earnings caps in the private sector with a govt. agency determaining ones worth?

2009-05-19 09:58:38

lowing: Banned; +1,662|7060|USA

Cybargs wrote:
lowing wrote:
Cybargs wrote:
Or get it from Daddy.
ya mean like Ted Kennedy?

Anyway, it is daddy's money to give, not yours. I sense wealth envy. If you love wealth so much, go earn it, don't steal it.
=/ Wealth envy lol. Not to brag but, my family has always been wealthy pre-ww2. Chinese class society favored me ftw.

But still, great wealth disparities make shit worst, not better. Having a smaller range in distribution of wealth makes the country better.

Providing jobs, and opportunity is what closes the gap, not wealth redistribution.

2009-05-19 10:00:01

lowing: Banned; +1,662|7060|USA

oug wrote:
lowing wrote:
you= generally speaking. I am quite sure no one cares what YOU as an individual has to say about it.

you are wrong, pound for pound, the rich spend more on a car than you will on a house. They buy planes, yachts, mansions etc..you do not spend more than they do. Although I will bet you probably CHARGE more than they do.

Then perhaps the "majority", should live within their means, stop buys shit on credit, and stop expecting the rich to cover their tab. The rich provide us with jobs, what we do with our earnings is not their responsibility.
I didn't take it personally, I just pointed out that I - like most of us - belong to the middle class. Which spends a lot more than the 2% of rich people in the world. Do you honestly believe that 2% of people spend more than the other 70%?

Btw I didn't get that "CHARGE" bit... sounded like an accusation. Care to explain?

Also, the rich have nothing to do with our jobs, the poor are not poor only because of bad management, and the rich don't cover anybody's tab.

The rich have nothingto do with our jobs? Just exactly who do you think starts these companies that we all work for? Where do you think the backing for such ventures come from? The poor?

2009-05-19 10:01:02

lowing: Banned; +1,662|7060|USA

DrunkFace wrote:
lowing wrote:
you= generally speaking. I am quite sure no one cares what YOU as an individual has to say about it.

you are wrong, pound for pound, the rich spend more on a car than you will on a house. They buy planes, yachts, mansions etc..you do not spend more than they do. Although I will bet you probably CHARGE more than they do.

Then perhaps the "majority", should live within their means, stop buys shit on credit, and stop expecting the rich to cover their tab. The rich provide us with jobs, what we do with our earnings is not their responsibility.
The rich don't provide jobs, companies do.

I will let you think about that for awhile then give you a chance to take it back.

2009-05-19 10:34:49

Bertster7: Confused Pothead; +1,101|6990|SE London

lowing wrote:
Bertster7 wrote:
lowing wrote:

Your denial is amusing.

millionaire filing has dropped by a 1/3 from 3000 down to 2000. in the same time period as the previous year.

http://www.stumbleupon.com/toolbar/#top … rking.html

everyone seems to see it but you. Oh well.
Not at all. The REPUBLICANS in Maryland are the only ones saying it's an issue. Which is to be expected. The article says nothing of the sort.

Returns filed are down, but since the deadline (with extensions) is not till October, that is meaningless. Especially considering there are 6000 people affected by this, so last year only half the returns were filed by this point anyway, whereas now it is a 3rd. After the deadline is reached then we will see.
http://forums.bf2s.com/viewtopic.php?pi … 9#p2637789
wrong not just republicans

Not wrong. Those quotes are taken from a year ago and are forecasts NOT analysis of the tax receipts data.

As I've said, all this is virtually meaningless until the final deadline in October.

2009-05-19 10:57:14

lowing: Banned; +1,662|7060|USA

Bertster7 wrote:
lowing wrote:
Bertster7 wrote:

Not at all. The REPUBLICANS in Maryland are the only ones saying it's an issue. Which is to be expected. The article says nothing of the sort.

Returns filed are down, but since the deadline (with extensions) is not till October, that is meaningless. Especially considering there are 6000 people affected by this, so last year only half the returns were filed by this point anyway, whereas now it is a 3rd. After the deadline is reached then we will see.
http://forums.bf2s.com/viewtopic.php?pi … 9#p2637789
wrong not just republicans
Not wrong. Those quotes are taken from a year ago and are forecasts NOT analysis of the tax receipts data.

As I've said, all this is virtually meaningless until the final deadline in October.

ok so when you fall off of a high rise I will not call you a dead man until you have been "analysed" and determined to be so just cuz, ya never know

2009-05-19 11:05:46

Bertster7: Confused Pothead; +1,101|6990|SE London

lowing wrote:
Bertster7 wrote:
lowing wrote:

http://forums.bf2s.com/viewtopic.php?pi … 9#p2637789
wrong not just republicans
Not wrong. Those quotes are taken from a year ago and are forecasts NOT analysis of the tax receipts data.

As I've said, all this is virtually meaningless until the final deadline in October.
ok so when you fall off of a high rise I will not call you a dead man until you have been "analysed" and determined to be so just cuz, ya never know

'Cos that's completely the same isn't it?

I can't say I'm surprised by this kind of naivety and disregard for facts from you though.

The way you take an incomplete dataset and claim it is incontrovertable proof for your beliefs is laughable. It is possible that total revenues for the year in that bracket could exceed last years - you can't tell till the end of the year (admittedly that would be exceptionally unlikely - but is still possible). It's not like quarterly profit reports for businesses, which are far more meaningful than any of this.

2009-05-19 15:40:27

AussieReaper: ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°); +5,761|6561|what

lowing wrote:
AussieReaper wrote:
lowing wrote:
Ok I am lost with your argument, I have no idea what the hell you are arguing or your point.
Lowing, does earning a million pa mean that an individual has worked to earn exactly one million? Otherwise he didn't earn it fairly.

You should know very well that there is disparity between a females wages and a males. If I woman can't make as much as a man, even when she has worked identical to the man, what makes you think a millionaire has worked a hundred times better than someone who made $10 thousand for the year?

Your belief that they have worked to earn a million a year is flawed as soon as you believe they worked hard to earn it while someone could work harder and make nowhere near that figure.
Nope, he is worth it because someone felt his services warranted it. regardless, he was paid, the money is still his. Or are you now pushing for earnings caps in the private sector with a govt. agency determaining ones worth?

Who thought he was worth it? Another CEO? The shareholders?

I'm sure you'll find it's the shareholders who invest heavily into a company that have less say about what the CEO makes than his mates at the top who all vote to give each other pay rises...

You failed to answer my question though, "does earning a million pa mean that an individual has worked to earn exactly one million?" Otherwise he didn't earn it fairly.

2009-05-19 15:45:27

lowing: Banned; +1,662|7060|USA

Bertster7 wrote:
lowing wrote:
Bertster7 wrote:

Not wrong. Those quotes are taken from a year ago and are forecasts NOT analysis of the tax receipts data.

As I've said, all this is virtually meaningless until the final deadline in October.
ok so when you fall off of a high rise I will not call you a dead man until you have been "analysed" and determined to be so just cuz, ya never know
'Cos that's completely the same isn't it?

I can't say I'm surprised by this kind of naivety and disregard for facts from you though.

The way you take an incomplete dataset and claim it is incontrovertable proof for your beliefs is laughable. It is possible that total revenues for the year in that bracket could exceed last years - you can't tell till the end of the year (admittedly that would be exceptionally unlikely - but is still possible). It's not like quarterly profit reports for businesses, which are far more meaningful than any of this.

The phrase " the writting is on the wall" comes to mind. But again don't let the obvious steam roll ya.

2009-05-19 15:50:41

lowing: Banned; +1,662|7060|USA

AussieReaper wrote:
lowing wrote:
AussieReaper wrote:

Lowing, does earning a million pa mean that an individual has worked to earn exactly one million? Otherwise he didn't earn it fairly.

You should know very well that there is disparity between a females wages and a males. If I woman can't make as much as a man, even when she has worked identical to the man, what makes you think a millionaire has worked a hundred times better than someone who made $10 thousand for the year?

Your belief that they have worked to earn a million a year is flawed as soon as you believe they worked hard to earn it while someone could work harder and make nowhere near that figure.
Nope, he is worth it because someone felt his services warranted it. regardless, he was paid, the money is still his. Or are you now pushing for earnings caps in the private sector with a govt. agency determaining ones worth?
Who thought he was worth it? Another CEO? The shareholders?

I'm sure you'll find it's the shareholders who invest heavily into a company that have less say about what the CEO makes than his mates at the top who all vote to give each other pay rises...

You failed to answer my question though, "does earning a million pa mean that an individual has worked to earn exactly one million?" Otherwise he didn't earn it fairly.

It does not matter who thought he was worth it. He is under contract with the company and his salary was agreed upon Period. If the company didn't think he was worth it, his offer would reflect it, and he would then have a choice to re-negotiate or refuse.

I did answer your question. Here it is again. He is worth it because he was PAID it. and again I will ask. What govt. agency do you suggest for overseeing "fairness" and greed?

2009-05-19 15:58:13

AussieReaper: ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°); +5,761|6561|what

lowing wrote:
It does not matter who thought he was worth it. He is under contract with the company and his salary was agreed upon Period. If the company didn't think he was worth it, his offer would reflect it, and he would then have a choice to re-negotiate or refuse.

I did answer your question. Here it is again. He is worth it because he was PAID it. and again I will ask. What govt. agency do you suggest for overseeing "fairness" and greed?

How about Australia's Royal Commission for Consumer Affairs? They often have to deal with CEO pay packets that reward failure and limits into an executives salary are a serious option for failing or fraudulent businesses.

The CEO of GM received how much money?

GM paid Wagoner a salary of $1.6 million in 2007, along with $1.8 million in non-equity incentive compensation and nearly $700,000 for other compensation that includes insurance benefits, security, aircraft expenses and other factors.

GM, which reported a record $39 billion net loss in 2007, released the figures in a proxy statement on Friday afternoon that was filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

Source

Did he earn over $1.6 million in 2007, just because his fellow CEO chairman said he did?

GM recorded a loss of $39 billion that year. Money which came from the pockets of the middle class, the investors, the workers, the tax payers...

Surely if you think he "earned" over $3 million a year just because someone else said so, you have no problem with his salary?

Last edited by AussieReaper (2009-05-19 15:59:41)

2009-05-19 16:01:25

Man With No Name: جندي; +148|5983|The Wild West

GM = Socialism for CEOs

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5

Index »
Community »
Debate and Serious Talk »
proof that punishing the rich does not work

Board footer

Jump to

BF2S Forums proof that punishing the rich does not work

lowing wrote:

Spark wrote:

lowing wrote:

lowing wrote:

lowing wrote:

lowing wrote:

Spark wrote:

lowing wrote:

Spark wrote:

oug wrote:

lowing wrote:

lowing wrote:

lowing wrote:

lowing wrote:

lowing wrote:

Cybargs wrote:

lowing wrote:

Cybargs wrote:

lowing wrote:

Cybargs wrote:

lowing wrote:

lowing wrote:

DrunkFace wrote:

lowing wrote:

DrunkFace wrote:

lowing wrote:

AussieReaper wrote:

lowing wrote:

Cybargs wrote:

lowing wrote:

Cybargs wrote:

oug wrote:

lowing wrote:

DrunkFace wrote:

lowing wrote:

lowing wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

lowing wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

lowing wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

lowing wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

lowing wrote:

lowing wrote:

AussieReaper wrote:

lowing wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

lowing wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

AussieReaper wrote:

lowing wrote:

AussieReaper wrote:

lowing wrote:

Board footer