loumeinhart 0 #51 March 15, 2010 Quotethat's a very long copy and paste Have you seen yours? I propose 2 questions to DreamDancer (He won't answer them) 1. What income level deems someone the "wealthiest" 2. What should their tax rate be? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
loumeinhart 0 #52 March 15, 2010 Quotethe life expectancy of its citizens is only slightly less than a us citizen - not bad for a little place then why do they row to Florida on sticks Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
loumeinhart 0 #53 March 15, 2010 QuoteBullshit, Blackwater, Halliburton and all those super rich government contractors are using your tax money. wait wait wait a second... Haliburton is "super rich" and Dreamdancer wants the "super rich" to pay more taxes. So does that mean that the "super rich" just pay taxes to themselves??? My brain is gonna explooode! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Royd 0 #54 March 15, 2010 QuoteHow do we even wrap our minds around a number so large? Here’s the example that brings it down to earth for me. If we had progressive taxes that reduced their wealth to a trifling $100 million each, we’d have enough money to set up a trust fund whose interest could provide tuition-free higher education for students at every public college and university in perpetuity. Imagine that. Our kids could actually leave college without carrying tens of thousands of dollars of debt on their backs. Could those 400 special people be able to get by on just $100 million a year? I think they might.What we'd have is a bunch of do nothing socialists, who were given something worth thousands of dollars, which they saw no real value in, and graduated college, not being able to read or write, any better than when they left high school...They probably would know how to carry a protest sign, and tell the world that it was unfair, that they had to show up, to the campus, to get a worthless diploma. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Royd 0 #55 March 15, 2010 Quotehave you heard, for instance, that cuba still prospers. or that some countries have national health services for rich and poor alike) I've got an old '77 Dodge truck, that I plan on putting pontoons on, and floating there, for my new job and health care. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
loumeinhart 0 #56 March 15, 2010 Quote1. What income level deems someone the "wealthiest" 2. What should their tax rate be? UPDATE: nothing so far from dreamdancer. I hope he calls Madonna (net worth 350million) or Tim Robbins (net worth 45 million) and lets them know that he wants to tax them as much as possible to pay for government spending. I can't wait for that conversation. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Belgian_Draft 0 #57 March 15, 2010 Actually we should not be afraid to tax the super rich because if we don't then lazy people will get mad they will fly right at us and get tangled in our hair and bite us and give us West Nile and rabies and we'll all go sterile as a result and there will be nobody left to do all the work and OH! THE HUGE MANATEE! HAMMER: Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the object we are trying to hit. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Halfpastniner 0 #58 March 15, 2010 Quote Quote the life expectancy of its citizens is only slightly less than a us citizen - not bad for a little place then why do they row to Florida on sticks BASE 1384 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rhys 0 #59 March 15, 2010 QuoteUPDATE: nothing so far from dreamdancer. I hope he calls Madonna (net worth 350million) or Tim Robbins (net worth 45 million) and lets them know that he wants to tax them as much as possible to pay for government spending. I can't wait for that conversation. Wake up call; $45 million is a pittance compared to the lucrative US military contracts that are raping your economy. $350 million is most defiantely getting up there... When you talk about the ‘entities’ that are taking $billions, then you are on the right track. These people own your media, and they own you. It is your money they use against you for their gain. Madonna and the other celebrities are extremely wealthy and they should contribute their fair share, but they are small fry compared to those that influence and to a certain extent control your country and many others around that world."When the power of love overcomes the love of power, then the world will see peace." - 'Jimi' Hendrix Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pirana 0 #60 March 15, 2010 Quote that's a very long copy and paste (have you heard, for instance, that cuba still prospers. or that some countries have national health services for rich and poor alike) Your generalities are showing. Cuba prospers? Compared to where, maybe Zimbabwe?" . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pirana 0 #61 March 15, 2010 Quote time to tax them more then What do you consider their "fair share" and explain how you arrive at that amount. Would it be whatever it takes, regardless of cost? Is there a ceiling, or would you just take all their money if that is what it might take? Would you just give the money directly to the poor so they can go shopping, or would you increase the size of government by some ungodly amount and add to the bureacracy?" . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bolas 5 #62 March 15, 2010 While we need to cut spending AND increase taxes across the board, I see no reason to do so until we can get our spending under control. At this point any tax increase would simply be used as a justification to spend even more. Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Belgian_Draft 0 #63 March 15, 2010 Quote Wake up call; $45 million is a pittance compared to the lucrative US military contracts that are raping your economy. $350 million is most defiantely getting up there... Yes, most defiantely. Exactly what does that mean? HAMMER: Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the object we are trying to hit. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #64 March 15, 2010 Quote Quote Quote Could those 400 special people be able to get by on just $100 million a year? I think they might. There is a BIG problem with that logic. If tax rates/laws were changed so that a person earning a billion a year was taxed at 90%, leaving just 100 mil, then the next year that same person would change their actions so that there just wouldn't be as much income to tax at 90%, so the tax revenue generated just wouldn't be there the second time around. Not only that, but all the economic activity generated by that super rich person's billion dollar salary would no longer be there. If you want less of something, then increase the taxes on that activity. If all you care for is to generate tax revenue for one year and to punish the rich, then your plan would be great. Besides that, it is not effective and would ruin the economy. all those smart students would have extra money in their pockets to spend (rather than paying off debt). this money will stimulate the economy from the ground up rather than relying on the non existent 'trickle down' from the super rich (who mysteriously manage to get richer and richer and richer until...) They wouldn't have any extra money. You propose taking 2.3rds of the wealth of these top 400 people. That translates to about 800B. That would have reduced last year's deficit to 600B, still roughly 50% worse than the year prior. Better than the 350% increase, but still not any extra money. Just less debt. And of course, this is a one time deal, as those people immediately tell the world to fuck off. The deficit again zooms up over a trillion dollars. Worse as you've again reduced government income. Buffer retires - something that all Bershire investors have been fearing for a long time. You can invest in B-H for $82 right, DD. Well, until your retarded tax was applied. Now you're back to Tbills and money markets getting less than 1%. At least you'll have toilet paper. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dreamdancer 0 #65 March 15, 2010 Quote Quote Quote Quote Could those 400 special people be able to get by on just $100 million a year? I think they might. There is a BIG problem with that logic. If tax rates/laws were changed so that a person earning a billion a year was taxed at 90%, leaving just 100 mil, then the next year that same person would change their actions so that there just wouldn't be as much income to tax at 90%, so the tax revenue generated just wouldn't be there the second time around. Not only that, but all the economic activity generated by that super rich person's billion dollar salary would no longer be there. If you want less of something, then increase the taxes on that activity. If all you care for is to generate tax revenue for one year and to punish the rich, then your plan would be great. Besides that, it is not effective and would ruin the economy. all those smart students would have extra money in their pockets to spend (rather than paying off debt). this money will stimulate the economy from the ground up rather than relying on the non existent 'trickle down' from the super rich (who mysteriously manage to get richer and richer and richer until...) They wouldn't have any extra money. You propose taking 2.3rds of the wealth of these top 400 people. That translates to about 800B. That would have reduced last year's deficit to 600B, still roughly 50% worse than the year prior. Better than the 350% increase, but still not any extra money. Just less debt. And of course, this is a one time deal, as those people immediately tell the world to fuck off. The deficit again zooms up over a trillion dollars. Worse as you've again reduced government income. Buffer retires - something that all Bershire investors have been fearing for a long time. You can invest in B-H for $82 right, DD. Well, until your retarded tax was applied. Now you're back to Tbills and money markets getting less than 1%. At least you'll have toilet paper. if they're not paying off debt then they have that money to spend - simple economics and what are the super rich going to do to tell us to 'fuck off'?stay away from moving propellers - they bite blue skies from thai sky adventures good solid response-provoking keyboarding Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dreamdancer 0 #66 March 15, 2010 Quote So, are you going to enlighten us with all these secrets you are withholding on how the real world works, or are you going to keep us in the dark so you can feel "powerful"for belonging in your club of superknowledge. the ten thousand year old 'money wave' is peaking stay away from moving propellers - they bite blue skies from thai sky adventures good solid response-provoking keyboarding Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dreamdancer 0 #67 March 15, 2010 QuoteMy brain is gonna explooode! everyone stand back!stay away from moving propellers - they bite blue skies from thai sky adventures good solid response-provoking keyboarding Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dreamdancer 0 #68 March 15, 2010 Quote What we'd have is a bunch of do nothing socialists. just call them bankers and your terminological problem is solved stay away from moving propellers - they bite blue skies from thai sky adventures good solid response-provoking keyboarding Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pirana 0 #69 March 15, 2010 So what is your answer to how much they should pay? Is there a ceiling? How will the money be used?" . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dreamdancer 0 #70 March 15, 2010 they're allowed to keep 100 million. the money will be used for a trust fund to pay for the education of all college students (as already explained in this thread) stay away from moving propellers - they bite blue skies from thai sky adventures good solid response-provoking keyboarding Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #71 March 15, 2010 Quote they're allowed to keep 100 million. the money will be used for a trust fund to pay for the education of all college students (as already explained in this thread) Now you just need to explain WHY the college students can't pay their own way.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dreamdancer 0 #72 March 15, 2010 no, you need to explain why the super rich shouldn't pay more to the society that made them rich stay away from moving propellers - they bite blue skies from thai sky adventures good solid response-provoking keyboarding Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #73 March 15, 2010 Quote no, you need to explain why the super rich shouldn't pay more to the society that made them rich Not playing that game, sorry - I'll take your reply in the usual light - that you CAN'T justify your statement.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dreamdancer 0 #74 March 15, 2010 Quote Quote no, you need to explain why the super rich shouldn't pay more to the society that made them rich Not playing that game, sorry - I'll take your reply in the usual light - that you CAN'T justify your statement. read the thread title - then decide whether you want to contribute anything meaningful stay away from moving propellers - they bite blue skies from thai sky adventures good solid response-provoking keyboarding Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #75 March 15, 2010 Quote Quote Quote no, you need to explain why the super rich shouldn't pay more to the society that made them rich Not playing that game, sorry - I'll take your reply in the usual light - that you CAN'T justify your statement. read the thread title - then decide whether you want to contribute anything meaningful You're advocating taking the fruits of a person's labor and giving it to someone else that had nothing to do with earning it - I thought you were against slavery, Kevin? (not to mention this latest idea being completely against that whole 'karmic accounting' thing you were so big on a month or so ago)Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
