kallend 1,799 #401 January 22, 2012 The only person you fool is yourself. I don't think you're even fooling rushmc. The Bush tax cuts overwhelmingly favored the wealthy. The gap between the super rich and everyone else is increasing. Your denials are silly.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #402 January 23, 2012 QuoteThe only person you fool is yourself. I don't think you're even fooling rushmc. The Bush tax cuts overwhelmingly favored the wealthy. Except the IRS numbes show it didn't. QuoteThe gap between the super rich and everyone else is increasing. So? QuoteYour denials are silly. I know, evidently I should just take *your* word for it....pass.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,271 #403 January 23, 2012 QuoteSo? Really? You see no potential problems with a very small minority owning the far majority of wealth? Specially in a form of government where the highest offices are protected and only available to those with access to incredibly large amounts of cash? If you honestly can tell yourself you don't see a potential problem with that, than indeed there is no issue with the widening wealth gap. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #404 January 23, 2012 QuoteQuoteSo? Really? You see no potential problems with a very small minority owning the far majority of wealth? They or their families worked for it and took the risks. QuoteIf you honestly can tell yourself you don't see a potential problem with that, than indeed there is no issue with the widening wealth gap. I see a far larger problem with people and politicians that think 'they have more than me' is a suitable reason to even attempt to take wealth vs income. Funny how it's always businesses and conservatives that are thought of as bad, and never folks like Soros....imagine that.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,271 #405 January 23, 2012 QuoteFunny how it's always businesses and conservatives that are thought of as bad, and never folks like Soros....imagine that Not at all. I think that wealth being held like that by the likes of Buffet is wrong as well. One of the reasons he has decided to give so much of it away is that he sees a risk in a small community holding the majority of wealth as well. QuoteThey or their families worked for it and took the risks. Which is completely beside the point. Creating a monopoly is never good for a society. A monopoly on wealth is no different. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #406 January 23, 2012 QuoteQuoteFunny how it's always businesses and conservatives that are thought of as bad, and never folks like Soros....imagine that Not at all. I think that wealth being held like that by the likes of Buffet is wrong as well. One of the reasons he has decided to give so much of it away is that he sees a risk in a small community holding the majority of wealth as well. So, Buffett deciding what to do with his money is good, so long it's passing out of his hands...and you don't see that as class envy? Interesting. QuoteQuoteThey or their families worked for it and took the risks. Which is completely beside the point. Creating a monopoly is never good for a society. A monopoly on wealth is no different. There *is* no monopoly on wealth, it's not a zero-sum game. Your argument smacks of more 'He has more than I do and it's *JUST NOT FAIR*" than any coherent argument against wealth.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,271 #407 January 23, 2012 QuoteSo, Buffett deciding what to do with his money is good, so long it's passing out of his hands... That's not what I wrote. QuoteThere *is* no monopoly on wealth, Not currently, I agree. Though when looking at the direction the path is heading, it is not a completely unlikely scenario. QuoteYour argument smacks of more 'He has more than I do and it's *JUST NOT FAIR*" than any coherent argument against wealth. That's because, that is what you want to read into it. Your first quote above is pretty decent proof of that. Some people will always have more than other people. I don't have an issue with that at all. I don't even have an issue with the current division of wealth. I do see issues with continued widening of the wealth gap and the progressive pace at which it has been occuring. I see the possibility of distinct future problems at the end of the current path if allowed to continue without change. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #408 January 23, 2012 QuoteOne of the reasons he has decided to give so much of it away is that he sees a risk in a small community holding the majority of wealth as well. How DARE he decide where and how to give his money away!!! How incredibly selfish of him. The fact that he's making the decision instead of the government just shows that he's a true Republican hiding in liberal's clothing. He's a complete hypocrit if he doesn't just write all these checks directly to the US Treasury. wry digression over.....my apologies to all ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #409 January 23, 2012 QuoteI see the possibility of distinct future problems at the end of the current path if allowed to continue without change. the irony is that the current path is enabled by liberal policies that only see short term effects but neglect long term results - and the people that do worry about the gap widening are the ones advocating doing even more of the same killing off small and medium sized business venture with ridiculous regs guarantees that only huge business survives - artificially and temporarily stimulating these same small and medium businesses and THEN killing them off makes it even worse ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #410 January 23, 2012 QuoteQuoteI see the possibility of distinct future problems at the end of the current path if allowed to continue without change. the irony is that the current path is enabled by liberal policies that only see short term effects but neglect long term results - and the people that do worry about the gap widening are the ones advocating doing even more of the same Additionally, Buffett made his (Bershire) fortune by looking at the longer term rather than to day trade. To buy and reform troubled companies rather than to buy and chop such bad assets. That said, when did he first start talking about taxation and inequity of wealth? Long after he made most of it. Same with Gates who was happy to build a monopoly and rape/pillage the IT world of smaller companies. These aren't death bed conversions, but they're certainly 10th hour ones. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #411 January 23, 2012 QuoteQuoteSo, Buffett deciding what to do with his money is good, so long it's passing out of his hands... That's not what I wrote. I'm sorry...how *else* was I supposed to interpret it, given your prior statements about the eeeeeevils of accumulated wealth? QuoteQuoteThere *is* no monopoly on wealth, Not currently, I agree. Though when looking at the direction the path is heading, it is not a completely unlikely scenario. And it's STILL not a zero sum game...thus no monopoly. Funny how you snipped that part out. QuoteQuoteYour argument smacks of more 'He has more than I do and it's *JUST NOT FAIR*" than any coherent argument against wealth. That's because, that is what you want to read into it. Your first quote above is pretty decent proof of that. Then by all mean, please show how your argument *ISN'T* simple class envy, because you haven't yet. QuoteSome people will always have more than other people. I don't have an issue with that at all. I don't even have an issue with the current division of wealth. I do see issues with continued widening of the wealth gap and the progressive pace at which it has been occuring. I see the possibility of distinct future problems at the end of the current path if allowed to continue without change. And yet *again*, it's not a zero-sum game so your point is invalid.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dreamdancer 0 #412 January 23, 2012 the rich have made it a zero sum game for the rest of us by taking an ever increasing proportion of the pie...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
billvon 2,684 #413 January 23, 2012 >That said, when did he first start talking about taxation and inequity of wealth? >Long after he made most of it. So we have established billionaires who want to raise taxes on the rich. And we have established billionaires who want lower taxes on the rich. And we have poor people who want to raise taxes on the rich. And we have poor people who want lower taxes on the rich. Sounds like maybe the meme that all rich people hate the poor (or that all poor people want to rape the rich) is about as valid as any other meme here. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dreamdancer 0 #414 January 23, 2012 the american settlers didn't hate the natives either...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
billvon 2,684 #415 January 23, 2012 >the american settlers didn't hate the natives either... And yet many poor hate the rich. Go figure. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,799 #416 January 24, 2012 QuoteQuoteThe only person you fool is yourself. I don't think you're even fooling rushmc. The Bush tax cuts overwhelmingly favored the wealthy. Except the IRS numbes show it didn't. . Incorrect. The only person you fool is yourself.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #417 January 24, 2012 QuoteQuoteQuoteThe only person you fool is yourself. I don't think you're even fooling rushmc. The Bush tax cuts overwhelmingly favored the wealthy. Except the IRS numbes show it didn't. . Incorrect. The only person you fool is yourself. I think I'll take the IRS' word over yours.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dreamdancer 0 #418 January 24, 2012 Quote>the american settlers didn't hate the natives either... And yet many poor hate the rich. Go figure. and many rich - for no reason - hate the poor. and it's the rich who have the power to change the tax system and subvert the government for their own gain...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 #419 January 24, 2012 you're sort of guy then... QuoteMr Romney, who led the private equity firm Bain Capital in the 1980s, enjoyed a lower tax rate than most Americans because his income came largely from returns on investments and capital gains. Under controversial reforms by George W. Bush, such income is taxed at a flat rate of 15 per cent. Regular earned income is subject to federal income tax of 35 per cent above $379,150 (£243,475). Mr Romney pays a similar rate of tax to someone earning about $60,000 (£38,600) through conventional income. Mr Romney was also able to cut his taxable income by almost $5 million (£3.2 million) because of losses carried over from previous years, thanks to a controversial rule. Pre-empting the issue during the debate, Mr Romney said: “I pay all the taxes that are legally required and not a dollar more”. He added: “I don’t think you want someone as the candidate for president who pays more taxes than he owes.” The returns showed that the Romneys had a string of foreign holdings including assets in the Cayman Islands, a famous tax haven, and that they held a bank account in Switzerland, which is renowned for its tax advantages and secretive accounting. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/us-election/9034528/US-election-2012-Mitt-Romney-paid-even-lower-tax-rate-than-previously-thought.htmlstay 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
kallend 1,799 #420 January 24, 2012 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteThe only person you fool is yourself. I don't think you're even fooling rushmc. The Bush tax cuts overwhelmingly favored the wealthy. Except the IRS numbes show it didn't. . Incorrect. The only person you fool is yourself. I think I'll take the IRS' word over yours. It's not the IRS's word, it's your INCORRECT interpretation of the data. You REALLY should take a class in statistics.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,271 #421 January 24, 2012 QuoteI'm sorry...how *else* was I supposed to interpret it By what I wrote, not by what you would like to read. QuoteAnd it's STILL not a zero sum game...thus no monopoly It doesn't have to be a zero sum game for there to be an effective monopoly on wealth (and with it power). QuoteThen by all mean, please show how your argument *ISN'T* simple class envy, You want me to prove to you that my argument is not secretely driven by emotion? I have already stated that not to eb true. Also stated I am quite comfortable with the current division of wealth, which already indicates no issues with class envy. If you aren't willing or able to actually address the main point, then there is no sense continuing this. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
matthewcline 0 #422 January 24, 2012 Quoteyou're sort of guy then... QuoteMr Romney, who led the private equity firm Bain Capital in the 1980s, enjoyed a lower tax rate than most Americans because his income came largely from returns on investments and capital gains. Under controversial reforms by George W. Bush, such income is taxed at a flat rate of 15 per cent. Regular earned income is subject to federal income tax of 35 per cent above $379,150 (£243,475). Mr Romney pays a similar rate of tax to someone earning about $60,000 (£38,600) through conventional income. Mr Romney was also able to cut his taxable income by almost $5 million (£3.2 million) because of losses carried over from previous years, thanks to a controversial rule. Pre-empting the issue during the debate, Mr Romney said: “I pay all the taxes that are legally required and not a dollar more”. He added: “I don’t think you want someone as the candidate for president who pays more taxes than he owes.” The returns showed that the Romneys had a string of foreign holdings including assets in the Cayman Islands, a famous tax haven, and that they held a bank account in Switzerland, which is renowned for its tax advantages and secretive accounting. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/us-election/9034528/US-election-2012-Mitt-Romney-paid-even-lower-tax-rate-than-previously-thought.html I got out of that article that he follows the law to the letter and pays what his is required too. MattAn Instructors first concern is student safety. So, start being safe, first!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,684 #423 January 24, 2012 >and many rich - for no reason - hate the poor. So the rich hate the poor and the poor hate the rich. We have finally achieved equality between the rich and the poor! At least in hate. Which is something. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
matthewcline 0 #424 January 24, 2012 Quote>and many rich - for no reason - hate the poor. So the rich hate the poor and the poor hate the rich. We have finally achieved equality between the rich and the poor! At least in hate. Which is something. And with this common ground, we can work towards a solution! MattAn Instructors first concern is student safety. So, start being safe, first!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dreamdancer 0 #425 January 24, 2012 Quote>and many rich - for no reason - hate the poor. So the rich hate the poor and the poor hate the rich. We have finally achieved equality between the rich and the poor! At least in hate. Which is something. you're the one who keeps on about hating...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
