3rdnlng Posted March 3, 2011 Share Posted March 3, 2011 Let me guess your classroom was also the "resource room" and you rode on the "resource bus" (short bus). I don't know what a resource room is other than a library and we had no need of short buses where I grew up. Furthermore, from the way you express yourself I think you would be the one more likely to have ridden on the short bus. (and maybe still do) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted March 3, 2011 Share Posted March 3, 2011 There IS NOT a finite amount of wealth in the world. Yeah, actually, there is. Wealth is the accumulation of value of resources or labor, neither of which is limitless. And Moore's a !@#$ing hypocrite...again. He gets rich exploiting people's ignorance by bitching about the rich getting rich by exploiting people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene Frenkle Posted March 3, 2011 Share Posted March 3, 2011 Want to think about that statement? I think that the first line actually refers to the rounding up of communists, but 'Jews' seemed more effective. I guess you might be referring to the fact that Jews were resented in Germany because of their perceived wealth? Interesting point, but I don't see the Third Reich equivalent gaining power in America unless Tea Party membership grows substantially in the next few years. I don't know what a resource room is other than a library and we had no need of short buses where I grew up. Furthermore, from the way you express yourself I think you would be the one more likely to have ridden on the short bus. (and maybe still do) When you ALL need the short bus, NOBODY needs the short bus. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted March 3, 2011 Share Posted March 3, 2011 Some of the responses in thread are quite ummmmm..... retarded Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
....lybob Posted March 4, 2011 Share Posted March 4, 2011 Some of the responses in thread are quite ummmmm..... retarded Since Magox is an expert at creating and distributing retarded responses, I think it behooves us to take him seriously in this matter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pBills Posted March 4, 2011 Share Posted March 4, 2011 ""I think we need to go back to taxing these people at the proper rates." That says it all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave_In_Norfolk Posted March 5, 2011 Share Posted March 5, 2011 But they only have that income because the government, who makes the money, so graciously allows them to have it. I'm probably wasting my time trying to explain this to you, I'll try and write it so you can understand, here goes: Our government also enforces laws, protects property, invests in technological improvements etc, that allows for the economy to grow and for the rich to be rich, so its more than the fact they created the economy with the money they print*. So that government has a perfect right to tax higher incomes and distribute it as it--the people--see fit. That's a very basic fact of how government works. Nothing radical there. *Actually, only a very small proportion of the money is printed Yeah, actually, there is. Wealth is the accumulation of value of resources or labor, neither of which is limitless. And Moore's a !@#$ing hypocrite...again. He gets rich exploiting people's ignorance by bitching about the rich getting rich by exploiting people. So funny! YOU calling someone ignorant! Man, the garbage you spew day and night, 24/7, on and on, is the very definition of ignorance! Go for a walk some day. Get away from the computer for an hour man. Top ten incomes in the country pay 70% of the tax. Look somewhere else for to direct your hate. hmmm..who could the culprit be? Maybe the outfit that automatically takes at the very least 31% of your paycheck every month? Unless your one of the impoverished that you like to feel sorry for. They pay no fed income tax. Income tax, you mean? And you consider that bad, right? Do you want to abolish the income tax so the wealthy can keep more? Is that what you think is a cure for societies ills, or is your attitude society, the people like Bush and Forbes and Koch bros. earned every dollar they have and its theirs and society! Even if you go so far to the point of saying everyone should pay the same percentage, isn't that still unfair? A millioniar will still pay more than a janitor, is that still punishing the millioniar for being successful? Please, discuss Since Magox is an expert at creating and distributing retarded responses, I think it behooves us to take him seriously in this matter. Oh no!! He watches CNBC so he is VERY informed! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted March 5, 2011 Share Posted March 5, 2011 Even if you go so far to the point of saying everyone should pay the same percentage, isn't that still unfair? A millioniar will still pay more than a janitor, is that still punishing the millioniar for being successful? Please, discuss How is everyone paying the same percentage unfair? Sure the millionaire is paying a larger dollar amount but it's the same percentage. In my mind you can't get any fairer than that. And by eliminating deductions the government will probably bring in more money. I see plenty of tax returns with questionable deductions on them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted March 5, 2011 Share Posted March 5, 2011 How is everyone paying the same percentage unfair? Adam Smith summoned it up early on: The necessaries of life occasion the great expense of the poor. They find it difficult to get food, and the greater part of their little revenue is spent in getting it. The luxuries and vanities of life occasion the principal expense of the rich, and a magnificent house embellishes and sets off to the best advantage all the other luxuries and vanities which they possess. A tax upon house-rents, therefore, would in general fall heaviest upon the rich; and in this sort of inequality there would not, perhaps, be anything very unreasonable. It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion. How many years does this concept go back? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Booster4324 Posted March 5, 2011 Share Posted March 5, 2011 How is everyone paying the same percentage unfair? Sure the millionaire is paying a larger dollar amount but it's the same percentage. In my mind you can't get any fairer than that. And by eliminating deductions the government will probably bring in more money. I see plenty of tax returns with questionable deductions on them. It is different because of discretionary income. One hopes you would know that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted March 6, 2011 Share Posted March 6, 2011 It is different because of discretionary income. One hopes you would know that. Which is laid out in what I posted right abouve you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted March 6, 2011 Share Posted March 6, 2011 It is different because of discretionary income. One hopes you would know that. You are absolutely correct. And since when did discretion mean that someone else was going to determine what that money will be used for? If that's the case then it's no longer discretionary income is it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Booster4324 Posted March 6, 2011 Share Posted March 6, 2011 You are absolutely correct. And since when did discretion mean that someone else was going to determine what that money will be used for? If that's the case then it's no longer discretionary income is it? You have a lesser percentage that is discretionary, true. However, since most wealthy types will be able to put a roof over their heads and food in their bellies for a far smaller percentage of their incomes than say even upper middle class people, they will still have a far higher percentage to invest. Note, I am not asking for 90%; I am justifying the current system. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted March 6, 2011 Share Posted March 6, 2011 You have a lesser percentage that is discretionary, true. However, since most wealthy types will be able to put a roof over their heads and food in their bellies for a far smaller percentage of their incomes than say even upper middle class people, they will still have a far higher percentage to invest. Note, I am not asking for 90%; I am justifying the current system. So instead of allowing them to invest that discretionary income you'd rather the government take a bigger portion of it? Why, because they know better? You do understand what discretionary is don't you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted March 6, 2011 Share Posted March 6, 2011 Why, because they know better? You do understand what discretionary is don't you? Valor's better part? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted March 6, 2011 Share Posted March 6, 2011 So instead of allowing them to invest that discretionary income you'd rather the government take a bigger portion of it? Why, because they know better? You do understand what discretionary is don't you? Yeah, it's money you earn that can be taken from you at someone else's discretion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted March 6, 2011 Share Posted March 6, 2011 You should see what the Medicaid patients "discretionarily" spend their money on, in lieu of health insurance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted March 6, 2011 Share Posted March 6, 2011 So instead of allowing them to invest that discretionary income you'd rather the government take a bigger portion of it? Why, because they know better? You do understand what discretionary is don't you? Is that the act of like oozing out of a hole or crevice? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Booster4324 Posted March 6, 2011 Share Posted March 6, 2011 So instead of allowing them to invest that discretionary income you'd rather the government take a bigger portion of it? Why, because they know better? You do understand what discretionary is don't you? The argument that the government will screw it up with whatever money they get is a valid one. Took you long enough to get there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted March 7, 2011 Share Posted March 7, 2011 You have a lesser percentage that is discretionary, true. However, since most wealthy types will be able to put a roof over their heads and food in their bellies for a far smaller percentage of their incomes than say even upper middle class people, they will still have a far higher percentage to invest. Note, I am not asking for 90%; I am justifying the current system. Exactly... And the gov't can collect more money from the rich knowing that they will be less likely to "revolt" or fight back... Afterall, they are living the "high-life." There is no equality in this one bit... And nowhere does it say it should be equal. The argument that the government will screw it up with whatever money they get is a valid one. Took you long enough to get there. Even worse of a screw up if millions of people are trying to call the shots with that money. That is not a "screw up"... That is a nightmare where nothing remotely productive (and you think the gov't is bad) will get done. You should see what the Medicaid patients "discretionarily" spend their money on, in lieu of health insurance. And as much as I feel for the plight with what you see... You have no power to judge them on that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meazza Posted March 7, 2011 Share Posted March 7, 2011 (edited) Exactly... And the gov't can collect more money from the rich knowing that they will be less likely to "revolt" or fight back... Afterall, they are living the "high-life." Does one try and wonder how the "rich" got there. For example, I spend countless hours studying (for which costs me my free time and my sanity while working) so I can hope to eventually earn a wage so I can live the "high life" as you call it. On the other hand, I know plenty of people who forgo this sacrifice thereby earning less and paying less taxes and complaining about the rich who earn more than them. Not only that, but the tax dollars I pay go to wasted projects: http://www.montrealgazette.com/technology/Quebec+City+Bettman+answer+always+been+same/4387192/story.html Should one be punished for hard work? Or do you assume that we're all trust fund babies? (not trolling here) Edited March 7, 2011 by meazza Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
outsidethebox Posted March 7, 2011 Share Posted March 7, 2011 The government makes the money that everyone wants, that's true. And the government can take as much back as it wants. As it is becoming more and more clear that the tax cuts for the wealthy are going to mean more poverty, crime and pollution for the rest of the nation, this opinion will be more widly shared. Get use to it Words drop from your mouth like **** from an ass. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted March 7, 2011 Share Posted March 7, 2011 And as much as I feel for the plight with what you see... You have no power to judge them on that. Oh, you have GOT to be !@#$ing kidding me. That is quite simply the worst hypocrisy I've ever seen posted here...and that's really saying something. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted March 7, 2011 Share Posted March 7, 2011 Words drop from your mouth like **** from an ass. Jupiter's rooster! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted March 7, 2011 Share Posted March 7, 2011 Does one try and wonder how the "rich" got there. For example, I spend countless hours studying (for which costs me my free time and my sanity while working) so I can hope to eventually earn a wage so I can live the "high life" as you call it. On the other hand, I know plenty of people who forgo this sacrifice thereby earning less and paying less taxes and complaining about the rich who earn more than them. Not only that, but the tax dollars I pay go to wasted projects: http://www.montrealg...7192/story.html Should one be punished for hard work? Or do you assume that we're all trust fund babies? (not trolling here) I was joking a bit with the "high life" comment. Yet... Most wealth is aquired through inheritence. And then the self-made wealth is usually made through sales (over 90%). I guess I picked the wrong life to dig ditches. ;) The "hard work" bit doesn't hold water... Unless you say: "hard work in sales." Oh, you have GOT to be !@#$ing kidding me. That is quite simply the worst hypocrisy I've ever seen posted here...and that's really saying something. Why? I have even less power to judge. Again, why? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
outsidethebox Posted March 7, 2011 Share Posted March 7, 2011 Jupiter's rooster! Jupiter's rooster indeed! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meazza Posted March 7, 2011 Share Posted March 7, 2011 I was joking a bit with the "high life" comment. Yet... Most wealth is aquired through inheritence. And then the self-made wealth is usually made through sales (over 90%). I guess I picked the wrong life to dig ditches. ;) The "hard work" bit doesn't hold water... Unless you say: "hard work in sales." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted March 7, 2011 Share Posted March 7, 2011 Why the rolleyes? Because you know it is true? You wanna get rich and work hard at something 10-1 you better be hawking something. Where is most self-made money made? Sure it is working hard... But it is mostly in one field: Sales. Even harder work in other fields won't get you half as far. I am not slamming the hard work people do to get ahead... But I really wish they would apply it like a blanket over everybody. It simply is not true. Again... I am not knocking anybody... Don't take it that way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meazza Posted March 7, 2011 Share Posted March 7, 2011 Why the rolleyes? Because you know it is true? You wanna get rich and work hard at something 10-1 you better be hawking something. Where is most self-made money made? Sure it is working hard... But it is mostly in one field: Sales. Even harder work in other fields won't get you half as far. I am not slamming the hard work people do to get ahead... But I really wish they would apply it like a blanket over everybody. It simply is not true. Again... I am not knocking anybody... Don't take it that way. What am I going to reply to that? Most wealth is generated through sales? Even if that were true, you generalize it as if people in sales don't earn their wages? Not even going to bother. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted March 7, 2011 Share Posted March 7, 2011 What am I going to reply to that? Most wealth is generated through sales? Even if that were true, you generalize it as if people in sales don't earn their wages? Not even going to bother. I am sorry.. I didn't mean it to sound like that. True, you know my beliefs... Again, I didn't mean it to be taken negative. It is what it is I suppose. Most money is made through inheritence and in sales... It feeds itself. If one wants to really get ahead... Hawk something. Hawking "something" could be anything. Telling somebody else that: "All it takes is hard work." Is a bit misleading. "Work smart not hard" does have its place. People in all professions still earn their wages. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted March 7, 2011 Share Posted March 7, 2011 Why? I have even less power to judge. Again, why? Because you argued in the SAME FRICKIN' POST that the rich should be taxed so they don't misuse their discretionary income! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted March 7, 2011 Share Posted March 7, 2011 Because you argued in the SAME FRICKIN' POST that the rich should be taxed so they don't misuse their discretionary income! No. Where the heck did you get that? Man I wish we could thread posts again... YOU need it. Dude... FOLLOW the thread... Stay with it here. I was responding to Doc and what he said about Medicaid patients discretionary practices. Since when are medicaid patients "rich." I feel for his plight about what he sees everyday. Can't you think... Or do I need to learn simple retard. Think before you react... Go back and follow who is replying to who and what people are saying. Life is not all X's and O's people... Think outside the box and engage the brain for once before spouting off! Jesus Christ, do I need to spell everything out. For supposedly being "bright", you really are a dolt and commit the simplist and sloppiest of mistakes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted March 7, 2011 Share Posted March 7, 2011 And as much as I feel for the plight with what you see... You have no power to judge them on that. I sure as hell do! I get paid less than 1/3 for a Medicaid patient (even less when you consider some of my tax money goes towards Medicaid, while still assuming ALL of the risk) than I do for a private patient. I'd like you to name any other field where you get a service, much less one as vital, for less than a 1/3 of what other people pay, not to mention where you're partially getting paid by yourself! So yeah, it chaps my ass when I see patients texting on their cell phones, or listening to their iPods, or talking about the Ugg boots they're going to be getting for Christmas, or who smoke a pack a day of cigarettes, or have fancy duds on, when that money should be put to better use. I have no problem giving aid to those who truly need it. But it's clear that more than a few people on the dole are using the money they get to keep, because everything else is being provided for them at little to no cost, for luxuries. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted March 7, 2011 Share Posted March 7, 2011 (edited) Oh... I take your reponse will be the usual hypocrite crap... That deserves: I sure as hell do! I get paid less than 1/3 for a Medicaid patient (even less when you consider some of my tax money goes towards Medicaid, while still assuming ALL of the risk) than I do for a private patient. I'd like you to name any other field where you get a service, much less one as vital, for less than a 1/3 of what other people pay, not to mention where you're partially getting paid by yourself! So yeah, it chaps my ass when I see patients texting on their cell phones, or listening to their iPods, or talking about the Ugg boots they're going to be getting for Christmas, or who smoke a pack a day of cigarettes, or have fancy duds on, when that money should be put to better use. I have no problem giving aid to those who truly need it. But it's clear that more than a few people on the dole are using the money they get to keep, because everything else is being provided for them at little to no cost, for luxuries. Hey... Pick another business if you want to be in something because of the money to be made. Again, it is not for you to judge... Just heal people or get the heck out of the way. Too blunt? Edited March 7, 2011 by ExiledInIllinois Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted March 7, 2011 Share Posted March 7, 2011 Oh... I take your reponse will be the usual hypocrite crap... That deserves: Hey... Pick another business if you want to be in something because of the money to be made. Again, it is not for you to judge... Just heal people or get the heck out of the way. Too blunt? That's not the point and YOU should also be pissed since it's partly YOUR money. And I do heal them. I treat them like I would other patients. But that doesn't mean I can't judge them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted March 7, 2011 Share Posted March 7, 2011 That's not the point and YOU should also be pissed since it's partly YOUR money. And I do heal them. I treat them like I would other patients. But that doesn't mean I can't judge them. I am not pissed... I am indifferent to money. Sure I have some, sure I may make more... Sure I may lose it all and start over where I came from. I don't care... I do my job at hand. Try to transcend pettiness. I know it is hard and WE all need to work on it... Some more than others. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted March 7, 2011 Share Posted March 7, 2011 (edited) I am not pissed... I am indifferent to money. Sure I have some, sure I may make more... Sure I may lose it all and start over where I came from. I don't care... I do my job at hand. Try to transcend pettiness. I know it is hard and WE all need to work on it... Some more than others. It's not a matter of pettiness or even about money per se. It's about principle. I used to think like you, i.e. money shouldn't matter, we should help our fellow man to our fullest extent, etc. The reality is that there are finite resources on this earth. If you continue to waste resources on those who don't want to help themselves, you deprive someone who truly needs it and can do something good with it. It's like with kids. You keep doing their laundry, keep letting them live at home, etc. they'll never move out. At some point kids (people) need to help/take care of themselves. The problem is that humans by nature are selfish and will take whatever they can to the fullest extent of their ability and some want to keep them dependent for their own selfish gains. We can't keep the nanny state going forever, or even for much longer. Edited March 7, 2011 by Doc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted March 7, 2011 Share Posted March 7, 2011 It's not a matter of pettiness or even about money per se. It's about principle. I used to think like you, i.e. money shouldn't matter, we should help our fellow man to our fullest extent, etc. The reality is that there are finite resources on this earth. If you continue to waste resources on those who don't want to help themselves, you deprive someone who truly needs it and can do something good with it. It's like with kids. You keep doing their laundry, keep letting them live at home, etc. they'll never move out. At some point kids (people) need to help/take care of themselves. The problem is that humans by nature are selfish and will take whatever they can to the fullest extent of their ability and some want to keep them dependent for their own selfish gains. We can't keep the nanny state going forever, or even for much longer. Fair enough. The red part is the saddest thing... I wish that wasn't so. Though, I haven't lost faith. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peace Posted March 7, 2011 Share Posted March 7, 2011 Even worse of a screw up if millions of people are trying to call the shots with that money. That is not a "screw up"... That is a nightmare where nothing remotely productive (and you think the gov't is bad) will get done. Damn that Gates Foundation and their lack of productivity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
....lybob Posted March 7, 2011 Share Posted March 7, 2011 Now can cut the Bull and take a look at the real class war- broken down in graphs so no heavy reading for the easily bored. link Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts