keepthefaith Posted January 26, 2014 Share Posted January 26, 2014 (edited) How do people that argue the wealthy are being unfairly taxed square that with the facts presented here? Seems like the wealthy are badly noticing this "oppressive" level of taxation. Poor dears The numbers are pre-tax. It's not hard to understand why a wealthy person in the U.S who pays 50% of their hard earned income to the state and federal government (only to see those governments spend their hard earned money in irresponsible ways or buy votes from others with their hard earned money) becomes very upset with said government. And let's be clear, the hardest working Americans are generally the rich. Not only are they the hardest working but they often take more risk and have more responsibility by far than those that are not wealthy. Generally, they've earned it and they deserve their success and no government should confiscate such a large portion of their hard earned income and use it to to fund redistributive practices in order to keep said government in power. An article which reported on how the rich get rich would be far more useful and inspiring. Edited January 26, 2014 by keepthefaith Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted January 27, 2014 Share Posted January 27, 2014 The numbers are pre-tax. It's not hard to understand why a wealthy person in the U.S who pays 50% of their hard earned income to the state and federal government (only to see those governments spend their hard earned money in irresponsible ways or buy votes from others with their hard earned money) becomes very upset with said government. And let's be clear, the hardest working Americans are generally the rich. Not only are they the hardest working but they often take more risk and have more responsibility by far than those that are not wealthy. Generally, they've earned it and they deserve their success and no government should confiscate such a large portion of their hard earned income and use it to to fund redistributive practices in order to keep said government in power. An article which reported on how the rich get rich would be far more useful and inspiring. hard work and risk taking might reasonably result in 20, 30 or even 50 times the average wage in extraordinary and rare circumstances. its hard to justify it in 1/1000 instances and at ratios much larger and in very concentrated demographic groups. watching the grammy's and it's really no mystery why "royals" is so popular right now. it speaks to the 999. risk taking indeed... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meazza Posted January 27, 2014 Share Posted January 27, 2014 hard work and risk taking might reasonably result in 20, 30 or even 50 times the average wage in extraordinary and rare circumstances. its hard to justify it in 1/1000 instances and at ratios much larger and in very concentrated demographic groups. watching the grammy's and it's really no mystery why "royals" is so popular right now. it speaks to the 999. risk taking indeed... Why would you waste your time with that garbage? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted January 27, 2014 Author Share Posted January 27, 2014 Good news http://www.wgrz.com/story/money/2014/01/26/millionaires-on-rise-in-ny/4913471/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted January 27, 2014 Share Posted January 27, 2014 (edited) Why would you waste your time with that garbage? agreed. It's shiet. Nostalgic for a couple yrs ago with Dylan, Mumford and Avetts. Was also looking for Tim O,Brien and Darrell Scott to. Win Americana best songas independent artists. Nope. Steve Martin and Edie brickell...I,m shocked! Edited January 27, 2014 by birdog1960 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted January 27, 2014 Share Posted January 27, 2014 hard work and risk taking might reasonably result in 20, 30 or even 50 times the average wage in extraordinary and rare circumstances. its hard to justify it in 1/1000 instances and at ratios much larger and in very concentrated demographic groups. watching the grammy's and it's really no mystery why "royals" is so popular right now. it speaks to the 999. risk taking indeed... You mean the gilded class who is always outraged about the 1% in their compositions? You don't say. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted January 27, 2014 Share Posted January 27, 2014 hard work and risk taking might reasonably result in 20, 30 or even 50 times the average wage in extraordinary and rare circumstances. its hard to justify it in 1/1000 instances and at ratios much larger and in very concentrated demographic groups. watching the grammy's and it's really no mystery why "royals" is so popular right now. it speaks to the 999. risk taking indeed... I'm curious how you came up with the 20, 30, and 50% figures. I'm also curious as to why you feel it's your job to cap their earnings while the folks buying up their contributions are willing to give them so much more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted January 27, 2014 Share Posted January 27, 2014 I'm curious how you came up with the 20, 30, and 50% figures. You see, first you create a number that works in your favor, then you bump it up and down so it sounds more plausible. Then you create an argument against the numbers you pulled out of your ass. Then you have pie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted January 27, 2014 Share Posted January 27, 2014 hard work and risk taking might reasonably result in 20, 30 or even 50 times the average wage in extraordinary and rare circumstances. its hard to justify it in 1/1000 instances and at ratios much larger and in very concentrated demographic groups. watching the grammy's and it's really no mystery why "royals" is so popular right now. it speaks to the 999. risk taking indeed... You say "wage" when everyone else is talking about "income." Retard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted January 27, 2014 Share Posted January 27, 2014 You say "wage" when everyone else is talking about "income." Retard. Don't forget to interchange that with wealth as it fits. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted January 27, 2014 Share Posted January 27, 2014 “It starts at the top. The President of the United States has used his bully pulpit to openly criticize and try and create class division. He has used the emotions of envy, jealousy, and fear to get the movement started. . . . The income divide in the US is more a result of Federal Reserve and government policy than any technological change.” http://pjmedia.com/instapundit/183114/ Preident Obama in April of 2010, in the middle of a speech on Wall Street “reform” blurted out, “I do think at a certain point you’ve made enough money.” . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted January 27, 2014 Author Share Posted January 27, 2014 (edited) The numbers are pre-tax. It's not hard to understand why a wealthy person in the U.S who pays 50% of their hard earned income to the state and federal government (only to see those governments spend their hard earned money in irresponsible ways or buy votes from others with their hard earned money) becomes very upset with said government. And let's be clear, the hardest working Americans are generally the rich. Not only are they the hardest working but they often take more risk and have more responsibility by far than those that are not wealthy. Generally, they've earned it and they deserve their success and no government should confiscate such a large portion of their hard earned income and use it to to fund redistributive practices in order to keep said government in power. An article which reported on how the rich get rich would be far more useful and inspiring. You mean hard workers like George Bush or Paris Hilton?? Edited January 27, 2014 by gatorman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted January 27, 2014 Share Posted January 27, 2014 it's 20,30 and 50 TIMES not percent. ratios in that general range have been discussed as counterproductive by folks like peter drucker as has been discussed here before. and appropriate to this thread, the swiss recently had a referendum on this very issue with the ratio proposed being 40x's. this is not a novel concept to anyone but you all and it garnered a goodly number aof votes, even in switzerland and therefore probably even in davos. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted January 27, 2014 Share Posted January 27, 2014 "In my opinion, a society that aims for equality before liberty, will end up with neither equality nor liberty. And a society that aims first for liberty, will not end up with equality, but it will end up with a closer approach to equality, than any other kind of system than has ever been developed. Now that conclusion, is based both on evidence across history, and also I believe, on reasoning, which if you try to follow through the implications of aiming first at equality, will become clear to you. You can only aim at equality, by giving some people the right to take things from others. And what ultimately happens when you aim at equality, is that A and B decide what C shall do for D...except that they take a little bit of a commission off on the way." http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pKxCWheH5Vk Milton Friedman on "The Role of Government" . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted January 27, 2014 Share Posted January 27, 2014 it's 20,30 and 50 TIMES not percent. ratios in that general range have been discussed as counterproductive by folks like peter drucker as has been discussed here before. and appropriate to this thread, the swiss recently had a referendum on this very issue with the ratio proposed being 40x's. this is not a novel concept to anyone but you all and it garnered a goodly number aof votes, even in switzerland and therefore probably even in davos. Then move to Switzerland, you !@#$ing froot loop. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted January 27, 2014 Share Posted January 27, 2014 Then move to Switzerland, you !@#$ing froot loop. aw geez, you've obviously won this argument. too powerful. i give up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jauronimo Posted January 27, 2014 Share Posted January 27, 2014 it's 20,30 and 50 TIMES not percent. ratios in that general range have been discussed as counterproductive by folks like peter drucker as has been discussed here before. and appropriate to this thread, the swiss recently had a referendum on this very issue with the ratio proposed being 40x's. this is not a novel concept to anyone but you all and it garnered a goodly number aof votes, even in switzerland and therefore probably even in davos. Any chance you can back up these arbitrary numbers this time? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted January 27, 2014 Share Posted January 27, 2014 well that was difficult. search peter drucker wage ratio and this looked like a source among many of the earliy ones that ya'll might respect http://www.businessweek.com/stories/2008-09-12/put-a-cap-on-ceo-paybusinessweek-business-news-stock-market-and-financial-advice Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted January 27, 2014 Share Posted January 27, 2014 well that was difficult. search peter drucker wage ratio and this looked like a source among many of the earliy ones that ya'll might respect http://www.businessw...inancial-advice Drucker's talking about wages? Or is he talking about compensation? Why don't you figure out what you actually want to discuss, and get back to us... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted January 27, 2014 Share Posted January 27, 2014 well that was difficult. search peter drucker wage ratio and this looked like a source among many of the earliy ones that ya'll might respect http://www.businessw...inancial-advice Didn't we discuss it here before in how Drucker's theory is misapplied by people who don't understand the concepts? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts