blackangst1
Lifer
- Feb 23, 2005
- 22,902
- 2,359
- 126
You're the first person in that chain who I still read, blackangst. I have not read the comments, if you think one is worth my seeing, say it yourself, not just 'yep'.
I agree. The liberals say 2+2=4, the right says 2+2=22, the truth is somewhere in the middle, not the extremes. You need to back up your point with something more.
What you have done so far is simply demonstrate the point I've often made about moderates, that they're some of the blindest ideologues around, satisfied with nothing above a firm conviction that 'the two extremes' are wrong, period, smugly sitting 'in the middle' - not noticing that those who set the boundaries control them.
Ever notice how the right always has some people who are way out on the ridiculous fringe? It's not an accident - it legitimatizes their real radicals less on the fringe, in the eyes of people like you. If Ronald Reagan seems like a radical, then just put up a John Bircher too, and suddenly Reagan isn't on the far right, he's in the 'middle'.
The liberals say "I only have 1, and you have 4, so im going to subtract from you!"
The US population as a whole does not think anything like that, thankfully. Not even the most liberal president we have had in a long time thinks that way.
Simple, he was not paid. His income was derived from the success of his company and the resulting success of his initial investment into it. You assume that the rich are rich because they get paid large sums, they get rich because of their success. MS could have been a flop, but it was not. Gate's made billions, thousands of others tied to the company made millions. Business generates wealth, jobs, and innovation - government hordes wealth. Which one is more productive for the greater good of society?
Yes, it would not matter much if he made less. But, you do not start a business to make less or to barely make it above the masses. Most business owners build their businesses and expect returns on their initial investments and risk. That is the point of risk vs reward.
You must not be a business owner - you are looking at everything through the traditional payrol lens. I am a business owner. I quit my previous job, risked everything by forgoing income for almost two years without asking for any help. I did this for the potential future income that comes from this initial investment of money, time, and risk.
Does this make me evil? Does the fact that I employ others and pay a fair wage make me evil? Does it make it OK to say, since you went two years without income, risked everything, pay 60% of my income to others for their service, invest in other goods and services, and work 100 hour weeks to keep this going - that the government now thinks that it is UNFAIR that I make more than a person that wakes up every morning and decides that they should not have to work. UNFAIR may ass, I work for every single penny that I get, and as that amount grows I do not expect to feel bad about it. I made the investment, I will reap the rewards. Not some welfare mother that keeps popping out more and more kids to recieve larger and larger chunks of other peoples money.
Most of those that get rich, earn it. To take that away is theft.
You're completely confused on what we're talking about.
I'll rephrase to try to make it clearer:
For Bill Gates, who was paid tens in billions by his stock increases, and who donated 95% of the gains to charity, explain to me why he'd be less productive if half was lost to taxes.
Edit: this time, refrain from the idiotic straw men like implying that the argument against you claims that your being an employer or being taxed makes you 'evil'.
blackangst1
Lifer
- Feb 23, 2005
- 22,902
- 2,359
- 126
Bravo
You are still the heart and soul of America until you get successful enough to get into the top 5th percentile...and then you become "one of them" Originally posted by: blackangst1
Bravo
Waaaah waaaaahwaaaah waaaah waaaaaaaaah waaaaaaaaah. You poor baby. You can't have a discussion without any suggestion the rich who are grabbing a larger share get taxed a more proportional share, that we cap the concentration of the wealth with tax policies, makes the rich 'victims'. What idiocy.
We're not talking about the funds used for investing to expand the company, which are untoched and tax-deductible. We're talking about the money he got to pocket.
Because he was not PAID a damn thing. Every penny that he has is on paper. It is the result of the value of his company increasing. If you knew even the basics about the markets and private enterprise you would understand this. He may be worth $50 billion dollars, but he technically cannot just go out and make a call on it to collect.
How is this for the worthless 'straw man' argument - which I would more realistically call it what it is A FUCKING EXAMPLE. My company for all intents and purposes endows on me a personal value of say $1,000,000. However, most of that is tied up in operating capital, expenses, equipment, and property. While I am technically worth the full million, it is not disposable. I will most likely never see that money, just the 10% or so a year that I can manage to pull out an live off of. So, while I generate a million in real economy, I personally only realize a small portion of that in private income. Where is the wrong in that. I pay people and other companies 90% of my net worth. Then the government wants another 40% of the remainder (closer to 70% when you add in state and local/sales taxes as well). Leaves me with a grand total of 3% of my total value as actual income.
And yes, if he had less, technically it means that the company would have been probably close to 50% less productive. Meaning that half the people working for him would not have and half of the tax revenue that the government recieved from them would not exist. Business and success are not the enemy. A greedy government that thinks it can do better than producers while being nothing but a drain is the fucking problem.
Idiocy, you are the one basing your arguments on nothing more than emotion. Technically, if someone earns a dollar and you take half - it makes you a thief. Why is what the government is doing any different. If you did it, you would be in jail. If they do it, it is all good in the name of social justice and fairness.
That my friend is called redistribution of wealth - or more commonly National Socialism.
I intentionally used the word to show how pointless and misguided your attempted point is.
The issue we're discussing is whether the very wealthy are exactly proprotionally productive proportionate to the money they receive for that productivity, such that a decrease of X percent to the money they receive necessarily results in an X percent reduction in their productivity.
The answer is no, it does not. That doesn't mean there's *no* correlation - but it's far below the 100% rate that the right-wing simplistic ideologies often argue.
It doesn't matter that the $50 paper of value of his stock isn't something he can go out and cash in on directly - what matters in the apples and apples is that if the cap gains rate was increased on his stock gains such that he only got half of whatever the value he can actually get is now, it wouldn't make him have only beenhalf as productive.
It doesn't matter if the 'actual cash-in value' of the stock were only one billion - it's clearly more - the same principle would apply. You're chasing an irrelevancy.
A lot of words adding nothing, really.
How so? The people working for him are paid with one set of funds for running the company that is not affected by his paying higher capital gains tax on his profit taking.
Yes, they would, yes it would see above.
Duh. That's one of your straw men that you cuss about in all caps when it's called that.
Your ideology is showing. Whatever else the government is, it's generally not "greedy". That adjective is far, far more applicable to the private interests who pocket the money.
The government is more about representing private groups - it might be big pharma and it might be black people, but some groups.
When you misframe the issue so badly - garbage in, garbage out.
Idiocy, you are the one basing your arguments on nothing more than emotion. [/quote]
Nice attack, other than it being a total lie. Note the coplete evidence of you actually providing proof of your lie. And I can add hypocrisy, based on your emoted profanity.
Your ideology isn't just showing, you are running around with a big sign saying you're a nutjob now. All taxation = theft. What planet are you wackos from?
Some taxation is effectively theft, but not for the reasons you lay out that are a broadsie against all taxation and all democracy since democracy cannot exist without it.
I can stop repeating about your ideology being exposed now, it's clear.
Every time the government takes a cent from anyone, it's going to redistribute that cent to someone else for some purpose.
The fact that your ideology blinds you to any such purposes as being good policy makes discussion with you as pointless as trying to teach a pig to sing.
The most right-wing government in the history of the US or any government has had some taxation, i.e., some wealth redistribution, and you are saying therefore that every government that has ever existed, including every US presidency, has been a government of 'national socialism'. That's not a 'straw man', that's pointing out the implications of your own sputtered, frothing, careless, maniacal words.
Fine with me. I have to get back to work at my straw man job being a productive member of society. Sorry that I do not have all the time in the world arguing pointelessly with someone that will never bother to listen.
I have earned the right to be angry about this issue. I suspect that from your amount of rapid fire posts that you have more free time than me, and hence, are much less productive.
Slew Foot
Lifer
- Sep 22, 2005
- 12,379
- 96
- 86
Damn straight, and thats a concept that people who dont own a business dont understand. I know that if our taxes get raised, my wife will cut back on the hours or drop the pay of the unskilled people in her office, there's plenty of other people looking for work out there.
You missed the same thing he did on Gates. And my points have nothing to do with small business owners, who are far more affected in productivity by their compensation.
Another straw man from you, implying that I said anything about your work, when I did not. You just don't get how irrational you are as shown in most points you write.
You don't need to 'earn the right to be angry about the issue', you need to take care not to get angry about the wrong things that are counter-productive. You have not taken care.
Our personal situation don't dictate the merit of our arguments, and so it's harmful to the discussion to use them to decide who's 'right', not that that matters to you.
If I earned more money than you last year, are you going to concede that all my points are right and yours wrong? That would be consistent with your logic - wrong.
Rather, you apparently get tired of fallacious argument, and decide to move to personal attacks, however qualified given your lack of facts - and show why you should lack them, because you can't handle them responsibly. No doubt you would be ignoring when someone you disagree with makes more, and milking for all you could insults aimed at someone who makes less. That only reflects badly on you and your respect for the truth of the issue.
MovingTarget
Diamond Member
- Jun 22, 2003
- 9,002
- 115
- 106
Small business owners are typically partnerships or sole proprietorships. You may have a point when it comes to those, as the owner is directly responsible and involved in the nuts and bolts of its operation. You cannot compare these smaller businesses to larger, public companies. The employees are far more insulated in those cases. The funds are much more separated. If the tax man asks more from Gates, Microsoft won't be hurting from any associated drop in Gates' productivity.
No, usually when the wealth of CEOs is quoted, it is mostly comprised of their stock compensation which can be sold for hard currency. The wealth of chief operating officers is only associated with the wealth of the company in as much as a healthy company has a healthy stock value. Of course, clever executives find ways to even avoid this.
How does the company endow a value upon you? You speak as though you own a business but I get the impression you don't understand C, S Corporations or LLCs. The purpose of creating these entities is to limited the liabilities of the owners (although in some states, LLCs will be treated as partnerships and the partners are liable for the debts of the company). I've never heard a CEO's wealth being measured as the wealth of their company. This is especially true in the case of Bill Gates as he doesn't own Microsoft, the collective shareholders do. He just happens to be one large shareholder.
In other words, I would have a hard time imagining any entity equating your total value with that of your company. By the way, your wording appears to be all wrong. Net worth would be a measure of your assets - liabilities. I assume you mean gross income. You pay 90% of your gross income to other people who helped you earn that income. You take the remainder. Because you have "check box rules" (assuming you are LLC) you know that you can have your company be taxed like a partnership or be paid a salary like a corp. I have a hard time you would've filed your taxes in such a disadvantageous way as to have the feds tax you at a rate higher than highest income tax bracket and let state/local take another 30%. Just who is doing your taxes anyway?
Is 50% just a number you've pulled out of thin air? You need to realize that large corporations are separate entities from their owners. Taxing the individual Bill Gates does not increase the tax burden on Microsoft.
It's funny that you call business and success the friend and greedy government the enemy consideration our current economic situation. Many successful and greedy workers, CFOs, CEOs, etc got rich (by incentive) the last couple of years by taking huge risks that proved to great to sustain.
By the way, the government uses tax money to create jobs. You act as if the gov't takes the money and puts it into a shredder. The gov't hires people to ensure our air is clean, pave new roads, and defend your property rights. Is the gov't a model of efficiency? Certainly not. But it is unfair to simply call it a drain.
I'm beginning to think you are basing your entire argument on some third party source of information.
An examination of taxation and tax history is long and complicated, as is its justification. Reply to this post and explain in more detail why it is unfair (beyond the simple analogy used above that ignores the difference between an individual and a government operating on behalf of the citizenry with a monopoly on violence and the assurance of property rights) and we can start to have a long enlightening discussion.
Any progressive taxation system inherently redistributes wealth yet this idea has been grasped by nearly every political and economic ideology (including Capitalism). And of all the ways people have described National Socialism (commonly known as Nazism), this is the first where the defining characteristic is the redistribution of wealth.
TastesLikeChicken
Lifer
- Sep 12, 2004
- 16,852
- 59
- 86
Bill Gates likely wouldn't have been any less productive. His money, however, would have been. Why take the money from someone who has a proven track record of using money to make more, benefitting a large scope of society in the process, and give it to our government, an institution known for not making money other than printing it. In fact, they are known to rapidly waste it whenever possible.
That's why taking more from the rich will hamstring our economy in the process. Our economy thrives on growth. When you begin taking large chunks of that investment money away, growth suffers. Taxing massively more from the rich is nothing more than cutting off your nose to spite your face. I doesn't solve anything. In fact, it's a guaranteed way to screw things even further.
Zebo
Elite Member
- Jul 29, 2001
- 39,398
- 19
- 81
Originally posted by: Craig234
Originally posted by: Zebo
Understand fine Craig and have not voted since the first time I voted way back before internet because I believe what I type about there not being a difference.
Both have their benefactor class they 'hook up' with no strings attached to determent of majority. Both take our individual rights away in certain ways. And both on are the take from the capital class guiding every choice they make to detriment of 99% of us. Why should I participate or advocate in that? No thanks.
A bad day fishing is better than voting for one of two evils.
You have thrown away the one chance you have to improve things and surrendered.
I disagree. And while there's some truth to your point, you are largely wrong as well.
In fact, it's citizens like you who are pretty clearly not at all a strength for our country, insofar as our country stands for democracy.
Why wouldn't you sell our right to vote for a few coins, when you value it so little you don't even exercise it? And that way lies tyranny, much worse than you complain of currently.
That's how the powers that be would likely undermine democracy in its inevitable conflict with their interests (if they can dominate the elections, they can mollify the people with a pretend democracy while keeping their interests protected) - it's how China's communist party has kept political power, by making a deal with the people not to interfer with their politial power in exchange for the policies that let them prosper; it's how the wealthy elite tried to pressure the public into abandoning Chavez, by shutting down the economy.
It tested the people's strength to endure suffering to value democracy (it's worked in China, did not work in Venezuela). You would not stand strong for democracy, it seems.
I could point you to writings specifically why Obama was better than McCain, but would you read? The same misguided issue has arisen before; Arthur Schlesinger wrote a small book specifically on why JFK and Nixon were not the same in 1960, JFK's father wrote a similar book for why he supported FDR over the Republicans. James Carville wrote a small book with the same basic arguments but about the parties, called "Had Enough?"
The choice not to vote is also a democratic right. And for me a waste of time because it offers no impetus for change. My party would be constitutional with economically left social policy which Article 1 section 8 allows for... Is their such a thing? I have not seen it.
Sorry Craig I can't support people who have no respect for the Second Amendment or the 1st which they would like to ban speech visa vi some central committee deems inappropriate like much of Europe has done. How could I warn of the dangers of Islam and sharia w/o that right?
Also, democrats have shown a disregard for private property rights contained in the 5th (at the behest of a corporation mind you) in recent supreme court case...I don't think they even understand the 10th.It's your right to eat nothing but twinkies, but that doesn't mean you should do it.
I stand by my prevous points, and never said you can't not vote, but that you shouldn't.
Voting isn't about getting the perfect match to your views, it's also about the lesser of evile.
Sorry Craig I can't support people who have no respect for the Second Amendment or the 1st which they would like to ban speech visa vi some central committee deems inappropriate like much of Europe has done. How could I warn of the dangers of Islam and sharia w/o that right?
That's a bunch of nonsensical hyperbole. You might disagree with them on the policies, but you badly misrepresent the other side.
Or do you misunderstand the idea of 'public good' as expressed in the law for eminent domain? Regardless, it's a very small issue at this time compared to many.
I've long commented on the issue of the 10th amendment - you single out Democrats on the 10th? News for you, they're hardly alone.
IMO there's plenty of room for looking at the 99th and 10th, but that's an issue for the Supreme Court, and the parties insofar as who they put on the court.
I see from your response the sadly expected zero interest in reading the related material.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter