Why is taxing the rich considered so taboo by the non-rich?

[Londo_Jowo]

Same with the vast majority of people who never have nor ever will make enough money to be effected by a tax increase at 250k+. Same with dittoheads like Londo above. Morons can't even do their own research to figure out that they don't really know much at all.

Not much to say, eh Londo?

Typical brain-dead righty trash.

I proved your blatant bullshit wrong, now you've resorted to calling me names and attempting to insult me.

 

[LegendKiller]

I proved your blatant bullshit wrong, now you've resorted to calling me names and attempting to insult me.

You didn't prove anything sparkles. I disproved your "bullshit" post above with a simple cut-and-paste and logic.

Sorry, I know it's tough to lose an argument but most people lose them to me. It's OK, you'll get past it.

 

[LegendKiller]

I've given up on convincing to right we need to invest in people to not have collective intelligence, infrastructure and order of haiti, we'll be there soon. Why you think I attend tacital classes and stay in shape running every day?

Good on you jhhnnn LK and others but I'd prepare.

Years ago (like during Ike) investing in the country or even Europe (Marshall Plan) was considered an obligation and what was correct for the country. Now the spoiled fucks want to reverse that, creating a "me me me" society while trying to harken back to those days. Little do they know that "those days" is exactly where we should get back to tax wise.

The intelligence and infrastructure of a 3rd world country is exactly where they want us to be. Libertopians, the Teabaggers, and the ridiculous right, want a "free market", that's it. The rich take care of the rich and fuck everybody else.

It's too bad they have romanticized something that never existed. When "small government" did exist, we were a backwater country that couldn't get its shit together and were the world's deadbeat debtors.

Moronic people like Londo, who refuse to educated themselves, are to blame. They are the fuckwits that fall for Palin, Bachmann, Angle, O'Donnell trash.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

You didn't prove anything sparkles. I disproved your "bullshit" post above with a simple cut-and-paste and logic.

Sorry, I know it's tough to lose an argument but most people lose them to me. It's OK, you'll get past it.

Who said the CEO's were making thousands of times more than their workers??? That was proved to be bullshit cut and dry. In fact all your proof was based on estimates, not factual information.

 

[LegendKiller]

Who said the CEO's were making thousands of times more than their workers??? That was proved to be bullshit cut and dry. In fact all your proof was based on estimates, not factual information.

Did you not read that that was an *average* you twat? Furthermore, the S&P500 are public corporations which report financials and are required to report CEO comp, including stock options and other comp. They also report general employee comp and number of employees in SEC filings.

Simple Google searches must be beyond your comprehension.

http://finance.yahoo.com/career-work/article/107831/5-most-overpaid-ceos.html?mod=career-leadership

Wow, those Ambercrombie workers must make somewhere around 233,000 to be able to make only 300 times what the CEO made. Fuckin-A, those little teenage pricks really are rollin! Guess that's what they need to be able to stand all of that music and perfume.

The rest of them likely approach 1000 times or so easily. Comcast guy making 40mm, guess those comcast installers and call center people average 120k (300x) easily, right?

And what about the 210mm to Nardelli or the 357mm package given to the CEO of exxon when he "retired"?

You lose, again. So sorry.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

Did you not read that that was an *average* you twat? Furthermore, the S&P500 are public corporations which report financials and are required to report CEO comp, including stock options and other comp. They also report general employee comp and number of employees in SEC filings.

You lose, again. So sorry.

Come back when you can prove your bullshit with factual data.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

This data is based off of surveys and makes assumptions on workers pay...........factual my ass.

*Data note:
CEO pay is realized direct compensation defined as the sum of salary, bonus, value of restricted stock at grant, and other long-term incentive award payments from a Mercer Survey conducted for the Wall Street Journal and prior Wall Street Journal-sponsored surveys. Worker pay is the hourly wage of production and nonsupervisory workers, assuming the economy-wide ratio of compensation to wages and a full-time, year-round job.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

Did you not read that that was an *average* you twat? Furthermore, the S&P500 are public corporations which report financials and are required to report CEO comp, including stock options and other comp. They also report general employee comp and number of employees in SEC filings.

Simple Google searches must be beyond your comprehension.

http://finance.yahoo.com/career-work/article/107831/5-most-overpaid-ceos.html?mod=career-leadership

Wow, those Ambercrombie workers must make somewhere around 233,000 to be able to make only 300 times what the CEO made. Fuckin-A, those little teenage pricks really are rollin! Guess that's what they need to be able to stand all of that music and perfume.

The rest of them likely approach 1000 times or so easily. Comcast guy making 40mm, guess those comcast installers and call center people average 120k (300x) easily, right?

You lose, again. So sorry.

Again your proof is a few cherry picked CEOs, come back when you can prove your bullshit with comprehensive data.

 

[LegendKiller]

Again your proof is a few cherry picked CEOs, come back when you can prove your bullshit with comprehensive data.

Nice that you try to polarize the issue, as I've said the whole time, the AVERAGE is 300x but some CEOs do make thousands of times, as proven already.

Everybody knows CEO pay is going up and has outstripped worker pay, but you I guess. You'll do anything to keep up your ridiculous rightwing version of the world.

But even at 300x and the "survey/estimate", you are still trying to justify the situation.

Pretty sad.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

Nice that you try to polarize the issue, as I've said the whole time, the AVERAGE is 300x but some CEOs do make thousands of times, as proven already.

Everybody knows CEO pay is going up and has outstripped worker pay, but you I guess. You'll do anything to keep up your ridiculous rightwing version of the world.

But even at 300x and the "survey/estimate", you are still trying to justify the situation.

Pretty sad.

You haven't proven shit........all the data you've provided is assumed. Please provide indisputable data that backs up your statements.

 

[LegendKiller]

You haven't proven shit........all the data you've provided is assumed. Please provide indisputable data that backs up your statements.

I've presented my information which has been studied numerous times. I presented some cases. Yet you say the data is "bullshit" and present none of your own. Those studies have been peer reviewed and have also been presented in the CFA journal (which I receive, do you?). There are some CEOs that make thousands more but the average is 300 times, it is a fact, if you can't live with that fact, it's your problem.

Why don't you actually read the study and come up with reasons why it isn't correct. Otherwise, you're just blowing hot air because you're too fucking stupid to actually admit that you're wrong and that you're republican overlords are misleading you.

Until you do that you can post all of the invective you want here, I just won't respond to it anymore.

 

[Bowfinger]

Nice that you try to polarize the issue, as I've said the whole time, the AVERAGE is 300x but some CEOs do make thousands of times, as proven already.

Everybody knows CEO pay is going up and has outstripped worker pay, but you I guess. You'll do anything to keep up your ridiculous rightwing version of the world.

But even at 300x and the "survey/estimate", you are still trying to justify the situation.

Pretty sad.

On the other hand, he's doing a great job of answering the OP. There are too many Americans like Londo who are proud of their ignorance and will fight fiercely to remain so. They have faith in their deluded worldview and no amount of factual information can shake that faith.

 

[LegendKiller]

On the other hand, he's doing a great job of answering the OP. There are too many Americans like Londo who are proud of their ignorance and will fight fiercely to remain so. They have faith in their deluded worldview and no amount of factual information can shake that faith.

Indeed. Ain't it funny that he keeps posting on and on about how this or that exception should be noted or that the study is invalid (because he says so), or that anecdotes are the exception to the exception to the exception.

Sounds like a denialist who really is massively ignorant. It's also interesting that not another right wing soul will defend him. He must be a huge TeaBagger, they're the only ones dumb enough to continue like he is.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

Neither of you can prove the point with indisputable data so you resort to ad-hominem attacks.

 

[CallMeJoe]

Neither of you can prove the point with indisputable data so you resort to ad-hominem attacks.

By ignoring best available data and demanding "indisputable" data, you invite ridicule.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

By ignoring best available data and demanding "indisputable" data, you invite ridicule.

Yet I'm supposed to accept data that is based on assumptions as being the truth.

 

[CallMeJoe]

Yet I'm supposed to accept data that is based on assumptions as being the truth.

You might be expected to accept the best available data as the best available, but that would conflict with your ideology.

 

[LegendKiller]

Neither of you can prove the point with indisputable data so you resort to ad-hominem attacks.

There is no such thing as "indisputable data" unless you're talking about laws of physics which are not always and forever indisputable.

Most studies work from surveys and many rely on "estimates" for variables that can't be directly measured. Confidence levels of statistical studies who that you cannot be 100% certain. However, don't let real statistical measurements or methodologies stand in your way. That'd be too enlightened for you.

You're being an obtuse retard. You've proven the OP correct and are the poster boy for the TeaBaggers.

 

[fskimospy]

Yet I'm supposed to accept data that is based on assumptions as being the truth.

Best to quit while you're less far behind, man.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

You're being an obtuse retard.

Wow, your anger is strong. I'm so happy that I can control your emotions. Have a nice day.

 

[LegendKiller]

Wow, your anger is strong. I'm so happy that I can control your emotions. Have a nice day.

More duhversion. You think I'm mad? LOL there sparky, I'm so glad you can divine emotions from text.

Of course, you estimated my emotions... In your book that's "bullshit" since it is not "indisputable data".

In order to get "indisputable data" on my emotions and your ability to "control" them, you would have to have been here to record them. However, you're merely "estimating" based upon a "survey" of past text.

Even then, you'd have to perform several more studies to eliminate exogenous datum, variables for which a scientific measurement would have to account for. Creating a control group of measurements would largely account for those variables (such as, if somebody pissed in my cheerios this morning), but not completely. You'd still need a confidence interval to determine whether or not your results would be statistically significant.

But you don't know any of that.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

There you go spewing, keep it up........maybe your head will explode.........LMAO!!!

 

[LegendKiller]

There you go spewing, keep it up........maybe your head will explode.........LMAO!!!

I'm just keeping you going to utterly undermine your image here. It's actually fun, it's like keeping a big fish on the hook to tire them out.

 

[Zebo]

Years ago (like during Ike) investing in the country or even Europe (Marshall Plan) was considered an obligation and what was correct for the country. Now the spoiled fucks want to reverse that, creating a "me me me" society while trying to harken back to those days. Little do they know that "those days" is exactly where we should get back to tax wise.

The intelligence and infrastructure of a 3rd world country is exactly where they want us to be. Libertopians, the Teabaggers, and the ridiculous right, want a "free market", that's it. The rich take care of the rich and fuck everybody else.

It's too bad they have romanticized something that never existed. When "small government" did exist, we were a backwater country that couldn't get its shit together and were the world's deadbeat debtors.

Moronic people like Londo, who refuse to educated themselves, are to blame. They are the fuckwits that fall for Palin, Bachmann, Angle, O'Donnell trash.

Exactly. I don't get it either.

You know most small and medium and maybe even large business depends on having a high middle class? Same people that vote tea party, my friends, my colleagues, auto shop owners, home builders you know the sorta rich - depend on having a good middle class. Net worth 1-10 million. They're not selling yachts to warren buffet (who happens to agree with us) but your teachers, your factory workers, and so on. W/O them they are broke. They also depend on a good education, infrastructure, legal system, order, to make fortune all of which must be paid for. It's pure greed and short sighted. JMO.

I'd love nothing more than a GM plant across street from my liquor store. Pay them all 150K a year and CEO 300K.

 

[HendrixFan]

Government expenditures are nearly half of the GDP. I think it is fair to say that almost all of that money creates jobs. It isn't like the US is taxing people and going out back and burning the cash.

To address the OP's question - It is just a bogeyman argument that people pick up and run with even though they reside in the 99% group. I think it is fair to tax rich people more, since there is less of a burden as they make more money. Those lower class and lower middle class households have little expendable income and their tax rates (fed, state and local - not just income tax) eat up a sizable portion of the money they need to live well. Taxing more as people have more luxuries doesn't hurt their ability to live well, just slows down excess. The main difference is taxation can be a burden for the poor, but only a bother for the rich.