PDA

View Full Version : Conservatards think the poor are GREEDY thieves



4lulz123
11-30-2012, 07:14 PM
It appears the conservatards of the great USA believe that the poor and less unfortunate are all thieves and greedy as fuark.

BRB Having basic healthcare and dental is greed

BRB Having safety netfall is greed

BRB Temporary handouts for when you are unemployed is greed

BRB CEO 10k a day= no greed, and i can call myself A JOB CREATOR

nutsy54
11-30-2012, 07:22 PM
Having "basic healthcare and dental" is not greed. Expecting someone else to buy it for you is.

Having "a safety net" is not greed. Expecting that "safety net" to last for years is.

Not even sure what the hell you're babbling about with "CEO 10k a day". If someone's income is earned through productive work, how would anyone claim that's "greed"? :confused:

4lulz123
11-30-2012, 07:24 PM
Having "basic healthcare and dental" is not greed. Expecting someone else to buy it for you is.

Having "a safety net" is not greed. Expecting that "safety net" to last for years is.

Not even sure what the hell you're babbling about with "CEO 10k a day". If someone's income is earned through productive work, how would anyone claim that's "greed"? :confused:


What about schools and infrastructure then? Which you 'JOB CREATORS' arent willing to build by yourselves cause theres no profit

Is taking your money to increase standards of schools and roads in neglected areas GREED?

ANd besides how do you expect those who dont work 10k a day CEO to suddenly afford a dentist or ER?

nutsy54
11-30-2012, 07:27 PM
What about schools and infrastructure then? Which you 'JOB CREATORS' arent willing to build by yourselves cause theres no profit

Is taking your money to increase standards of schools and roads in neglected areas GREED?
Seriously, what the hell are you babbling about? Now you're on about schools, and "job creators" who aren't willing to do something? You're just making up random crap, then expecting others to respond.

4lulz123
11-30-2012, 07:32 PM
Seriously, what the hell are you babbling about? Now you're on about schools, and "job creators" who aren't willing to do something? You're just making up random crap, then expecting others to respond.

random Crap? you obviously never read a book or got no clue of economics.

Businesses don't build roads, schools and museums because you cant make a profit out of them, which is why the government steps in to fund em through taxpayer dollars. Is it GREED to 'steal your money' and build schools and museums?

woofermazing
11-30-2012, 07:39 PM
random Crap? you obviously never read a book or got no clue of economics.

Businesses don't build roads, schools and museums because you cant make a profit out of them, which is why the government steps in to fund em through taxpayer dollars. Is it GREED to 'steal your money' and build schools and museums?

Uhh, you may not find that in an economics book, but check out a history book some time.

KBkilla
11-30-2012, 07:41 PM
Holy f*cking sh*t you are retarded OP.

Healthcare and Dental care are not rights. Government is the reason that not everyone can afford it in the first place. If government wouldn't have gotten involved in healthcare, people that couldn't afford it would still get it for free like they did in the past because it wouldn't be outrageously expensive.

A "safety net" is not a right. The fallacy in your logic here is that you are assuming that everyone in need, is in need because they tried numerous times and failed every time. Face it. We have a bunch of lazy bums in this country that want nothing but handouts.

Let me guess. You're against capitalism? How is making a profit off providing a good product or service "greed"? You CHOSE to purchase their product/service, and now you want to penalize them for it? How is that NOT greed?

Government doesn't create jobs, unless it gets the hell out of the way, and lets the REAL job creators do it, which are the wealthy "evil" business owners you hate.

KBkilla
11-30-2012, 07:42 PM
What about schools and infrastructure then? Which you 'JOB CREATORS' arent willing to build by yourselves cause theres no profit

Is taking your money to increase standards of schools and roads in neglected areas GREED?

ANd besides how do you expect those who dont work 10k a day CEO to suddenly afford a dentist or ER?

You dumbass. Have you never heard of PRIVATE schools? Good lord, are you that incompetent?

4lulz123
11-30-2012, 07:43 PM
Holy f*cking sh*t you are retarded OP.

Healthcare and Dental care are not rights. Government is the reason that not everyone can afford it in the first place. If government wouldn't have gotten involved in healthcare, people that couldn't afford it would still get it for free like they did in the past because it wouldn't be outrageously expensive.

A "safety net" is not a right. The fallacy in your logic here is that you are assuming that everyone in need, is in need because they tried numerous times and failed every time. Face it. We have a bunch of lazy bums in this country that want nothing but handouts.

Let me guess. You're against capitalism? How is making a profit off providing a good product or service "greed"? You CHOSE to purchase their product/service, and now you want to penalize them for it? How is that NOT greed?

Government doesn't create jobs, unless it gets the hell out of the way, and lets the REAL job creators do it, which are the wealthy "evil" business owners you hate.]

DId i ever say they were RIGHTS? Just because it aint no right to help a poor person the street doesn't mean you shouldn't.

BEATINGU
11-30-2012, 07:43 PM
random Crap? you obviously never read a book or got no clue of economics.

Businesses don't build roads, schools and museums because you cant make a profit out of them, which is why the government steps in to fund em through taxpayer dollars. Is it GREED to 'steal your money' and build schools and museums?


Most Museums are funded by endowments given by millionaires

Roads, schools, and so forth, are funded by tax-payers, most of whom make money off businesses

Without businesses, good luck getting the tax-payer money for all that stuff.

4lulz123
11-30-2012, 07:44 PM
You dumbass. Have you never heard of PRIVATE schools? Good lord, are you that incompetent?

Are YOU ****ing retarded, do you live in real life? Private schools which run on profit are over 20k a year. The average population cant afford that which is why there are public schools fool. the amount of retarded response is overwhelming

and NO i am not against capitalism, jesus christ just cause i believe tax and safety nets are neccesary doesnt mean im a god damn communist.

DO YOU EVEN READ? I Never said governments create jobs, Im sayind DEMAND creates jobs, demand by the general population who arent 10k a day ceos.

KBkilla
11-30-2012, 07:44 PM
random Crap? you obviously never read a book or got no clue of economics.

Businesses don't build roads, schools and museums because you cant make a profit out of them, which is why the government steps in to fund em through taxpayer dollars. Is it GREED to 'steal your money' and build schools and museums?

"Got no clue of economics". Engrish much?

Actually, without businesses, there would be no need for roads or schools. Would there? Stop using the same old statist argument of "who will build the roads???". If there is a demand for it, the private sector will satisfy that demand. The government doesn't have to step in and steal money from people to accomplish that goal. Although, it does, unconstitutionally.

KBkilla
11-30-2012, 07:46 PM
Are YOU ****ing retarded, do you live in real life? Private schools which run on profit are over 20k a year. The average population cant afford that which is why there are public schools fool. the amount of retarded response is overwhelming

Your argument was that there is no profit in schools, so the private sector doesn't create schools. My point proved you wrong. The price of said schools is irrelevant. Also, there are plenty of private schools that are less than 20k a year. That's some random number you picked out of thin air because you don't know sh*t.

KBkilla
11-30-2012, 07:47 PM
]

DId i ever say they were RIGHTS? Just because it aint no right to help a poor person the street doesn't mean you shouldn't.

Well, if you care about poor people so much, why don't you give them your money? You get no moral credit for voting for someone to steal money from one person to give it to poor people. That's plunder. Plunder is immoral.

PMRD0C
11-30-2012, 07:47 PM
Lol. Emotion-based spewing of garbage by op. come up with rational arguments against that which you speak in op. don't just ramble and try to get others to appeal to your fuzzy liberal emotions

KBkilla
11-30-2012, 07:49 PM
Sounds like OP is the one that needs to do some reading. Here's a start for you:

http://bastiat.org/en/the_law.html

4lulz123
11-30-2012, 07:50 PM
Your argument was that there is no profit in schools, so the private sector doesn't create schools. My point proved you wrong. The price of said schools is irrelevant. Also, there are plenty of private schools that are less than 20k a year. That's some random number you picked out of thin air because you don't know sh*t.

You dont know ****, i live in sydney and the best schools are 25k a year while the non profit church affiliated ones are less than 20k a year but most of them are still around 5k.

And if every school demanded 10k a year most of them would go bankrupt as there are not enough people with that money. You think people in poorer areas will pay 10-15k for school NO THEY WONT which is why most schools are funded by gov

KBkilla
11-30-2012, 07:51 PM
You dont know ****, i live in sydney and the best schools are 25k a year while the non profit church affiliated ones are less than 20k a year but most of them are still around 5k.

And if every school demanded 10k a year most of them would go bankrupt as there are not enough people with that money.

I obviously know more than you. I'm in the lower middle class, and even I think it's wrong to steal from the wealthy.

So you live in a completely different country. No wonder. You've been brainwashed by socialists.

victor_maximus
11-30-2012, 07:51 PM
"The bureaucracy is expanding to meets the needs of the expanding bureaucracy."

4lulz123
11-30-2012, 07:51 PM
Lol. Emotion-based spewing of garbage by op. come up with rational arguments against that which you speak in op. don't just ramble and try to get others to appeal to your fuzzy liberal emotions

strong argument in post.

4lulz123
11-30-2012, 07:52 PM
So you live in a completely different country. No wonder. You've been brainwashed by socialists.


Yup, The amount of tax, and welfare here is not equivalent of europe but if we tell you would think we're ****ing hardcore socialist.

Yup sound logic, the poor STEAL from the rich.

If thats your logic then who are the bigger thieves in this case.

(not sound statistics but you get the point)

2% of the population own 99% of the worlds wealth.

I mean obviously a large part of the wealth will always lie in the smaller part of the total population but by your logic, it appears you guys are the real thieves.

KBkilla
11-30-2012, 07:54 PM
Yup, The amount of tax, and welfare here is not equivalent of europe but if we tell you would think we're ****ing hardcore socialist.

Because it's true...

woofermazing
11-30-2012, 07:59 PM
Yup, The amount of tax, and welfare here is not equivalent of europe but if we tell you would think we're ****ing hardcore socialist.

Yup sound logic, the poor STEAL from the rich.

If thats your logic then who are the bigger thieves in this case.

(not sound statistics but you get the point)

2% of the population own 99% of the worlds wealth.

I mean obviously a large part of the wealth will always lie in the smaller part of the total population but by your logic, it appears you guys are the real thieves.

The only one stealing is the government.

4lulz123
11-30-2012, 08:00 PM
Because it's true...

and we sure are in a better state then you are mate, and so is all the 'socialist' scumbag Scandinavian countries.

Goodluck with your keep USA as an ever increasing **** hole country goals of 2013

KBkilla
11-30-2012, 08:01 PM
Yup, The amount of tax, and welfare here is not equivalent of europe but if we tell you would think we're ****ing hardcore socialist.

Yup sound logic, the poor STEAL from the rich.

If thats your logic then who are the bigger thieves in this case.

(not sound statistics but you get the point)

2% of the population own 99% of the worlds wealth.

I mean obviously a large part of the wealth will always lie in the smaller part of the total population but by your logic, it appears you guys are the real thieves.

No, the government steals from the rich and gives it to the poor. Keep up kid. The government is the band of thieves. Like I said, if you care so much about poor people, give them your money. Who are "you guys"? I'm not rich. I'm lower middle class. I can barely support myself because the government steals most of my income to give to "poor" people.

12% of the planets (Jupiter) holds 70% of the mass in the solar system. Should we penalize Jupiter? That's how irrational and flawed your logic sounds, OP.

KBkilla
11-30-2012, 08:01 PM
and we sure are in a better state then you are mate, and so is all the 'socialist' scumbag Scandinavian countries.

Goodluck with your keep USA as an ever increasing **** hole country goals of 2013

No, you're not. Socialism doesn't work. Every socialist society collapses.

4lulz123
11-30-2012, 08:02 PM
The only one stealing is the government.

the government 'steals' from everyone, middle class, lower middle class, the poor (yes everyone in Australia pays the GST) but its to stop the country from becoming a ****ing complete ****hole. yeah? Without government tax dollars no roads, no schools, no infrastructure, no transport.

4lulz123
11-30-2012, 08:03 PM
No, you're not. Socialism doesn't work. Every socialist society collapses.

Brb, still waiting for Australian government to collapse.

KBkilla
11-30-2012, 08:05 PM
the government 'steals' from everyone, middle class, lower middle class, the poor (yes everyone in Australia pays the GST) but its to stop the country from becoming a ****ing complete ****hole. yeah? Without government tax dollars no roads, no schools, no infrastructure, no transport.

Wrong. If the demand is there, in a truly free market, the private sector would provide these things.


Brb, still waiting for Australian government to collapse.

Won't be long....

KBkilla
11-30-2012, 08:07 PM
OP, how did people survive before there was government? I mean no roads, "transport" or infrastructure. It must have been chaos right?

PMRD0C
11-30-2012, 08:09 PM
Op if you don't give all of your money away then you are being a very bad socialist. Now be a good boy and give away your healthcare ... Srs, give up your healthcare or you're a hypocrite. :)

SheHadMANHands
11-30-2012, 08:13 PM
Op if you don't give all of your money away then you are being a very bad socialist. Now be a good boy and give away your healthcare ... Srs, give up your healthcare or you're a hypocrite. :)

lol fail

4lulz123
11-30-2012, 08:17 PM
Wrong. If the demand is there, in a truly free market, the private sector would provide these things.



Won't be long....

WRONG, demand huge demand doesn't equal profits. a business needs profits.

Example Ferraris, everyone wants one, but can they afford one? No.

Roads, and transport, everyone needs it. But can they afford it even if they greatly demand it? No. Which is even when private sector is involved, the government funds them and subsidies them so everyone can afford to say CATCH THE TRAIN.

4lulz123
11-30-2012, 08:19 PM
lol fail

lmao haha,

lol. so much IQ in this thread.

PMR probably thinks we are all communist and should give away all our possession to government.

but lol, how do i giveaway my healthcare to someone, which is why i give away money when i pay GST and get taxed.

ohmanallthisstu
11-30-2012, 08:23 PM
this isn't about liberal or conservative. Heres the deal: the success of capitalism brought many great things. It brought evils with it.

Truth is, people dont' care about ethics, et al any more. It's all a self-deceptive ruse.

If I were to make a thread in this section- a section of the internet which contains liberals, conservatives, libertarians, and all other stripes of mostly americans- and it was a thread detailing the illegal dealings of la cosa nostra, or a wealthy business executive, i would get 30 posts or more with gif's and one-liners reiterating how much of a Boss/Bawla'/Bad ass alpha male the guy is.

If I were to make a thread detailing how a single dad lied on his paperwork for food stamps to get an extra 50 a month for baby formula, he would be ridiculed as a pathetic mooching loser on a scale of 30000-1.

We all envy the rich. The rest doesn't matter. If you start bringing morality into the equation as though that will influence the opinion of the american majority you're helpless.

KBkilla
11-30-2012, 08:24 PM
WRONG, demand huge demand doesn't equal profits. a business needs profits.

Example Ferraris, everyone wants one, but can they afford one? No.

Roads, and transport, everyone needs it. But can they afford it even if they greatly demand it? No. Which is even when private sector is involved, the government funds them and subsidies them so everyone can afford to say CATCH THE TRAIN.

When did I say demand = profits? Do you even have a basic concept of economics and capitalism? If there is a demand, the private sector will supply the product/services FOR profit. Good lord.

Last I checked, Ferrari makes a profit.

What part of "the government doesn't fund anything" do you not understand? They STEAL money from one group, and give it to another. That is plunder. The private sector would have been able to build roads, infrastructure and transportation FOR profit, had it not been for the government getting in the way PREVENTING them from doing so.

The Internet is a prime example. It was originally funded by government, but not until government got out of the way did it flourish in the private sector. Now the Internet is the best example of how a truly free market works.

4lulz123
11-30-2012, 08:27 PM
lmao, but they wont get profit from roads and infrastructure if they do it themselves, they need gov subsidy and funding first and then they get privatised to make em more efficient.

and yes Ferrari makes a profit, but its not a public good or public service OK, its a luxury good? Your so stupid it hurts, sorry had to say.

and NO I AM NOT AGAINST CAPITALISM, lol, im all for you going out working hard and earning money. but i am happy to pay my tax.

KBkilla
11-30-2012, 08:29 PM
lmao, but they wont get profit from roads and infrastructure if they do it themselves, they need gov subsidy and funding first and then they get privatised to make em more efficient.

and yes Ferrari makes a profit, but its not a public good or public service OK, its a luxury good? Your so stupid it hurts, sorry had to say.

and NO I AM NOT AGAINST CAPITALISM, lol, im all for you going out working hard and earning money. but i am happy to pay my tax.

Yes, they will. They will find a way. They always do. You are assuming and speculating that they won't. Because you're a clueless idiot.

ROFL, clearly I'm not the stupid one here. Are you insinuating Ferrari should give away their goods because the average person can't afford it? If so, I'm sorry you suffer from such a horrible mental disorder called liberalism.

Taxation without consent is theft.

4lulz123
11-30-2012, 08:38 PM
Yes, they will. They will find a way. They always do. You are assuming and speculating that they won't. Because you're a clueless idiot.

ROFL, clearly I'm not the stupid one here. Are you insinuating Ferrari should give away their goods because the average person can't afford it? If so, I'm sorry you suffer from such a horrible mental disorder called liberalism.

Taxation without consent is theft.

no because its a luxury good, do you even economics? do you know what MPC MPS Public good, public service and market failure? Do you know the characteristics of different goods are? Elasticity and in-elastic goods?

Do you not get the point? A Ferrari is different from a metro system or airport in one difference, they are neccesary for modern society to function.

But if cars was a public service in which everyone required to function in society but cant afford due to its huge cost, it would be subsidized or funded by government.

KBkilla
11-30-2012, 08:38 PM
http://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/67618_452089511516701_2070448112_n.png

KBkilla
11-30-2012, 08:40 PM
no because its a luxury good, do you even economics? do you know what MPC MPS Public good, public service and market failure? Do you know the characteristics of different goods are? Elasticity and in-elastic goods?

Do you not get the point? A Ferrari is different from a metro system or airport in one difference, they are neccesary for modern society to function.

But if cars was a public service in which everyone required to function in society but cant afford due to its huge cost, it would be subsidized or funded by government.

You're a brainwashed socialist that can't be helped. The only thing that will wake you up is a total collapse of the system. It is coming, don't worry. It's inevitable.

ProLibertas
11-30-2012, 08:40 PM
lmao, but they wont get profit from roads and infrastructure if they do it themselves

Why not? Are you saying people don't want roads and infrastructure?

4lulz123
11-30-2012, 08:41 PM
and yes the businesses will find a way to making roads and schools profitable, by charging 10000 dollar to use the road so only the richest elite can. yup.

4lulz123
11-30-2012, 08:42 PM
Why not? Are you saying people don't want roads and infrastructure?

haha i already went over that, yes people want it but they wont be able to afford it if businesses build one and charge an acceptable price that will break balance and make a profit.

its so simple and logical yet you retards just go around in circles

The great highways of rome, they werent built to make a profit and werent built by businesses.

ProLibertas
11-30-2012, 08:45 PM
haha i already went over that, yes people want it but they wont be able to afford it if businesses build one and charge an acceptable price that will break balance and make a profit.

its so simple and logical yet you retards just go around in circles

So why won't they be able to?

nutsy54
11-30-2012, 08:48 PM
and yes the businesses will find a way to making roads and schools profitable, by charging 10000 dollar to use the road so only the richest elite can. yup.
Damn you are ignorant.

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/publicroads/06mar/06.cfm

California PRIVATE toll road, 91 Express.

http://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/speeches/14th_worldcongress/images/s5.jpg

http://images.onset.freedom.com/ocregister/article/kvfg38-b78589060z.120091229104421000grkljq3p.2.jpg

4lulz123
11-30-2012, 08:49 PM
OP, how did people survive before there was government? I mean no roads, "transport" or infrastructure. It must have been chaos right?

yeah its called the middle ages. if you want to go back to them, oh wait, much of america is already there.

tsbalr120
11-30-2012, 08:49 PM
lmao, but they wont get profit from roads and infrastructure if they do it themselves, they need gov subsidy and funding first and then they get privatised to make em more efficient.


There are highways that have tolls that make people pay to use them instead of taxing the local residents. Not all services has to payed for by taxes, there are other options that includes the private sector.

KBkilla
11-30-2012, 08:49 PM
and yes the businesses will find a way to making roads and schools profitable, by charging 10000 dollar to use the road so only the richest elite can. yup.


haha i already went over that, yes people want it but they wont be able to afford it if businesses build one and charge an acceptable price that will break balance and make a profit.

its so simple and logical yet you retards just go around in circles

The great highways of rome, they werent built to make a profit and werent built by businesses.

So your argument is that people won't be able to afford a certain product, so the government should steal money from the rich to provide it for those that can't afford it?

How stupid can you be?

4lulz123
11-30-2012, 08:50 PM
Damn you are ignorant.

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/publicroads/06mar/06.cfm

California PRIVATE toll road, 91 Express.

http://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/speeches/14th_worldcongress/images/s5.jpg

http://images.onset.freedom.com/ocregister/article/kvfg38-b78589060z.120091229104421000grkljq3p.2.jpg

haha lol, knew that would come up, but tell me. Did the private company decide to build the road to make a profit? NO

It was probably funded by government taxpayer first and then privatized to make it more efficient and pay it off. so stupid you guys

Which is where privatization comes in, which i am not against.

KBkilla
11-30-2012, 08:52 PM
haha lol, knew that would come up, but tell me. Did the private company decide to build the road to make a profit? NO

It was probably funded by government taxpayer first and then privatized to make it more efficient and pay it off. so stupid you guys

Which is where privatization comes in, which i am not against.

So, you're assuming and speculating, AGAIN. Jesus you're an idiot. You have no clue what you're talking about.

From the link he posted:

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/publicroads/06mar/06.cfm


A Spanish toll road company proposed to invest $7.2 billion to build the first leg of the Trans-Texas Corridor (TTC), a major highway, rail, and utility corridor running north-south from Oklahoma to Mexico.

/your life

nutsy54
11-30-2012, 08:56 PM
haha lol, knew that would come up, but tell me.
Did the private company decide to build the road to make a profit? NO <-- FALSE statement

It was probably funded by government taxpayer first.... <-- FALSE statement
Keep telling the world how stupid you are... Are all your positions based on false information and imaginary claims?

"This $130 million privately financed, fully automated facility is a 10-mile, four-lane toll project located within the median of an existing eight-lane freeway between State Route 55 in Orange County and the Riverside County line.
...
In addition to the initial $130 million capital cost savings to the State by private development and construction of the project, it is estimated that the State will also save $120 million in CHP, operations and maintenance expenses over the 35-year franchise period."
http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/paffairs/about/toll/rt91.htm

Spartacus777
11-30-2012, 08:57 PM
random Crap? you obviously never read a book or got no clue of economics.

Businesses don't build roads, schools and museums because you cant make a profit out of them, which is why the government steps in to fund em through taxpayer dollars. Is it GREED to 'steal your money' and build schools and museums?

Are you a phucking retard? How is is that you can't make profits off of these things? Please, explain. In the history of the U.S. we have had private interstate roads before they were nationalized, and we have private schools and museums.

The blatant stupidity in your post is disgusting. Don't reproduce.

SheHadMANHands
11-30-2012, 08:57 PM
To summarize this thread.. some people have a hard time realizing that so much in life boils down to pure luck. Genetics, parents, environment, etc. You didn't choose any of these, and yet they determine your potential.

If you accept that some people are inherently luckier than others, by birth, is it not logical to profess they "pay" a greater share in achieving universal equality (independent of personal effort)?

4lulz123
11-30-2012, 08:58 PM
So your argument is that people won't be able to afford a certain product, so the government should steal money from the rich to provide it for those that can't afford it?

How stupid can you be?

Thats exactly the point because not everyone who travels by roads can afford to pay a price set by a private firm who built a road for profit. And not everyone could afford the price asked to provide surgery by a hospital which is why government steps in. ANd WHY Do you keep SAYING ITS STAELING FROM THE RICH? EVERYONE Gets taxed, even the poorest of the poor, in Australia anyone who buys something that is not basic of basic goods has to pay GST and this doesnt decrease just cause you are poor.

Spartacus777
11-30-2012, 08:59 PM
Are YOU ****ing retarded, do you live in real life? Private schools which run on profit are over 20k a year. The average population cant afford that which is why there are public schools fool. the amount of retarded response is overwhelming

and NO i am not against capitalism, jesus christ just cause i believe tax and safety nets are neccesary doesnt mean im a god damn communist.

DO YOU EVEN READ? I Never said governments create jobs, Im sayind DEMAND creates jobs, demand by the general population who arent 10k a day ceos.

My head is about to explode from the idiocy and complete non-understanding of history.

KBkilla
11-30-2012, 09:00 PM
Thats exactly the point because not everyone who travels by roads can afford to pay a price set by a private firm who built a road for profit. And not everyone could afford the price asked to provide surgery by a hospital which is why government steps in. ANd WHY Do you keep SAYING ITS STAELING FROM THE RICH? EVERYONE Gets taxed, even the poorest of the poor, in Australia anyone who buys something that is not basic of basic goods has to pay GST and this doesnt decrease just cause you are poor.

So, you are saying that everyone should have a right to things they can not afford, but might need? If so, you're f*cking retarded and plain wrong. If you can afford a car, you can afford a $2.50 toll fee. Idiot.

If government wouldn't have "stepped in" healthcare, the prices would be affordable for everyone. If not, it would be cheap enough to give away. Tell me I'm wrong...

I'm not against a consumption tax. That isn't taxation without consent. If you don't want to be taxed, don't buy. However, taxing the rich to provide for the poor IS theft.

ProLibertas
11-30-2012, 09:01 PM
To summarize this thread.. some people have a hard time realizing that so much in life boils down to pure luck. Genetics, parents, environment, etc. You didn't choose any of these, and yet they determine your potential.

If you accept that some people are inherently luckier than others, by birth, is it not logical to admit they "pay" a greater share in achieving universal equality (independent of personal effort)?

How can you say in post that, equality is impossible, due to those factors, then say we should drag down the exceptional people in pursuit of equality, which can't be reached?

kratosbrah
11-30-2012, 09:03 PM
OP, you made the dire mistake in thinking Conservatives have a clue what the fuk they're talking about 95% of the time.

negged

4lulz123
11-30-2012, 09:09 PM
Are you a phucking retard? How is is that you can't make profits off of these things? Please, explain. In the history of the U.S. we have had private interstate roads before they were nationalized, and we have private schools and museums.

The blatant stupidity in your post is disgusting. Don't reproduce.

HAHA stfu, why did you think they were nationalised? and just cause a few roads were built in your cowboy days by individuals doesn't mean it will work in a large scale. Your interstate highway system was built by Eisenhower for example, you really think that such a feat can be accomplished by a business without making huge losses? And if you know anything about private schools you would know historically they were established by non profit organizations affiliated with the church, such as Convent of the Sacred Hearts and Sisters of Loreto. Over time they became more prestigious and larger and more costly catering for the wealthy as compared to state schools. Many private schools also do not have CEOs that earn 10k a day, the money earnt from the higher fees go towards building projects within the school.

It really looks like you are the one that knows nothing

KBkilla
11-30-2012, 09:11 PM
HAHA stfu, why did you think they were nationalised? and just cause a few roads were built in your cowboy days by individuals doesn't mean it will work in a large scale. Your interstate highway system was built by Eisenhower for example, you really think that such a feat can be accomplished by a business without making huge losses? And if you know anything about private schools you would know historically they were established by non profit organizations affiliated with the church, such as Convent of the Sacred Hearts and Sisters of Loreto. Over time they became more prestigious and larger and more costly catering for the wealthy as compared to state schools. Many private schools also do not have CEOs that earn 10k a day, the money earnt from the higher fees go towards building projects within the school.

It really looks like you are the one that knows nothing

Says the guy that is posting nothing but emotional assumptions and speculation.

SheHadMANHands
11-30-2012, 09:14 PM
How can you say in post that, equality is impossible, due to those factors, then say we should drag down the exceptional people in pursuit of equality, which can't be reached?

A wee bit drunk, which is perhaps why the above sentence seems incoherent to me..

I think I get what you are saying though. All I've said is that some people are inherently less fortunate than others. In fact, I don't see how anyone can deny this. I do agree that equality by birth is practically impossible, or at least inconceivable in a reasonable populated society. It does not follow though that equality can not be equated ex post facto.

KBkilla
11-30-2012, 09:15 PM
A wee bit drunk, which is perhaps why the above sentence seems incoherent to me..

I think I get what you are saying though. All I've said is that some people are inherently less fortunate than others. In fact, I don't see how anyone can deny this fact. I do agree that equality by birth is practically impossible, or at least inconceivable. It does not follow though that equality can not be equated ex post facto.

The worst form of inequality is to try to make unequal things equal. – Aristotle

tk217
11-30-2012, 09:15 PM
http://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/67618_452089511516701_2070448112_n.png

Are you fkcing serious?

4lulz123
11-30-2012, 09:16 PM
Haha @ KB, yes, its 2.50 cause the private company that collects the toll didnt build the road, it was built by government and than a private company took over for tolls instead of government doing it to make it more efficient. But if the company did build the road they would be charging a lot more and car owners wont be able to afford it.

And not just the RICH, middle class and lower middle class get taxed as well, but they get tax less cause they cant afford it. While 10k a day CEO can give up larger portion of their income and still have much excess remain.

Boohoo poor little rich millionaires getting taxed. Out of all the people to defend in the world, im gonna choose to defend those who are billionaires and 10x better off then i am instead of those unfortunate and unlucky.

SheHadMANHands
11-30-2012, 09:18 PM
The worst form of inequality is to try to make unequal things equal. – Aristotle

You might as well quote the bible. You are aware that while Aristotle/Plato/etc were free thinkers (and inspiring in that), they were almost completely wrong about everything.

KBkilla
11-30-2012, 09:19 PM
Haha @ KB, yes, its 2.50 cause the private company that collects the toll didnt build the road, it was built by government and than a private company took over for tolls instead of government doing it to make it more efficient. But if the company did build the road they would be charging a lot more and car owners wont be able to afford it.

And not just the RICH, middle class and lower middle class get taxed as well, but they get tax less cause they cant afford it. While 10k a day CEO can give up larger portion of their income and still have much excess remain.

Boohoo poor little rich millionaires getting taxed. Out of all the people to defend in the world, im gonna choose to defend those who are billionaires and 10x better off then i am instead of those unfortunate and unlucky.

False.

I have nothing against the rich. They earned what they have. Why should they be penalized?

4lulz123
11-30-2012, 09:19 PM
The worst form of inequality is to try to make unequal things equal. – Aristotle

The poor are greedy and steals from the rich, i also dont need welfare/healthcare from government when i suddenly lose my 10 dollars/hr maccas job and i get sick-KBkilla

KBkilla
11-30-2012, 09:20 PM
You might as well quote the bible. You are aware that while Aristotle/Plato/etc were free thinkers (and inspiring in that), they were almost completely wrong about everything.

The Bible is a fairy tale.

Saying they were wrong about everything is a bit of a stretch.

tk217
11-30-2012, 09:20 PM
False.

I have nothing against the rich. They earned what they have. Why should they be penalized?

Why should I be penalized for trading my labor for pay? Is it not equivalent?

nutsy54
11-30-2012, 09:20 PM
Haha @ KB, yes, its 2.50 cause the private company that collects the toll didnt build the road, it was built by government and than a private company took over for tolls instead of government doing it to make it more efficient.
Wow. The facts have been posted right in this thread, cited from the California DOT web site, and you still continue the lies.
Just admit you've utterly failed to make any point in this thread and give up.

Once again:

haha lol, knew that would come up, but tell me.
Did the private company decide to build the road to make a profit? NO <-- FALSE statement

It was probably funded by government taxpayer first.... <-- FALSE statement
Keep telling the world how stupid you are... Are all your positions based on false information and imaginary claims?

"This $130 million privately financed, fully automated facility is a 10-mile, four-lane toll project located within the median of an existing eight-lane freeway between State Route 55 in Orange County and the Riverside County line.
...
In addition to the initial $130 million capital cost savings to the State by private development and construction of the project, it is estimated that the State will also save $120 million in CHP, operations and maintenance expenses over the 35-year franchise period."
http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/paffairs/about/toll/rt91.htm

4lulz123
11-30-2012, 09:21 PM
False.

I have nothing against the rich. They earned what they have. Why should they be penalized?

And why should poor people suffer? I have nothing against them?

tk217
11-30-2012, 09:22 PM
And why should poor people suffer? I have nothing against them?

How does taxing the rich have anything to do with the level of suffering of the poor?

KBkilla
11-30-2012, 09:22 PM
The poor are greedy and steals from the rich, i also dont need welfare/healthcare from government when i suddenly lose my 10 dollars/hr maccas job and i get sick-KBkilla

I sure wouldn't turn to the government with my hand out. I would suck it up, and try again. It's called self-responsibility. That's Liberty. That's life.

nutsy54
11-30-2012, 09:22 PM
How does taxing the rich have anything to do with the level of suffering of the poor?
Greed, Envy, and Class Warfare makes them feel better :(
And then pandering politicians get reelected as a result

KBkilla
11-30-2012, 09:23 PM
And why should poor people suffer? I have nothing against them?

Not everyone can be a winner. There are losers in life. There always will be. Get used to it.

KBkilla
11-30-2012, 09:24 PM
Why should I be penalized for trading my labor for pay? Is it not equivalent?

What are you asking here? I don't think you should be penalized for trading your labor for pay. You should be able to keep 100% of the fruits of your labor.

tk217
11-30-2012, 09:26 PM
What are you asking here?

If you really want to get at the heart of the matter - why is the government allowed to tax my labor when I am bartering it for pay? How is this remotely ethical? They're making the claim explicitly that my labor (whatever I am doing) is an investment and what I am selling is actually worth less than what I am being paid for -- meaning I am screwing my employer, the other side of this is that corporations are then taxed on profits made from my labor beyond their expenses.

ProLibertas
11-30-2012, 09:28 PM
A wee bit drunk, which is perhaps why the above sentence seems incoherent to me..

I think I get what you are saying though. All I've said is that some people are inherently less fortunate than others. In fact, I don't see how anyone can deny this. I do agree that equality by birth is practically impossible, or at least inconceivable in a reasonable populated society. It does not follow though that equality can not be equated ex post facto.
I'm to lazy to use complete sentences,

Why should we drag all down all the exceptionally gifted people in order to try and bring up all lesser ones?

Trying to do this does two things it discourages being exceptional as you will benefit less since the more exceptional you are the more you get dragged down to help the less lucky.

Second it will encourage failure, instead of those at the bottom gradually working there way up they will stay at the bottom because, as previously explained moving up and being exceptional is punished and failure is rewarded in order to increase equality.


Since success is not just determined by birth but in large part hard or smart work you can see how messing with the motivation destroys overall progress.

KBkilla
11-30-2012, 09:29 PM
If you really want to get at the heart of the matter - why is the government allowed to tax my labor when I am bartering it for pay? How is this remotely ethical? They're making the claim explicitly that my labor (whatever I am doing) is an investment and what I am selling is actually worth less than what I am being paid for -- meaning I am screwing my employer, the other side of this is that corporations are then taxed on profits made from my labor beyond their expenses.

They shouldn't be allowed to. It's unconstitutional (until the 16th amendment from 1913, of course). It's not ethical. I think you're misunderstanding what I said. lol

tk217
11-30-2012, 09:30 PM
I'm to lazy to use complete sentences,

Why should we drag all down all the exceptionally gifted people in order to try and bring up all less equal ones?

Trying to do this does two things it discourages being exceptional as you will benefit less since the more exceptional you are the more you get dragged down to help the less lucky.

Second it will encourage failure, instead of those at the bottom gradually working there way up they will stay at the bottom because, as previously explained moving up and being exceptional is punished and failure is rewarded in order to increase equality.

Who says we're bringing up anyone? Maybe we're just dragging the G&T down.

tk217
11-30-2012, 09:31 PM
They shouldn't be allowed to. It's unconstitutional (until the 17th amendment from 1913, of course). It's not ethical. I think you're misunderstanding what I said. lol

I'm not misunderstanding anything I'm putting fourth the actual argument of taxation and what we currently are doing is highly unethical. Not only does our tax policy currently punish scathing amounts of people it is down right evil at times in regard to actual ethics of what capitalism is and what this country was founded on.

KBkilla
11-30-2012, 09:32 PM
I'm not misunderstanding anything I'm putting fourth the actual argument of taxation and what we currently are doing is highly unethical. Not only does our tax policy currently punish scathing amounts of people it is down right evil at times in regard to actual ethics of what capitalism is and what this country was founded on.

That's my whole point... Like I said, I think you misunderstood my posts somewhere.

beefyfan
11-30-2012, 09:32 PM
random Crap? you obviously never read a book or got no clue of economics.

Businesses don't build roads, schools and museums because you cant make a profit out of them, which is why the government steps in to fund em through taxpayer dollars. Is it GREED to 'steal your money' and build schools and museums?

You've already owned the living hell out of the right wing retard, stop trying to educate the uneducatable.

KBkilla
11-30-2012, 09:33 PM
You've already owned the living hell out of the right wing retard, stop trying to educate the uneducatable.

The only thing he's owned is himself.

TruthandJustice
11-30-2012, 09:33 PM
Stealing is stealing whether it is rich stealing from the poor or poor stealing from the rich.

And charities have always been around to help those in need. If government was the solution, then why is the current poverty rate 15.7%, the highest in 50 years since the "war on poverty" started? The US has spent roughly 16 trillion, the nation debt, fighting poverty and has nothing but massive debt to show for it. If poverty was just people down on their luck who just needed a little help to return to being a productive member of society then poverty should be almost non-existent after spending 16 trillion.

The truth is that a large majority of people on welfare have no desire to become productive and personally responsible members of society, and will only strive to do the absolute minimum they need to do to continue receiving their benefits. These people make poor choices, like sex before marriage, getting pregnant, and having to drop out of school, or being lazy, skipping school, and playing video games. Government further enables such behavior by giving them free money for making those bad choices.

http://www.npr.org/2012/08/04/158141728/how-americas-losing-the-war-on-poverty

Conservatives aren't opposed to helping people. For example, I think it would be a good idea to help people get an education, but it should be something like we'll pay the interest on the loan for a couple years, but then you have to pay back the loan yourself. That way people are personally invested in bettering themselves. Whatever the help you think people should get it should be done by private charities, not government. Government charity is less than half as efficient as private charities. Virtually all private charities are 65% efficient or more, and 2/3s are 70% efficient or more, while government is only 30% efficient. That means for every million dollars the government spends to fund welfare programs, $700,000 is spent on administrative and infrastructure costs, things like employee salaries, buildings, property, etc. Only $300,000 is actually spend on helping the poor. Government being involved in charity doesn't benefit anyone except the politicians who use it to buy votes, and their crony buddies who provide the welfare benefit services (for example, Chase gets paid half a billion an year to process EBT card transaction).

tk217
11-30-2012, 09:35 PM
That's my whole point... Like I said, I think you misunderstood my posts somewhere.

You shouldn't be focusing on just one income group despite what OP is attempting to scapegoat - you should always include everyone is my point to you on how to argue this topic.

EVERYONE is taxed too much already EVERYONE shouldn't be taxed on their labor.

The less taxes the government is legally allowed to collect the smaller it will be and the less it can operate illicitly and violently against the populace.

KBkilla
11-30-2012, 09:36 PM
You shouldn't be focusing on just one income group despite what OP is attempting to scapegoat - you should always include everyone is my point to you on how to argue this topic.

EVERYONE is taxed too much already EVERYONE shouldn't be taxed on their labor.

I don't think anyone should be taxed without consent.

The point of my post was why should someone be penalized for earning money, whether it be the rich or middle class.

beefyfan
11-30-2012, 09:37 PM
The only thing he's owned is himself.

You mad cuz I owned you brah? Huh? B!tch-A$$!

4lulz123
11-30-2012, 09:38 PM
Wow. The facts have been posted right in this thread, cited from the California DOT web site, and you still continue the lies.
Just admit you've utterly failed to make any point in this thread and give up.

Once again:

Keep telling the world how stupid you are... Are all your positions based on false information and imaginary claims?

"This $130 million privately financed, fully automated facility is a 10-mile, four-lane toll project located within the median of an existing eight-lane freeway between State Route 55 in Orange County and the Riverside County line.
...
In addition to the initial $130 million capital cost savings to the State by private development and construction of the project, it is estimated that the State will also save $120 million in CHP, operations and maintenance expenses over the 35-year franchise period."
http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/paffairs/about/toll/rt91.htm

haha, thats just 10 mile expressway on an existing 59 mile road. The reason that they built this was because it was profitable (with a bit of bargaining with the state in not expanding other roads as well). What about those vital roads which WONT be profitable or wont have enough people travelling through but deemed essential for transport in the area.

I would like to see them build the entire state system, or find enough private firms to do it. Im never against privatisation but governments will always be necessary in nation building projects.

Look at the Panama canal, that was more difficult than it was first thought and the US took over before it was built. There are just somethings private firms cant provide without enormous risk of huge losses.

tk217
11-30-2012, 09:38 PM
You mad cuz I owned you brah? Huh? B!tch-A$$!

Grow up?

KBkilla
11-30-2012, 09:38 PM
You mad cuz I owned you brah? Huh? B!tch-A$$!

lmfao oh so mad brah

tk217
11-30-2012, 09:40 PM
haha, thats just 10 mile expressway on an existing 59 mile road. The reason that they built this was because it was profitable (with a bit of bargaining with the state in not expanding other roads as well). What about those vital roads which WONT be profitable or wont have enough people travelling through but deemed essential for transport in the area.

I would like to see them build the entire state system, or find enough private firms to do it. Im never against privatisation but governments will always be necessary in nation building projects.

Look at the Panama canal, that was more difficult than it was first thought and the US took over before it was built. There are just somethings private firms cant provide without enormous risk of huge losses.

So, you're saying if only private people blew more money on bridges to no where your point would be sound? Awesome.

KBkilla
11-30-2012, 09:41 PM
haha, thats just 10 mile expressway on an existing 59 mile road. The reason that they built this was because it was profitable (with a bit of bargaining with the state in not expanding other roads as well). What about those vital roads which WONT be profitable or wont have enough people travelling through but deemed essential for transport in the area.

I would like to see them build the entire state system, or find enough private firms to do it. Im never against privatisation but governments will always be necessary in nation building projects.

Look at the Panama canal, that was more difficult than it was first thought and the US took over before it was built. There are just somethings private firms cant provide without enormous risk of huge losses.

OMFG What do you think Capitalism is??? It's private profits, and private losses. Not private profits, and socialized losses. There are almost always risks of losses. Good lord. People shouldn't be penalized for making a profit off taking risks either.

4lulz123
11-30-2012, 09:43 PM
lol KBKillah logic

'Why should the RICH BE POOR OMG OMG?ITS SO UNFAIR ON THEM?'

10 seconds later

'There will always be poor people, so i dont give a **** about them'

Like you are the one to talk about fairness and equality brah.

SheHadMANHands
11-30-2012, 09:44 PM
I'm to lazy to use complete sentences,

Why should we drag all down all the exceptionally gifted people in order to try and bring up all lesser ones?

Trying to do this does two things it discourages being exceptional as you will benefit less since the more exceptional you are the more you get dragged down to help the less lucky.

Second it will encourage failure, instead of those at the bottom gradually working there way up they will stay at the bottom because, as previously explained moving up and being exceptional is punished and failure is rewarded in order to increase equality.


Since success is not just determined by birth but in large part hard or smart work you can see how messing with the motivation destroys overall progress.

Here is a hypothetical that's fun and factors in this idea that some people are born luckier than others. Imagine you are to be randomly born into American society (assuming you are in America). How would you prefer society be arranged? Would you be in favor of "universal healthcare" now, in case you were born as an "urban youth"? Would you support a flat tax rate?

Does such an exercise alter your concept of what is "fair"? Certainly the very base note of fairness begins at birth, no?

Personally, I think guaranteed health care assists in normalizing equality at birth (partially). The idea that poor people are simply lazy is a problem, and I think much of it is grounded in the religious hokum of free will. A collision of R & P, at last.

KBkilla
11-30-2012, 09:45 PM
http://militantlibertarian.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/NightOfTheLivingStatists.jpg

4lulz123
11-30-2012, 09:45 PM
OMFG What do you think Capitalism is??? It's private profits, and private losses. Not private profits, and socialized losses. There are almost always risks of losses. Good lord. People shouldn't be penalized for making a profit off taking risks either.

yeah, which is why not everything will get done cause theres more reluctance as profit is not garaunteed. When a goverment says 'WE NEED A SECOND AIRPORT/ WE NEED A LIGHTHOUSE TO PROTECT SHIPPING' they dont think 'HOw much profit are we gonna make'

Offcourse governments arent perfect, i ****ing hate it when australian government dont get infrastructure projects like certain railway links done while spending millions on 'FEAsABILITY studies'. But it sure is better than waiting for a firm to take the risk if its profitable or not? K

KBkilla
11-30-2012, 09:46 PM
lol KBKillah logic

'Why should the RICH BE POOR OMG OMG?ITS SO UNFAIR ON THEM?'

10 seconds later

'There will always be poor people, so i dont give a **** about them'

Like you are the one to talk about fairness and equality brah.

Someone can't read...

tk217
11-30-2012, 09:46 PM
lol KBKillah logic

'Why should the RICH BE POOR OMG OMG?ITS SO UNFAIR ON THEM?'

10 seconds later

'There will always be poor people, so i dont give a **** about them'

Like you are the one to talk about fairness and equality brah.

As long as there is scarcity of resources -- there will always be haves and have nots.

4lulz123
11-30-2012, 09:47 PM
As long as there is scarcity of resources -- there will always be haves and have nots.

well duh. but when one percent has **** loads more money i think they can lose a few thousand/million to benefit society as a whole? and besides they're not the only one paying tax, middle class does to who dont have gazillion of dollars but not as much.

dakensta
11-30-2012, 09:48 PM
I want to produce a product to make some profits.
I require basically educated employees, who can at least read and write, and communicate reasonably well.
I also require a supply of electricity and water.
And a transport network, i.e. roads, rail, air transport, to move in raw materials, and to ship out finished product.
I will not require a well developed healthcare system to help any of my employees. If they get sick they can die, and I will educate and train new employees.
So, as I am not interested in contributing to society in general, through the medium of taxes, how much is it going to cost me to build all of the necessary infrastructure for my business, and educate my workforce?
Oh. That much? I'd need to be a trillionaire to be able to build all that stuff.
Well I guess I won't become a millionaire after all. So much for the American dream.

KBkilla
11-30-2012, 09:48 PM
Here is a hypothetical that's fun and factors in this idea that some people are born luckier than others. Imagine you are to be randomly born into American society (assuming you are in America). How would you prefer society be arranged? Would you be in favor of "universal healthcare" now, in case you were born as an "urban youth"? Would you support a flat tax rate?

Does such an exercise alter your concept of what is "fair"? Certainly the very base note of fairness begins at birth, no?

Personally, I think guaranteed health care assists in normalizing equality at birth (partially). The idea that poor people are simply lazy is a problem, and I think much of it is grounded in the religious hokum of free will. A collision of R & P, at last.

The idea that all poor people are poor and in need because they tried their hardest and failed numerous times is a ridiculous notion. Sure, there are some people that really are in need, but face it, there are a lot of bums and losers out there that don't want to do anything but get a handout from everyone else.

KBkilla
11-30-2012, 09:50 PM
well duh. but when one percent has **** loads more money i think they can lose a few thousand/million to benefit society as a whole? and besides they're not the only one paying tax, middle class does to who dont have gazillion of dollars but not as much.

So how much should they have to pay? 50% of their income? 75%? You do realize that the top 1% pays more in taxes now, in one year, than you and I ever will in our lifetime, right?

Hell 47% of the population pay ZERO income tax.

The rich already pay more than their "fair share". Asking them to pay more is greedy.

/thread.

tk217
11-30-2012, 09:51 PM
well duh. but when one percent has **** loads more money i think they can lose a few thousand/million to benefit society as a whole? and besides they're not the only one paying tax, middle class does to who dont have gazillion of dollars but not as much.

Who says you are benefiting society as whole?

tk217
11-30-2012, 09:52 PM
So how much should they have to pay? 50% of their income? 75%? You do realize that the top 1% pays more in taxes now, in one year, than you and I ever will in our lifetime, right?

As a % of their income or as a dollar amount? Are you sure about this? Romney is the top 1% but he pays way less than I do as a % of his total income.

4lulz123
11-30-2012, 09:53 PM
Who says you are benefiting society as whole?

I work?

and studylol

tk217
11-30-2012, 09:54 PM
I work?

and studylol

You are on welfare as you work?

KBkilla
11-30-2012, 09:54 PM
As a % of their income or as a dollar amount? Are you sure about this? Romney is the top 1% but he pays way less than I do as a % of his total income.

Really? What % does Romney pay?

4lulz123
11-30-2012, 09:54 PM
So how much should they have to pay? 50% of their income? 75%? You do realize that the top 1% pays more in taxes now, in one year, than you and I ever will in our lifetime, right?

Hell 47% of the population pay ZERO income tax.

The rich already pay more than their "fair share". Asking them to pay more is greedy.

/thread.

yeah, its cause they have most of the money. brb pays 35 percent in tax, still can afford rolls royce, private jet and prime real estate while sending kids to 30k/a year private school and buy gifts to wife everyday.

SheHadMANHands
11-30-2012, 09:55 PM
The idea that all poor people are poor and in need because they tried their hardest and failed numerous times is a ridiculous notion. Sure, there are some people that really are in need, but face it, there are a lot of bums and losers out there that don't want to do anything but get a handout from everyone else.

My point is that even if he/she is a "bum", their circumstance is largely due to misfortune (bad luck). In fact, in a deterministic universe, they could not have turned out any other way (nor could you or I have). Why punish them more because they were born into the environment they were, had the parents they had, stumbled across the friends they did, and ended up in the circumstances they're in?

tk217
11-30-2012, 09:55 PM
Really? What % does Romney pay?

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57517962-503544/romney-paid-14.1-percent-tax-rate-in-2011/

14.1%

And he would have paid less than 10% had he taken all of his electives.

tk217
11-30-2012, 09:57 PM
My point is that even if he/she is a "bum", their circumstance is largely due to misfortune (bad luck). In fact, in a deterministic universe, they could not have turned out any other way (nor could you or I have). Why punish them more because they were born into the environment they were, had the parents they had, stumbled across the friends they did, and ended up in the circumstances they're in?

Good question -- why punish anyone for trading their labor - we need to do away with the ordinary income tax.

KBkilla
11-30-2012, 09:57 PM
yeah, its cause they have most of the money. brb pays 35 percent in tax, still can afford rolls royce, private jet and prime real estate while sending kids to 30k/a year private school and buy gifts to wife everyday.

So, they already pay in over a THIRD of their income, but since they can still afford luxuries you can not, they should be penalized more? Your logic is flawed.

Tehcelltech
11-30-2012, 09:58 PM
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57517962-503544/romney-paid-14.1-percent-tax-rate-in-2011/

14.1%

And he would have paid less than 10% had he taken all of his electives.

He pays another 35% at the corporate level which is makes the real rate around 50%. He donated another 20-30% (I think that's about how much) of his income to charity.

KBkilla
11-30-2012, 09:58 PM
My point is that even if he/she is a "bum", their circumstance is largely due to misfortune (bad luck). In fact, in a deterministic universe, they could not have turned out any other way (nor could you or I have). Why punish them more because they were born into the environment they were, had the parents they had, stumbled across the friends they did, and ended up in the circumstances they're in?

Who is punishing them more? I believe you make your own luck. If you are capable and really want to succeed, you will. You may fail, and need some help, but to not even try and expect a handout is not okay.

tk217
11-30-2012, 10:00 PM
He pays another 35% at the corporate level which is makes the real rate around 50%. He donated another 20-30% (I think that's about how much) of his income to charity.

If he really donated to charity why does he get to benefit from paying less taxes?

That isn't charity. That is just paying your taxes to some other entity other than the government (often times for self gain because you're paying to a charity you are part of / a board member of / run yourself) this idea of "charity = less tax" is corrupt at its core.

The point where he didn't take his electives fully (where he could have gone down another 7 or so% is actual charity -- expect nothing in return giving for the sake of giving) is real charity but even then it really isn't because it was politically motivated.

KBkilla
11-30-2012, 10:01 PM
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57517962-503544/romney-paid-14.1-percent-tax-rate-in-2011/

14.1%

And he would have paid less than 10% had he taken all of his electives.

Way to read half the article.

v this


He pays another 35% at the corporate level which is makes the real rate around 50%. He donated another 20-30% (I think that's about how much) of his income to charity.

4lulz123
11-30-2012, 10:02 PM
what do you conservatives think about companies like Google who are run by young people and very liberal and give out free dental and all these other 'welfare' like benefits to their employees? all that spent on employees couldve gone to MR ceo's salary?

and anyway, it always has been humanitarian struggles and the working class that fought for individual liberties and rights. so its rude to turn away from the as without their revolutions and fight for the common man, society would be a much ****ter place.

most of us wont be millionaire CEOs remember that.

tk217
11-30-2012, 10:02 PM
Way to read half the article.

v this

Way to not understand how corrupt that article actually is making Romney sound.

tk217
11-30-2012, 10:04 PM
what do you conservatives think about companies like Google who are run by young people and very liberal and give out free dental and all these other 'welfare' like benefits to their employees? all that spent on employees couldve gone to MR ceo's salary?

and anyway, it always has been humanitarian struggles and the working class that fought for individual liberties and rights. so its rude to turn away from the as without their revolutions and fight for the common man, society would be a much ****ter place.

most of us wont be millionaire CEOs remember that.

They aren't giving for the sake of giving they know that if their employees get all kinds of benefits there is virtually no turn over (except for cause) and they can compete / maintain the best and brightest workforce. There is a huge financial incentive to do this.

KBkilla
11-30-2012, 10:05 PM
what do you conservatives think about companies like Google who are run by young people and very liberal and give out free dental and all these other 'welfare' like benefits to their employees? all that spent on employees couldve gone to MR ceo's salary?

and anyway, it always has been humanitarian struggles and the working class that fought for individual liberties and rights. so its rude to turn away from the as without their revolutions and fight for the common man, society would be a much ****ter place.

most of us wont be millionaire CEOs remember that.

That was a choice Google made privately. Nothing wrong with that.

How the F*CK can you sit there advocating for higher taxes for the rich and talk about individual rights and liberties? Are you f*cking kidding me? The founders would be ashamed of our current government, and not advocate that "the rich should pay their fair share".

KBkilla
11-30-2012, 10:07 PM
Way to not understand how corrupt that article actually is making Romney sound.

I understand how corrupt it's making him sound. It was put out by CBS. Obama's cheerleaders.

tk217
11-30-2012, 10:08 PM
I understand how corrupt it's making him sound. It was put out by CBS. Obama's puppets.

Then you should understand he pays less taxes than I do. He is the 1% and pays less taxes as a % of his income than me -- someone in the middle class.

Our tax system is outrageously corrupt at the top so I don't feel bad for demanding more taxes from the rich aka paying their share -- but it is also outrageously corrupt in the middle and bottom when it literally leeches on the middle class and poor and virtually creates a cast system of indentured servitude.

And even claiming that "poor people" don't even pay federal taxes is a TERRIBLE thing it just shows you how little they actually make and on top of that it isn't like they aren't paying ANY taxes as they pay SS/Medicare/medicaid/consumption taxes/state taxes ect ect.

KBkilla
11-30-2012, 10:09 PM
Then you should understand he pays less taxes than I do. He is the 1% and pays less taxes as a % of his income than me -- someone in the middle class.

Because the tax system is corrupt. I agree, we should do away with the income tax completely.

However, he actually pays more in capital gains tax, which is 35%.

KBkilla
11-30-2012, 10:11 PM
Our tax system is outrageously corrupt at the top so I don't feel bad for demanding more taxes from the rich aka paying their share -- but it is also outrageously corrupt in the middle when it literally leeches on the middle class and poor and virtually creates a cast system of indentured servitude.

He shouldn't have to pay any income tax. No one should. Like I said, he's already paying 35% capital gains tax. Why should he have to pay more?

tk217
11-30-2012, 10:12 PM
Because the tax system is corrupt. I agree, we should do away with the income tax completely.

However, he actually pays more in capital gains tax, which is 35%.

Capital Gains Tax is the CORRECT kind of tax. This is the one place WE SHOULD tax. This is what you're suppose to tax!

KBkilla
11-30-2012, 10:12 PM
And even claiming that "poor people" don't even pay federal taxes is a TERRIBLE thing it just shows you how little they actually make and on top of that it isn't like they aren't paying ANY taxes as they pay SS/Medicare/medicaid/consumption taxes/state taxes ect ect.

It shows me just how much the 1% is already paying. Like I said, we should do away with the income tax, for everyone.

tk217
11-30-2012, 10:13 PM
He shouldn't have to pay any income tax. No one should. Like I said, he's already paying 35% capital gains tax. Why should he have to pay more?

There is a HUGE difference between getting money from investments and getting money from labor aka ordinary income. It is highly unethical to tax ordinary labor income.

KBkilla
11-30-2012, 10:13 PM
Capital Gains Tax is the CORRECT kind of tax. This is the one place WE SHOULD tax. This is what you're suppose to tax!

So then why are you saying he should pay more? If you get taxed .50 on every $1 or even more, where is the incentive to invest?

KBkilla
11-30-2012, 10:15 PM
There is a HUGE difference between getting money from investments and getting money from labor aka ordinary income. It is highly unethical to tax ordinary labor income.

I know there's a difference. But if you tax someone's investments too much, they lose incentive to invest and grow the economy.

4lulz123
11-30-2012, 10:15 PM
That was a choice Google made privately. Nothing wrong with that.

How the F*CK can you sit there advocating for higher taxes for the rich and talk about individual rights and liberties? Are you f*cking kidding me? The founders would be ashamed of our current government, and not advocate that "the rich should pay their fair share".

yeah, just wondering whether you guys hate google cause they seem liberal.

lmao, americans.

brb getting taxed while i swim in my 100 foot yacht and private jet is a violation of my liberty and rights.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Branson brb, complaining about his rights and liberty violated from company taxes.

tk217
11-30-2012, 10:16 PM
So then why are you saying he should pay more? If you get taxed .50 on every $1 or even more, where is the incentive to invest?

I don't really have a problem if he paid 35% no electives/deductions/credits.

tk217
11-30-2012, 10:17 PM
I know there's a difference. But if you tax someone's investments too much, they lose incentive to invest and grow the economy.

No they don't - what rubbish.

If you're going to be able to make a penny more by investing over not investing you're going to invest.

Also, what level of tax you're demanding is nearly 80% to have this equilibrium of zero gain.

KBkilla
11-30-2012, 10:18 PM
yeah, just wondering whether you guys hate google cause they seem liberal.

lmao, americans.

brb getting taxed while i swim in my 100 foot yacht and private jet is a violation of my liberty and rights.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Branson brb, complaining about his rights and liberty violated from company taxes.

Don't get me wrong. I love Google products, but I hate that they love Obama and his liberal policies. Do I think they should be penalized for it? No! It's a private company, and they have every right to run their company how they see fit.

So, if you could switch lives with Richard Branson, you would gladly ask the government to raise your taxes so you can pay more?

4lulz123
11-30-2012, 10:19 PM
all these conservatives are paranoid as fuark lol. last time i checked, people are still becoming billionaires through their own hardwork and are being rewarded for it.

tk217
11-30-2012, 10:19 PM
yeah, just wondering whether you guys hate google cause they seem liberal.

lmao, americans.

brb getting taxed while i swim in my 100 foot yacht and private jet is a violation of my liberty and rights.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Branson brb, complaining about his rights and liberty violated from company taxes.

WTF is wrong with you - you keep pointing out capitalistic corporations who do things through the incentive of development of wealth through hardwork and virtually NOTHING AGREES with your ideas of just handing out money for free.

KBkilla
11-30-2012, 10:20 PM
No they don't - what rubbish.

If you're going to be able to make a penny more by investing over not investing you're going to invest.

Also, what level of tax you're demanding is nearly 80% to have this equilibrium of zero gain.

I disagree. If I'm only going to make .01 to every dollar I invest, I'm not going to invest. There's no incentive for the risks associated with it.

I'm not demanding any tax. I'm advocating for less tax. Less taxes = more incentive to invest = more investments = more profits = more jobs = more wealth creation. It's that simple.

4lulz123
11-30-2012, 10:21 PM
WTF is wrong with you - you keep pointing out capitalistic corporations who do things through the incentive of development of wealth through hardwork and virtually NOTHING AGREES with your ideas of just handing out money for free.

that was in response to the post about violating liberty by taxing the rich. lol calm down dude.

4lulz123
11-30-2012, 10:22 PM
Don't get me wrong. I love Google products, but I hate that they love Obama and his liberal policies. Do I think they should be penalized for it? No! It's a private company, and they have every right to run their company how they see fit.

So, if you could switch lives with Richard Branson, you would gladly ask the government to raise your taxes so you can pay more?

as long as its not a significant amount from the original and have a good reason behind it im fine, i mean a 2 percent increase in tax due to changing economic conditions or watever wont stop me from buying that new lamborghini aventador cause i freaking ballin

tk217
11-30-2012, 10:23 PM
I disagree. If I'm only going to make .01 to every dollar I invest, I'm not going to invest. There's no incentive for the risks associated with it.

I'm not demanding any tax. I'm advocating for less tax. Less taxes = more incentive to invest = more investments = more profits = more jobs = more wealth creation. It's that simple.

You won't - but I will because I will make money and you won't.

There is an incentive it is that 1 cent on the dollar.

Jobs are a function of the free market - the more consumption/demand of something the more likely there will be job creation.

Just having investments does not mean there will be more jobs.

Automation is actually the destroyer of jobs. If you really want more jobs you want less automation.

If you want jobs that pay better but less of them you want automation - but that requires heavy front load spending in society on education and a society that is willing to accept the heavy amount of burden dumped on them to gain/understand that education. If only it were as simple as "less tax = investments = more jobs."

KBkilla
11-30-2012, 10:24 PM
as long as its not a significant amount from the original and have a good reason behind it im fine, i mean a 2 percent increase in tax due to changing economic conditions or watever wont stop me from buying that new lamborghini aventador cause i freaking ballin

How do you know? You have no clue what his expenses are. 2% to him is a lot more than 2% to you.

4lulz123
11-30-2012, 10:28 PM
and tk why shouldnt disadvantaged people be granted welfare? Would you be complaining if you suddenly lost your low paying job and went on the dole for a few weeks as you dont have much support from family and such? They are called safety netfalls for a reason and aren't meant to be lived on. Sadly some people do abuse it, but its necessary so everyone who falls over have a chance to get back up.

And also poor people shouldn't be granted subsidies for healthcare and dental? Just let their teeth rot? Let them die from illness?

Its not their fault they were born poor, i mean? IF people decided, would they really decide to be born black and in a ghetto?

Should soldiers suffering from PTSD just left in the cold?

and can i ask all of you do you support funding for defense? Well guess what, your country spends a **** load on that and that is taxpayer dollar from everyone including THE RICH.

or is it all of a sudden no longer a violation of liberty and rights when money is spent on military instead of welfare, infrastructure, or health.

4lulz123
11-30-2012, 10:30 PM
How do you know? You have no clue what his expenses are. 2% to him is a lot more than 2% to you.

How do you know he wont mind? You have no clue of his expenses, but one thing we do know is he is much more well of than you and me are so we can assume.
you did tell me to step into his shoes? If i had that much money, i wouldn't care if i lost a few million. i can still buy a Ferrari anytime of the week.

KBkilla
11-30-2012, 10:30 PM
You won't - but I will because I will make money and you won't.

There is an incentive it is that 1 cent on the dollar.

Jobs are a function of the free market - the more consumption/demand of something the more likely there will be job creation.

Just having investments does not mean there will be more jobs.

Automation is actually the destroyer of jobs. If you really want more jobs you want less automation.

If you want jobs that pay better but less of them you want automation - but that requires heavy front load spending in society on education and a society that is willing to accept the heavy amount of burden dumped on them to gain/understand that education. If only it were as simple as "less tax = investments = more jobs."

If you invested $1 million to make $10,000. You are not a smart investor.

The point is, that 1 cent on the dollar is not enough for most actual smart investors. You thinking you would do it doesn't count.

Jobs are a function of the free market. Correct, the more consumption/demand of something the more jobs there likely will be. However, you're missing the fact that someone has to risk capital to create those jobs. If there is no incentive to risk that capital (ie too high of taxes), they aren't going to do it.

It is that simple. If corporations aren't taxed as much, they have more money to create jobs.

Also, more jobs = more tax revenue.

KBkilla
11-30-2012, 10:31 PM
How do you know he wont mind? You have no clue of his expenses, but one thing we do know is he is much more well of than you and me are so we can assume.
you did tell me to step into his shoes? If i had that much money, i wouldn't care if i lost a few million. i can still buy a Ferrari anytime of the week.

NO! You can NOT assume. Good lord kid. Stop making emotional assumptions. It makes you look stupid.

Tehcelltech
11-30-2012, 10:32 PM
You won't - but I will because I will make money and you won't.

There is an incentive it is that 1 cent on the dollar.

Jobs are a function of the free market - the more consumption/demand of something the more likely there will be job creation.

Just having investments does not mean there will be more jobs.

Automation is actually the destroyer of jobs. If you really want more jobs you want less automation.

If you want jobs that pay better but less of them you want automation - but that requires heavy front load spending in society on education and a society that is willing to accept the heavy amount of burden dumped on them to gain/understand that education. If only it were as simple as "less tax = investments = more jobs."

No one would invest at a 1% return unless unless the the potential risk is lower than 1%. The risk/reward would have to balance out. Diminishing reward inherently means less risky investments become more attractive.

KBkilla
11-30-2012, 10:34 PM
No one would invest at a 1% return unless unless the the potential risk is lower than 1%. The risk/reward would have to balance out. Diminishing reward inherently means less risky investments become more attractive.

Exactly! Thank you!

4lulz123
11-30-2012, 10:35 PM
NO! You can NOT assume. Good lord kid. Stop making emotional assumptions. It makes you look stupid.

lmao, i was pointing out you are assuming too. You assume he will care, but it is more likely he wont mind that much cause he is multi billionaire.

KBkilla
11-30-2012, 10:36 PM
lmao, i was pointing out you are assuming too. You assume he will care, but it is more likely he wont mind that much cause he is multi billionaire.

I didn't assume anything dude. Where did I assume anything? You don't know that he won't mind.

nutsy54
11-30-2012, 10:37 PM
As a % of their income or as a dollar amount? Are you sure about this? Romney is the top 1% but he pays way less than I do as a % of his total income.
"The rich" already pay far more - in total dollars, percent of their income, and percent of total taxes paid, than anyone else. Cherry-picking 2 specific people out of 140 million taxpayers won't change the overall statistics.

nutsy54
11-30-2012, 10:39 PM
yeah, its cause they have most of the money. brb pays 35 percent in tax, still can afford rolls royce, private jet and prime real estate while sending kids to 30k/a year private school and buy gifts to wife everyday.
Greed and Envy. What a sad way to live your life :(

tk217
11-30-2012, 10:39 PM
and tk why shouldnt disadvantaged people be granted welfare? Would you be complaining if you suddenly lost your low paying job and went on the dole for a few weeks as you dont have much support from family and such? They are called safety netfalls for a reason and aren't meant to be lived on. Sadly some people do abuse it, but its necessary so everyone who falls over have a chance to get back up.

And also poor people shouldn't be granted subsidies for healthcare and dental? Just let their teeth rot? Let them die from illness?

Its not their fault they were born poor, i mean? IF people decided, would they really decide to be born black and in a ghetto?

Should soldiers suffering from PTSD just left in the cold?

and can i ask all of you do you support funding for defense? Well guess what, your country spends a **** load on that and that is taxpayer dollar from everyone including THE RICH.

or is it all of a sudden no longer a violation of liberty and rights when money is spent on military instead of welfare, infrastructure, or health.

Disadvantaged in what way? I am not some heartless *******. I understand that the blind/deaf/dumb/mentally retarded/paralyses/and actual handicap should be allowed to exist within society in a manner that is dignified when no other option exists.

There is a huge difference between a safety net and a welfare net. If you are able bodied and lose your job unemployment is there as an insurance -- often times it is part of your taxes that pay for it sometimes it isn't (depends on the state). The point being people pay into it for them to have it - I have no problem with unemployment insurance being privatized and then being mandated rather than having the government hold it as a bargaining chip for political motivations.

Stop saying welfare is unemployment insurance. They're TOTALLY DIFFERENT.

If you want healthcare it is universal. Seriously. It is. If you are having a heart attack and go to a hospital they will treat you and even perform surgery to save your life. No cost upfront. The will expect you to pay for it later and the idea is you are reasonable enough to just go get it yourself because the point of health insurance is that you have it but never have to use it.

As far as a the 70 year old grandma who has 4 stage ovarian cancer and wants to blow 1,000,000 dollars on medicine that will likely kill her anyway? That is her choice and she should have a private insurer to blow her money on -- outside of that the government shouldn't be in the business of health care. In the end if government does join the health care system (Much like Canada) death panels will exist and they will deny grandma who is 70 and has 4th stage ovarian cancer because it DOES cost 1,000,000 dollars to treat and the social benefit is EXTREMELY low. Liberal policies at work.

If they didn't death panel it -- the program will fail in a short period of time and EVERYONE would then not have health care because it is absolutely unsustainable.

As far as your totally prejudice statement in regard to skin pigment -- If you really think your society is out to get you - MOVE AWAY. You don't have to stay in the society you were born in.

The military spending you're addressing is actually more spent on science/infrastructure/development than it is spent on actual weaponry and "war." Why are you so against infrastructure, science, and societal development spending?

KBkilla
11-30-2012, 10:39 PM
So what we've learned here is that OP is quick to advocate for more taxes for the rich, until he becomes the rich. Then it's not okay to tax the rich. Ironic.

4lulz123
11-30-2012, 10:42 PM
I didn't assume anything dude. Where did I assume anything? You don't know that he won't mind.

you assumed that he cares about 2%.

i assumed he wont, 2% of 4billion dollars is a lot of me, but to him, he probably loses that much due to stock market fluctuations each day if he had **** loads of money in portfolios.

the total amount of money when you combine all billionaires is 4.6 trillion from just 1200 people. that is more than some first world countries' GDP

4lulz123
11-30-2012, 10:43 PM
So what we've learned here is that OP is quick to advocate for more taxes for the rich, until he becomes the rich. Then it's not okay to tax the rich. Ironic.

and what i learnt is that KBkilla is quick to advocate to neglect the poor until he becomes the poor. Then its not okay to neglect the poor. Ironic

taking a brake from all this stupidity, time to go play some L4D2

nutsy54
11-30-2012, 10:43 PM
what do you conservatives think about companies like Google who are run by young people and very liberal and give out free dental and all these other 'welfare' like benefits to their employees? all that spent on employees couldve gone to MR ceo's salary?
Why would I care about the specific business decisions made my any particular company? That's the whole point - THEY decided how to run their business, not some government bureaucrat. If that business model is a success, good for them!

By the way, Larry Page (Google CEO) is worth $20 Billion. So, where are your cries for him to give that excessive wealth away, or hand it over to the government, or double the pay of his employees, etc...?

tk217
11-30-2012, 10:43 PM
"The rich" already pay far more - in total dollars, percent of their income, and percent of total taxes paid, than anyone else. Cherry-picking 2 specific people out of 140 million taxpayers won't change the overall statistics.

I am not cherry picking ****. Romney is a prime example of how terrible our tax system actually is and readily available. He is a success story in America and we see how our tax policy rewards and incentives "legal" tax evasion because these "legalities" were lobbied and passed and readily available for anyone to use -- but the reality is the majority of us will NEVER be able to use them because you need SO MUCH income to actually make them viable. They're playing a game 50,000 feet above everyone else that is rigged in their favor.

I know how ****ed up the tax system is. It needs to be revamped.

beefyfan
11-30-2012, 10:43 PM
Greed and Envy. What a sad way to live your life :(

Water-boy for fat cats. What a sad way to live yours.

tk217
11-30-2012, 10:45 PM
No one would invest at a 1% return unless unless the the potential risk is lower than 1%. The risk/reward would have to balance out. Diminishing reward inherently means less risky investments become more attractive.


Exactly! Thank you!

You both are wrong then - people put money in banks all the time at 1% or less returns including interest/free checking/depositing ect when they could be investing it -- banks may offer lower risk incentives but it is still an incentive and the assumption in my previous statement declares you will get 1 cent on the dollar.

beefyfan
11-30-2012, 10:45 PM
"The rich" already pay far more - in total dollars, percent of their income, and percent of total taxes paid, than anyone else. Cherry-picking 2 specific people out of 140 million taxpayers won't change the overall statistics.

I will guarantee you that the person making $20,000 per year pays a greater (MUCH GREATER) percentage of their income on taxes (ALL TAXES) than the person making $2,000,000. You mad cuz I keep owning you? Huh brah?

KBkilla
11-30-2012, 10:46 PM
you assumed that he cares about 2%.

i assumed he wont, 2% of 4billion dollars is a lot of me, but to him, he probably loses that much due to stock market fluctuations each day if he had **** loads of money in portfolios.

the total amount of money when you combine all billionaires is 4.6 trillion from just 1200 people. that is more than some first world countries' GDP

I didn't assume he would care. Please quote me where I did. I said "2% to him is more than 2% to you". That is fact. Unless, of course, you all of a sudden make more than him. Have you become a billionaire in the past 15 minutes? I doubt it. You misread my post. No surprise there.

Correct, you assumed he wouldn't. You shouldn't be assuming anything.

Why do you care if someone is a billionaire? U jelly and mirin brah?

KBkilla
11-30-2012, 10:47 PM
You both are wrong then - people put money in banks all the time at 1% or less returns including interest/free checking/depositing ect when they could be investing it -- banks may offer lower risk incentives but it is still an incentive and the assumption in my previous statement declares you will get 1 cent on the dollar.

Those are ordinary people like you and I, that have no risks associated with those small investments. We are talking about actual investors, risking A LOT of capital with WAY more risks.

4lulz123
11-30-2012, 10:48 PM
Greed and Envy. What a sad way to live your life :(

haha you again, im greedy and envious of the rich! Im gonna be bane and bring the rich to its knees.

But yeah, who doesnt want to be rich? i know i want to. But when im a billionaire i wont be complaining about taxes cause i will be flying my private jets everywhere and travelling in rolls royces.

KBkilla
11-30-2012, 10:49 PM
and what i learnt is that KBkilla is quick to advocate to neglect the poor until he becomes the poor. Then its not okay to neglect the poor. Ironic

taking a brake from all this stupidity, time to go play some L4D2

Clearly you can't read. I said I wouldn't turn to the government for a handout if I lost my job.

You, however, said that if you were in that billionaires shoes, you would pay more in taxes "as long as it's not too much".

/yourself

KBkilla
11-30-2012, 10:51 PM
I will guarantee you that the person making $20,000 per year pays a greater (MUCH GREATER) percentage of their income on taxes (ALL TAXES) than the person making $2,000,000. You mad cuz I keep owning you? Huh brah?

Actually, a person only making $20K per year pays no income tax. In fact, they get a check from the IRS every year for what they paid in, if not more. Get your facts straight brah.

Tehcelltech
11-30-2012, 10:52 PM
You both are wrong then - people put money in banks all the time at 1% or less returns including interest/free checking/depositing ect when they could be investing it -- banks may offer lower risk incentives but it is still an incentive and the assumption in my previous statement declares you will get 1 cent on the dollar.

You are supporting my point though. My bank deposit is insured thus eliminating risk.

tk217
11-30-2012, 10:52 PM
Those are ordinary people like you and I, that have no risks associated with those small investments. We are talking about actual investors, risking A LOT of capital with WAY more risks.

And again - my assumption is you will get that 1 cent even with the risks. :rolleyes: Ordinary people - you will always be able to invest in municipal bonds which are tax free.

CicadaKiller
11-30-2012, 10:53 PM
BRB Having basic healthcare and dental is greed

BRB Having safety netfall is greed

BRB Temporary handouts for when you are unemployed is greed


Basic healthcare for who? Not me. The cost of healthcare has risen though. Imagine that.

Safety netfall for who? Not you. Only the bankers.

I do not have a problem with unemployment insurance. After all, I've been paying the government for over ten years. They SHOULD help me out. How many years have you been paying taxes?







I swear man. Their boy gets re-elected and they still complain. That has got to be an indicator of something. Something indicative about their character I mean. ****ing helpless, worthless, crybaby bitches too lazy to get up off their ass and find a job. But it's our fault they don't have enough.

KBkilla
11-30-2012, 10:53 PM
haha you again, im greedy and envious of the rich! Im gonna be bane and bring the rich to its knees.

But yeah, who doesnt want to be rich? i know i want to. But when im a billionaire i wont be complaining about taxes cause i will be flying my private jets everywhere and travelling in rolls royces.

It's easy to say you'd willingly pay more in taxes if you were the billionaire, but would you actually do it? No. You would complain. You also wouldn't be flying your private jet when your tax rate is 70%+.

tk217
11-30-2012, 10:54 PM
You are supporting my point though. My bank deposit is insured thus eliminating risk.

I stated that you would get 1 cent on the dollar. He is the one making up a fictitious scenario for there to be virtually no gain. 35% is not anywhere close to "zero sum" tax of the non-symmetic laffer curve.

nutsy54
11-30-2012, 10:55 PM
I will guarantee you that the person making $20,000 per year pays a greater (MUCH GREATER) percentage of their income on taxes (ALL TAXES) than the person making $2,000,000. You mad cuz I keep owning you? Huh brah?
"Owning"... This word obviously does not mean what you think it means.

Funny that after we've been discussing federal income taxes, now you need to change the story to "ALL" taxes. Now, maybe if the Government stopped it's citizens like inept children who couldn't figure out how to plan their own retirement or buy their own health insurance (Social Security and Medicare), then the tax burden wouldn't be nearly as severe would it?

Single with no deductions:
$20k income = $1,100 federal income tax (5.5% effective)
$20M income = $7,000,000 income tax (35% effective)

KBkilla
11-30-2012, 10:55 PM
And again - my assumption is you will get that 1 cent even with the risks. :rolleyes: Ordinary people - you will always be able to invest in municipal bonds which are tax free.

LOL... There are NO risks with a small investment like that. You also wouldn't create any jobs with it. You're thinking too small here. I'm talking about big investments by big corporations with major risks associated with them.

nutsy54
11-30-2012, 10:56 PM
Water-boy for fat cats. What a sad way to live yours.
I said nothing about "fat cats". I criticized the OP's disgusting greed and envy, wanting to take from anyone else who is more successful than he is.

KBkilla
11-30-2012, 10:58 PM
I stated that you would get 1 cent on the dollar. He is the one making up a fictitious scenario for there to be virtually no gain. 35% is not anywhere close to "zero sum" tax of the non-symmetic laffer curve.

You're talking about small investments by people like you and I. I'm talking about large investments made by big corporations with HUGE risks. If the tax rate is too high, it lowers the incentive. I never said 35% was close to "zero sum". I'm simply saying that raising it more than that will LOWER incentive. It's basic logic. The less someone is going to make per dollar invested, taking in account the risks associated with it, the less they are going to be willing to invest it. The more they are going to make, the more they are willing to invest it.

tk217
11-30-2012, 11:00 PM
You're talking about small investments by people like you and I. I'm talking about large investments made by big corporations with HUGE risks. If the tax rate is too high, it lowers the incentive. I never said 35% was close to "zero sum". I'm simply saying that raising it more than that will LOWER incentive. It's basic logic.

You mean it will lower profits - not incentive.

The incentive will always exist. People will always choose investments if they can get more money from their buck than they can get anywhere else.

Incentive is relative to the world around you - if you have another vehicle to choose other than investments you will choose that to gain monies there aren't that many vehicles out there though.

There are four ways to make money in the world.

Selling your labor. Shouldn't be taxable
Income on lending (fixed/variable interest). Taxable
Dividend income from profits. Taxable
And lastly
Capital Gains income. Taxable

4lulz123
11-30-2012, 11:01 PM
fuark, poor people and the disadvantaged and those advocating for safety netfalls, are so greedy and envious...

brb its greedy and envious to want government to build schools and roads, brb brb. im not against private companies doing it. if they can for a lower cost why not? But from the way you talk, anyone who wants a more equal society are scum of the earth

@ KB so where would you go if you lost your job? the streets and hope for a miracle? (this is at KB)

KBkilla
11-30-2012, 11:02 PM
You mean it will lower profits - not incentive.

The incentive will always exist. People will always choose investments if they can get more money from their buck than they can get anywhere else.

Lower profits = lower incentive!!! OMG!!! LOL

More profits = more incentive.

KBkilla
11-30-2012, 11:03 PM
fuark, poor people and the disadvantaged and those advocating for safety netfalls, are so greedy and envious...


so where would you go if you lost your job? the streets and hope for a miracle? (this is at KB)

I would go get another job. I wouldn't turn to the government for a handout. It's called self responsibility. Just because someone loses their job, doesn't mean it's the end of the world for them. If you really want to be successful, you will be.

Here's someone that might can get though to you OP:
http://www.marklevinshow.com/home.asp

tk217
11-30-2012, 11:06 PM
Lower profits = lower incentive!!! OMG!!! LOL

More profits = more incentive.

You still aren't getting it.

Incentive is relative.

If you can make 30 dollars from dividend income but lose 15 of it to taxes
If you can make 30 dollars from Lending your income but lose 20 of it to taxes
If you can make 30 dollars from capital gains by investing your income but lose 5 of it to taxes when you sell.

Which will you choose and why?

nutsy54
11-30-2012, 11:07 PM
fuark, poor people and the disadvantaged and those advocating for safety netfalls, are so greedy and envious...

brb its greedy and envious to want government to build schools and roads, brb brb. im not against private companies doing it. if they can for a lower cost why not? But from the way you talk, anyone who wants a more equal society are scum of the earth

@ KB so where would you go if you lost your job? the streets and hope for a miracle? (this is at KB)
Keep arguing against strawmen that only exist in your imagination. You've become nothing more than a laughingstock at this point.

KBkilla
11-30-2012, 11:10 PM
You still aren't getting it.

Incentive is relative.

If you can make 30 dollars from dividend income but lose 15 of it to taxes
If you can make 30 dollars from Lending your income but lose 20 of it to taxes
If you can make 30 dollars from capital gains by investing your income but lose 5 of it to taxes when you sell.

Which will you choose and why?

I get it just fine. You're missing my point, which is simply that raising taxes lowers incentive. Obviously I would chose the investment for capital gains because there are more profits DUE TO LOWER TAXES. Geez. LOL

4lulz123
11-30-2012, 11:10 PM
Keep arguing against strawmen that only exist in your imagination. You've become nothing more than a laughingstock at this point.

maybe you should laugh at yourself

nutsy54: GREED AND ENVY GREED AND ENVY GREED AND ENVY.

dats you, read it in your own voice to hear how rediculous you sound.

4lulz123
11-30-2012, 11:12 PM
I would go get another job. I wouldn't turn to the government for a handout. It's called self responsibility. Just because someone loses their job, doesn't mean it's the end of the world for them. If you really want to be successful, you will be.

Here's someone that might can get though to you OP:
http://www.marklevinshow.com/home.asp

yup, what if it takes longer than expected to find a job. finding a job takes a lot of time sometimes, you apply and maybe wont hear from employer for weeks.

DeanoBobino1986
11-30-2012, 11:12 PM
Did not read anything past the OP, but WTF is wrong with people these days?

brb expecting everything to be handed to you because you fuked off in school.
brb expecting "free" healthcare to be provided for you by the government while Constitutional rights are being taken away en masse.
brb thinking healthcare is a Constitutionally guaranteed right to begin with.
brb thinking government handouts are a Constitutional right to begin with.

beefyfan
11-30-2012, 11:13 PM
"Owning"... This word obviously does not mean what you think it means.

Funny that after we've been discussing federal income taxes, now you need to change the story to "ALL" taxes. Now, maybe if the Government stopped it's citizens like inept children who couldn't figure out how to plan their own retirement or buy their own health insurance (Social Security and Medicare), then the tax burden wouldn't be nearly as severe would it?

Single with no deductions:
$20k income = $1,100 federal income tax (5.5% effective)
$20M income = $7,000,000 income tax (35% effective)

Poor guy, you'll never recover.

KBkilla
11-30-2012, 11:14 PM
yup, what if it takes longer than expected to find a job. finding a job takes a lot of time sometimes, you apply and maybe wont hear from employer for weeks.

That's why you save for a rainy day, OP. If you choose not to do so, how is that anyone's fault but your own?

4lulz123
11-30-2012, 11:17 PM
That's why you save for a rainy day, OP. If you choose not to do so, how is that anyone's fault but your own?

what if you are poor and dont earn 10k a day and forced to spend most of the money on food and basics? This is why i talked about MPS.

poor= less MPS

rich = more MPS which is why they get taxed more

Even when they get taxed more they still have a higher MPS then the poor.

this is very important

KBkilla
11-30-2012, 11:18 PM
what if you are poor and dont earn 10k a day and forced to spend most of the money on food and basics? This is why i talked about MPS.

poor= less MPS

rich = more MPS which is why they get taxed more

Even when they get taxed more they still have a higher MPS then the poor.

this is very important

If you weren't being taxed to begin with, maybe you could be able to afford to save. Also, you don't have to make "10k a day" to save. You simply live within your means. If you chose to live beyond your means and not save, that's no ones fault but your own.

tk217
11-30-2012, 11:21 PM
I get it just fine. You're missing my point, which is simply that raising taxes lowers incentive. Obviously I would chose the investment for capital gains because there is more profits DUE TO LOWER TAXES. Geez. LOL

Tax does not lower incentive - it lowers profits - incentive is relative to the market you exist in as a ton of other factors.

Let us say you could make 100 dollars in capital gains non-taxed flat out. You have a 50% chance to lose all that money though.

But you could make 100 dollars with that amount of money in a loan-environment but get taxed 20% so your effective gain is 80 dollars. You have a 10% chance you'll lose 25% of your principal.

Which are you choosing now?

You have the incentive to make 100 dollars based on your argument of taxes or the incentive of making 80 dollars based on your argument of taxes. You should be choosing the capital gains.

This is where you have to determine risk to reward because it isn't just so simple in taxes.

Capital gains is often times FAR more risky than loaning money on say a "house" (excluding the bubble where investment firms were literally gambling in the market legally another form of corruption within our system). You will get the asset if the loan isn't paid so it is VERY LOW risk versus the capital gain depending on the type of stock you purchased you may well get NOTHING. High risk.

Nothing is just as simple as taxes and the economy is not a vacuum.

CicadaKiller
11-30-2012, 11:28 PM
"Owning"... This word obviously does not mean what you think it means.

Funny that after we've been discussing federal income taxes, now you need to change the story to "ALL" taxes. Now, maybe if the Government stopped it's citizens like inept children who couldn't figure out how to plan their own retirement or buy their own health insurance (Social Security and Medicare), then the tax burden wouldn't be nearly as severe would it?

Single with no deductions:
$20k income = $1,100 federal income tax (5.5% effective)
$20M income = $7,000,000 income tax (35% effective)

Sometimes I agree with nutsy. Sometimes I do not.

But I can tell you I pay a hell of a lot more than 5.5% Sure, some of that goes to the state. But not 14.5%


One thing that would really help the economy would be if our employers would stop giving the gov 20% of our paychecks. They would not do this though, for fear of losing their(the employer's) tax breaks. But if you ask me, the employer should refuse to pay all those taxes too.
So where will the government get it's money from? How about the federal gov gets 1%, the state gets 1%, and medicare gets 1%



This myth that the wealthy pay much more in taxes is probably just that, a myth, perpetrated by the media. The wealthy have the means to hire an attorney or an accountant to find the loopholes for them.
Buy a horse for $10,000 - write it off as a $14,000 business expense

tk217
11-30-2012, 11:30 PM
Sometimes I agree with nutsy. Sometimes I do not.

But I can tell you I pay a hell of a lot more than 5.5% Sure, some of that goes to the state. But not 14.5%


One thing that would really help the economy would be if our employers would stop giving the gov 20% of our paychecks. They would not do this though, for fear of losing their(the employer's) tax breaks. But if you ask me, the employer should refuse to pay all those taxes too.
So where will the government get it's money from? How about the federal gov gets 1%, the state gets 1%, and medicare gets 1%



This myth that the wealthy pay much more in taxes is probably just that, a myth, perpetrated by the media. The wealthy have the means to hire an attorney or an accountant to find the loopholes for them.
Buy a horse for $10,000 - write it off as a $14,000 business expense

This is the reality - people making millions may on paper "pay 35%" but in reality pay somewhere near 10% of their effective tax rate through tax credits/deductions/itemization.

KBkilla
11-30-2012, 11:35 PM
Tax does not lower incentive - it lowers profits - incentive is relative to the market you exist in as a ton of other factors.

Let us say you could make 100 dollars in capital gains non-taxed flat out. You have a 50% chance to lose all that money though.

But you could make 100 dollars with that amount of money in a loan-environment but get taxed 20% so your effective gain is 80 dollars. You have a 10% chance you'll lose 25% of your principal.

Which are you choosing now?

You have the incentive to make 100 dollars based on your argument of taxes or the incentive of making 80 dollars based on your argument of taxes. You should be choosing the capital gains.

This is where you have to determine risk to reward because it isn't just so simple in taxes.

Capital gains is often times FAR more risky than loaning money on say a "house" (excluding the bubble where investment firms were literally gambling in the market legally another form of corruption within our system). You will get the asset if the loan isn't paid so it is VERY LOW risk versus the capital gain depending on the type of stock you purchased you may well get NOTHING. High risk.

Nothing is just as simple as taxes and the economy is not a vacuum.

How can you say higher taxes lowers profits, and not conclude that lower profits DOESN'T decrease incentive?

Wow. Now, you're comparing two different investments to make yourself right. Unreal.

A more reasonable and realistic hypothetical situation would be to take the SAME investment taxed at different rates.

Invest $100 @ the current 35% tax rate with a risk of losing 60%.

OR

Invest $100 @ a LOWER 15% tax rate with the same risk of losing 60%.

Which one gives you more incentive? The answer is obvious. Lower taxes increases incentive to invest. Plain and simple. Don't take my word for it. Just ask any investor.

Either way. I proved OP wrong. My work is done here.

tk217
11-30-2012, 11:38 PM
Wow. Now, you're comparing two different investments to make yourself right. Unreal.

A more reasonable and realistic hypothetical situation would be to take the SAME investment taxed at different rates.

Invest $100 @ the current 35% tax rate with a risk of losing 60%.

OR

Invest $100 @ a LOWER 15% tax rate with the same risk of losing 60%.

Which one gives you more incentive? The answer is obvious. Lower taxes increases incentive to invest. Plain and simple. Don't take my word for it. Just ask any investor.

The problem with your reasoning is you have to actually make the money to be taxed.

That is where you're failing to understand the incentive part -- If you made nothing you can't be taxed. The reality is that capital gains IS different than lending money -- and we're comparing two investment vehicles. What you're describing now is the SAME vehicle taxed at completely different rates. The incentive is the SAME though because if you MAKE NOTHING you get taxed on nothing. You'll still choose the 15% tax one because the profit is higher. You're still under the incentive to risk all your money at a 60% stake you'll lose to make some money.

KBkilla
11-30-2012, 11:45 PM
The problem with your reasoning is you have to actually make the money to be taxed.

That is where you're failing to understand the incentive part -- If you made nothing you can't be taxed. The reality is that capital gains IS different than lending money -- and we're comparing two investment vehicles. What you're describing now is the SAME vehicle taxed at completely different rates. The incentive is the SAME though because if you MAKE NOTHING you get taxed on nothing. You'll still choose the 15% tax one because the profit is higher. You're still under the incentive to risk all your money at a 60% stake you'll lose to make some money.

Well duh. You can't be taxed if you didn't make any money. That's common sense. I've been talking about capital gains this whole time. You're the one that brought up lending money, dividends, etc. When it comes to capital gains, or any investment for that matter, the incentive is not the same when the tax rate goes up or down.

My whole point is higher taxes = lower profits = lower incentive.

Where as lower taxes = more profits = more incentive.

It's really not that complicated. Not sure why it's so hard for you to understand that.

tk217
11-30-2012, 11:45 PM
Well duh. You can't be taxed if you didn't make any money. That's common sense.

My whole point is higher taxes = lower profits = lower incentive.

Where as lower taxes = more profits = more incentive.

It's really not that complicated. Not sure why it's so hard for you to understand that.

Because what you are saying is wrong.

The incentive is "Make money." It doesn't matter how much just that you make money.

KBkilla
11-30-2012, 11:50 PM
Because what you are saying is wrong.

The incentive is "Make money." It doesn't matter how much just that you make money.

You've got to be kidding me.

No, it's not. I highly doubt that what I'm hearing from actual investors is wrong.

How much money to be made does matter. If you're not going to make enough money after taxes vs risk, you're not going to invest.

Lowering taxes creates more incentive to invest. That is fact. That is common sense.

Using your logic, the capital gains tax could be 99%, and it wouldn't stop people from investing. That's asinine to think that.

tk217
11-30-2012, 11:53 PM
No, it's not. I highly doubt that what I'm hearing from actual investors is wrong.

How much money to be made does matter. If you're not going to make enough money after taxes vs risk, you're not going to invest.

Bond Salesmen and Stock Fund Managers aren't risking ****.

That is the truth. They want you to invest everything you have because they automatically MAKE MORE MONEY in fees.

Incentive is risk to reward. Taxes are reduction in rewards after the fact.

If the market is too risky to provide a reward no one will invest the taxes do not matter.

The only point where taxes DO actually matter is at 100% of the reward; when you receive NO reward but that isn't an investment environment to begin with.

KBkilla
11-30-2012, 11:58 PM
Bond Salesmen and Stock Fund Managers aren't risking ****.

That is the truth. They want you to invest everything you have because they automatically MAKE MORE MONEY in fees.

Incentive is risk to reward. Taxes are reduction in rewards after the fact.

If the market is too risky to provide a reward no one will invest the taxes do not matter.

Jesus dude. You're logic is on par with the OP's now. Listen to what investors are saying, and you will see that I'm right. They are less likely to invest if they are going to make less money after taxes.

KBkilla
12-01-2012, 12:01 AM
The only point where taxes DO actually matter is at 100% of the reward; when you receive NO reward but that isn't an investment environment to begin with.

http://cdn.memegenerator.net/instances/400x/28907088.jpg

tk217
12-01-2012, 12:01 AM
Jesus dude. You're logic is on par with the OP's now. Listen to what investors are saying, and you will see that I'm right. They are less likely to invest if they are going to make less money after taxes.

I understand what I am saying just fine.

You do not understand what incentive means. You're wandering off into another world.

People are less likely to invest in a world where they're not getting any rewards -- you're right -- as long as there are rewards and the risk is low to the benefit they'll invest.

If there is no return / reward there - then there is no investment environment. As long as there is SOME reward people will invest as long as that risk is low or even null through something like arbitrage or municipal bond/treasury bond.

KBkilla
12-01-2012, 12:03 AM
I understand what I am saying just fine.

You do not understand what incentive means. You're wandering off into another world.

People are less likely to invest in a world where they're not getting any rewards -- you're right -- as long as there are rewards and the risk is low to the benefit they'll invest.

If there is no return / reward there - then there is no investment environment. As long as there is SOME reward people will invest as long as that risk is low or even null through something like arbitrage or municipal bond/treasury bond.

The higher the taxes, the less people will invest.

/thread

tk217
12-01-2012, 12:03 AM
http://209.160.41.150/ds_img_direct.php?i=thumbs*****.jpg&t=8&d=1cvx4stkk5&x=360&y=480&l1=965&l2=96

Not sure what this image is - the point of my statement is that there is NO INVESTMENT ENVIRONMENT when there is NO REWARD. You're still wrong. If the investment environment is ZERO tax but 100% chance you'll lose your money it is not an investment environment with any incentive.

PMRD0C
12-01-2012, 12:03 AM
Itt, op thinks gov regulates toll roads. Lol
ITT, op doesn't understand private market price lowering and competition, and thinks that privatized roads will all be kept at 10,000.

ITT, op calls conservs greedy, yet complains about a $2.50 toll price, thereby wanting the toll for free, thus proving the entire point of his op to be weong( and shoots himself in the foot)

Goodnight sweet kid. One day when you have a job, you'll understand it's kinda fun to keep your money. Btw, did you redistribute your money yet? If not, hypocrite.

tk217
12-01-2012, 12:04 AM
The higher the taxes, the less people will invest.

/thread

The more risk there is the less people will invest. As long as reward can be gained people will invest - no matter how small.

/thread

KBkilla
12-01-2012, 12:05 AM
Not sure what this image is - the point of my statement is that there is NO INVESTMENT ENVIRONMENT when there is NO REWARD. You're still wrong. If the investment environment is ZERO tax but 100% chance you'll lose your money it is not an investment environment with any incentive.

LOL No, I'm not wrong. I'm not the one claiming investors will be lining up out the door to risk their capital whether the tax rates at 9% or 99%. That would be you, sir.

4lulz123
12-01-2012, 12:10 AM
man this discussion has gone around in full retard circles.

Let me just say this, we didn't achieve the living standards that is today for the majority of the western world through the struggles of billionaires for lower taxes, but by the worker, the middle class for greater equality and living conditions.

and also, we should do what we can to help the poor in society, as their are far more impoverished people in the developed countries, not just in the world then those who are billionaires.

So many could suffer less, with a bit of sacrifice from a very few.

Rhetoric i know but simply the truth.

vipersrule
12-01-2012, 12:10 AM
It appears the conservatards of the great USA believe that the poor and less unfortunate are all thieves and greedy as fuark.

BRB Having basic healthcare and dental is greed

BRB Having safety netfall is greed

BRB Temporary handouts for when you are unemployed is greed

BRB CEO 10k a day= no greed, and i can call myself A JOB CREATOR

hey dumbass. You do know that the "rich" and "greedy" EMPLOY MILLIONS of people right?

tk217
12-01-2012, 12:12 AM
LOL No, I'm not wrong. I'm not the one claiming investors will be lining up out the door to risk their capital whether the tax rates at 9% or 99%. That would be you, sir.

If they have no other option you think they'll just let them sit and inflate? You're telling me if you have a chance to make 1 cent on the dollar of investment you'd say **** that over making NOTHING or even LOSING money guaranteed?

Please go.

Incentive is relative to your environment.

4lulz123
12-01-2012, 12:15 AM
hey dumbass. You do know that the "rich" and "greedy" EMPLOY MILLIONS of people right?

OI ***GOT i didnt even call the rich people rich and greedy, read thread title dumbass, i dont mind rich people and im all for people being rewarded for hardwork.

yeah, and they wouldnt employ a single one of them if they didn't need to you ***got, it is only because it is a necessity, and you do know that the demand of millions whether poor or rich create demand which in turn increases employment yeah so stfu dumbass.

KBkilla
12-01-2012, 12:24 AM
If they have no other option you think they'll just let them sit and inflate? You're telling me if you have a chance to make 1 cent on the dollar of investment you'd say **** that over making NOTHING or even LOSING money guaranteed?

Please go.

Incentive is relative to your environment.

They'll save it or invest somewhere else with better return. It wouldn't be the first time. Seriously dude. Think about what you're saying here.

Are you saying taxes have nothing to do with the environment? LOL

tk217
12-01-2012, 12:28 AM
They'll save it or invest somewhere else with better return. It wouldn't be the first time. Seriously dude. Think about what you're saying here.

I said no option.

NeoKantian
12-01-2012, 08:30 AM
The problem with infrastructure is that there is really no way to have competition, which is the whole point of having a free market approach.

PMRD0C
12-01-2012, 11:35 AM
The problem with infrastructure is that there is really no way to have competition, which is the whole point of having a free market approach.

Private construction companies? Even once , yes

4lulz123
12-02-2012, 12:05 AM
lol @ so much trust in private firms who are motivated by PROFIT and complete distrust of government who are "GREEDY". i mean yes governments are corrupt but are majority of billionaires government officials? Not really lol. Ron Paul a billionaire? nope... Obama a billionaire? Nope. Bush? nope.

Those things that benefit society as a whole and private firms will not build. yeah...

. Police
. Schools
. Fire Brigade
. National Defense
. Lighting
. Parks
. Libraries

Just some of the things that are built through tax dollars... the issue of how much tax is a whole nuda issue.