Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
So your basic thesis is that if people work hard and make lots of money then they have no right to it. Right?
So your basic thesis is that if people work hard and make lots of money then they have no right to it. Right?
Who said that? The rich should own up to their part of the tax burden instead of shifting onto middle and lower classes, its the equivalent of a millionare going into a clothes stores and doing price tag switching.
When someone works hard and achieves wealth sometimes his or her achievement comes at the expense of the interest of other people, it's unavoidable. The good thing about our economic system is that everyone has an opportunity to be a wealth earner.
Wealth is not a 0-sum gain, when I earn a thousand dollars I'm not taking it from a poor person. If you want to see real poverty than keep supporting the current economic path our country is on now. Opportunity should never be limited especially by government.
There are always risks in investment.All the brain washed right wingnuts will be telling how hard the rich have it as they pay so much in taxes. Of course when you make millions that ain't so bad. Has America become the only working plutocracy in history?
Myth: The rich get rich because of their merit. The rich get rich because of their merit.
"How large are these externalities, which must be regarded as owned jointly by members of the whole society? When we compare the poorest with the richest nations, it is hard to conclude that social capital can produce less than about 90 percent of income in wealthy societies like those of the United States or Northwestern Europe. On moral grounds, then, we could argue for a flat income tax of 90 percent to return that wealth to its real owners. In the United States, even a flat tax of 70 percent would support all governmental programs (about half the total tax) and allow payment, with the remainder, of a patrimony of about $8,000 per annum per inhabitant, or $25,000 for a family of three. This would generously leave with the original recipients of the income about three times what, according to my rough guess, they had earned." UBI and the Flat Tax
The conservative welfare state. The Conservative Nanny State
"....conservatives favor the market over government intervention. In fact, conservatives rely on a range of “nanny state” policies that ensure the rich get richer while leaving most Americans worse off. It’s time for the rules to change. Sound economic policy should harness the market in ways that produce desirable social outcomes – decent wages, good jobs and affordable health care."
There is little doubt that the game is skewed to favor those who have wealth. The "nanny state" for the wealthy ensures that the risk of their investments is minimized and that any potential impediments to increasing wealth are removed.
The super wealthy do not get that way by taking risks, they get that way by ensuring there are no risks in their investments
When someone works hard and achieves wealth sometimes his or her achievement comes at the expense of the interest of other people, it's unavoidable. The good thing about our economic system is that everyone has an opportunity to be a wealth earner.
Wealth is not a 0-sum gain, when I earn a thousand dollars I'm not taking it from a poor person. If you want to see real poverty than keep supporting the current economic path our country is on now. Opportunity should never be limited especially by government.
Read the links about tax loopholes and corporate welfare, those are things that are not earned, middle class and lower class people work just as hard and put in even more hours than the rich yet they are not getting richer, the rich put in less hours and get richer, the notion that everyone can somehow get rich and have the same opportunities to get rich just like the wealthy is pure individualistic lies and propaganda.
Corporate welfare? It seems to me that if I was employed by a corporation I would be happy to see that my government values the worth of the company I work for.
Corporations do a tremendous amount of good for our society and without them we would be in a world of hurt.
If a corporation gets a tax break or a "loop Hole" and can continue to create, employ, and innovate than that's a good thing for society and a worthy investment if you ask me. A far more worthy investment than extending unemployment compensation.
There are always risks in investment.All the brain washed right wingnuts will be telling how hard the rich have it as they pay so much in taxes. Of course when you make millions that ain't so bad. Has America become the only working plutocracy in history?
Myth: The rich get rich because of their merit. The rich get rich because of their merit.
"How large are these externalities, which must be regarded as owned jointly by members of the whole society? When we compare the poorest with the richest nations, it is hard to conclude that social capital can produce less than about 90 percent of income in wealthy societies like those of the United States or Northwestern Europe. On moral grounds, then, we could argue for a flat income tax of 90 percent to return that wealth to its real owners. In the United States, even a flat tax of 70 percent would support all governmental programs (about half the total tax) and allow payment, with the remainder, of a patrimony of about $8,000 per annum per inhabitant, or $25,000 for a family of three. This would generously leave with the original recipients of the income about three times what, according to my rough guess, they had earned." UBI and the Flat Tax
The conservative welfare state. The Conservative Nanny State
"....conservatives favor the market over government intervention. In fact, conservatives rely on a range of nanny state policies that ensure the rich get richer while leaving most Americans worse off. Its time for the rules to change. Sound economic policy should harness the market in ways that produce desirable social outcomes decent wages, good jobs and affordable health care."
There is little doubt that the game is skewed to favor those who have wealth. The "nanny state" for the wealthy ensures that the risk of their investments is minimized and that any potential impediments to increasing wealth are removed.
The super wealthy do not get that way by taking risks, they get that way by ensuring there are no risks in their investments
I am soon starting an office in my third state. That is a risk.
In fact, there is a much bigger risk.
For example, let's say you own a restaurant. If your restaurant goes bankrupt, you have lost your iinvestment, and you may now be deeply in debt because of it. If you lose a job, you lose that income from that job, but you aren't going to be in debt because of the job loss regarding the job itself.
There are always risks in investment.There is little doubt that the game is skewed to favor those who have wealth. The "nanny state" for the wealthy ensures that the risk of their investments is minimized and that any potential impediments to increasing wealth are removed.
The super wealthy do not get that way by taking risks, they get that way by ensuring there are no risks in their investments
I am soon starting an office in my third state. That is a risk.
In fact, there is a much bigger risk.
For example, let's say you own a restaurant. If your restaurant goes bankrupt, you have lost your iinvestment, and you may now be deeply in debt because of it. If you lose a job, you lose that income from that job, but you aren't going to be in debt because of the job loss regarding the job itself.
Better yet.
Lets suppose you own an Amway dealership. You "guilt" all your friends and family into investing in your product. You even talk some gullible scmuck to join your Ponzi scheme and funnel his profits to you
There is no risk involed
So your basic thesis is that if people work hard and make lots of money then they have no right to it. Right?
Who said that? The rich should own up to their part of the tax burden instead of shifting onto middle and lower classes, its the equivalent of a millionare going into a clothes stores and doing price tag switching.
The way I became wealthy was I kept doing what made me my first nickel over and over and over again more diligent each time.
The reason rich people are rich is because they keep doing the things that made them rich.
The reason poor adults are poor is they keep doing the things over and over again that has kept them poor.
One of my neighbors is an Oriental man. How was he able to come here and become wealthy?
Something about a work ethic.
No cry babies. Wham it zero.
Oh how terrible, people are making money!!!!!!!!!
Give me a break.
Everyone should be poor.
So your basic thesis is that if people work hard and make lots of money then they have no right to it. Right?
Who said that? The rich should own up to their part of the tax burden instead of shifting onto middle and lower classes, its the equivalent of a millionare going into a clothes stores and doing price tag switching.
The top 10% of income earners already pay like 80% of income tax collected.
You'll need a new gig here.
Who said that? The rich should own up to their part of the tax burden instead of shifting onto middle and lower classes, its the equivalent of a millionare going into a clothes stores and doing price tag switching.
The top 10% of income earners already pay like 80% of income tax collected.
You'll need a new gig here.
Golly gee Mr Rabbi....
They call it an INCOME TAX. If 10% of income earners are paying 80% of the tax that must mean they are monopolizing 80% of available income.
If they don't like it...they are always able to "Trickle down" some of that income so they wouldn't have that unbearable burden
There are always risks in investment.
I am soon starting an office in my third state. That is a risk.
In fact, there is a much bigger risk.
For example, let's say you own a restaurant. If your restaurant goes bankrupt, you have lost your iinvestment, and you may now be deeply in debt because of it. If you lose a job, you lose that income from that job, but you aren't going to be in debt because of the job loss regarding the job itself.
Better yet.
Lets suppose you own an Amway dealership. You "guilt" all your friends and family into investing in your product. You even talk some gullible scmuck to join your Ponzi scheme and funnel his profits to you
There is no risk involed
My business has nothing to do with Amway, however, let's say you own a sewer company. You have some major investments in it. Let's say it goes bankrupt, you can now be in major debt. However, let's say there is a brainless worker called rightwinger, he would lose his job, but he wouldn't be in deep debt as a result.
Who said that? The rich should own up to their part of the tax burden instead of shifting onto middle and lower classes, its the equivalent of a millionare going into a clothes stores and doing price tag switching.
The top 10% of income earners already pay like 80% of income tax collected.
You'll need a new gig here.
Golly gee Mr Rabbi....
They call it an INCOME TAX. If 10% of income earners are paying 80% of the tax that must mean they are monopolizing 80% of available income.
If they don't like it...they are always able to "Trickle down" some of that income so they wouldn't have that unbearable burden
I'm having fun. I'm more than happy to keep it up.Better yet.
Lets suppose you own an Amway dealership. You "guilt" all your friends and family into investing in your product. You even talk some gullible scmuck to join your Ponzi scheme and funnel his profits to you
There is no risk involed
My business has nothing to do with Amway, however, let's say you own a sewer company. You have some major investments in it. Let's say it goes bankrupt, you can now be in major debt. However, let's say there is a brainless worker called rightwinger, he would lose his job, but he wouldn't be in deep debt as a result.
LOL
You are not very good at this are you???
