Conservatives: how much money do you think billionaires are obligated to give...

[bripat9643]

Liberals don't take other people's money, Finger-boy. "Liberal" means laissez-faire; "leave it alone". Liberal means hands off.

PoliSci 101. Chew on it.

That's what it meant in the 18th century. In the 21st century "liberal" means communist.

Only in your minuscule little paranoid head.

That's reality as demonstrated by noting what those who call themselves liberals support. They wouldn't disagree with a single item on the platform of the American Communist Party.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Food for thought...

The Americans Who Gave Away the Most Money in 2012 - Forbes

'Forbes' Billionaire List: J.K. Rowling Drops From Billionaire To Millionaire Due To Charitable Giving

"Buffett, 82, donated to three foundations run by his children...."

People like giving things to their kids, who Liberals tell us actually belong to the state

And what is it those foundations do asswipe?

Buffet gave money to his kids!

Stop the presses!

Buffet gave ALL his wealth to his own tax free trust! What a guy!

 

[MikeK]

There should be no billionaires!
I am in favor of confiscating all personal assets in excess of twenty million dollars. Twenty million dollars is wealth and there is nothing wrong with wealth. But any amount in excess of twenty million dollars is excessive wealth

Show how this is not arbitrary.

Who said it isn't?

If I had my way it would have been law a long time ago. Unfortunately it will never materialize because too many Americans are limited to one-dimensional thinking and are incapable of understanding the need to impose certain socialistic regulations on our unique but faltering economy. As it is it won't be long before we see the total demise of the middle class -- which already has commenced.

 

[M14 Shooter]

There should be no billionaires!
I am in favor of confiscating all personal assets in excess of twenty million dollars. Twenty million dollars is wealth and there is nothing wrong with wealth. But any amount in excess of twenty million dollars is excessive wealth

Show how this is not arbitrary.

Who said it isn't?

Oh.
Well, sorry, I thougt you were stating a serious position with the intent to sway people to agree with it, supporting it with a sound argument, etc.
My mistake.

 

[LogikAndReazon]

There should be no billionaires!

I am in favor of confiscating all personal assets in excess of twenty million dollars. Twenty million dollars is wealth and there is nothing wrong with wealth. But any amount in excess of twenty million dollars is excessive wealth, which translates to the kind of political power which has poisoned our democracy and threatens to transform the United States into a third world nation.

In anticipation of the typical response to this declaration I must say it is somewhat surprising to note how most Americans who rush to defend the super-rich, almost all of whom have accumulated their hoards via some form of exploitation, haven't a pot to piss in and probably never will pay down their credit cards and settle other debt.

Indeed, they must owe you communist peon...............

 

[MikeK]

There should be no billionaires!

I am in favor of confiscating all personal assets in excess of twenty million dollars. Twenty million dollars is wealth and there is nothing wrong with wealth. But any amount in excess of twenty million dollars is excessive wealth, which translates to the kind of political power which has poisoned our democracy and threatens to transform the United States into a third world nation.

In anticipation of the typical response to this declaration I must say it is somewhat surprising to note how most Americans who rush to defend the super-rich, almost all of whom have accumulated their hoards via some form of exploitation, haven't a pot to piss in and probably never will pay down their credit cards and settle other debt.

Indeed, they must owe you communist peon...............

What communist entity are you aware of in which citizens are permitted to accumulate twenty million dollar fortunes? Your inability to understand that flaw in your reasoning places you squarely in the category of one-dimensional thinkers who are incapable of understanding the benefits of horizontal vs vertical distribution of the Nation's wealth resource.

In simple terms, you are the problem.

 

[DiamondDave]

There should be no billionaires!

I am in favor of confiscating all personal assets in excess of twenty million dollars. Twenty million dollars is wealth and there is nothing wrong with wealth. But any amount in excess of twenty million dollars is excessive wealth, which translates to the kind of political power which has poisoned our democracy and threatens to transform the United States into a third world nation.

In anticipation of the typical response to this declaration I must say it is somewhat surprising to note how most Americans who rush to defend the super-rich, almost all of whom have accumulated their hoards via some form of exploitation, haven't a pot to piss in and probably never will pay down their credit cards and settle other debt.

Indeed, they must owe you communist peon...............

What communist entity are you aware of in which citizens are permitted to accumulate twenty million dollar fortunes? Your inability to understand that flaw in your reasoning places you squarely in the category of one-dimensional thinkers who are incapable of understanding the benefits of horizontal vs vertical distribution of the Nation's wealth resource.

In simple terms, you are the problem.

The ruling class in those societies amass wealth and power and do not follow the rules they enforce upon others... because that is the only way that societal compliance can be had...

 

[MikeK]

Show how this is not arbitrary.

Who said it isn't?

Oh.
Well, sorry, I thougt you were stating a serious position with the intent to sway people to agree with it, supporting it with a sound argument, etc.
My mistake.

If you're asking for supportive reference to my radical proposal consider the condition of the U.S. economy before FDR implemented his New Deal, which consisted of a progressive tax rate with an upper maximum level of 91%! That's ninety-one percent! And you should know it didn't impoverish the super-rich. It simply made them a bit less rich. What it did was prevent the Nation from becoming a plutocracy.

What he did with revenue derived from that confiscatory level of taxation was create the WPA and CCC public work programs which enabled millions of unemployed and impoverished Americans, including my father, to earn money, which they recirculated into the economy, which was immediately rejuvenated. Consider that the decades between the late 40s and the early 80s, when Reagan imposed his "trickle down," Milton Friedman supply side bullshit, were the most productive and prosperous years in our history.

That's just one example of what I'm talking about. Now I suggest you do some Google research to learn more about the New Deal and how it served to create the middle class. You can do that and pay attention to the facts, or you can listen to the right-wing water-carriers who believe anything Rush Limbaugh, a near billionaire, tells them.

In the simplest terms, in order for a unique economy such as ours to remain healthy it requires maximum circulation of the Nation's wealth resource. When a small number of exploitative individuals are able to hoard a substantial amount of that resource, the economy becomes stagnant -- as our economy presently is.

 

[DiamondDave]

90+% myth busted SO many times it is not funny...

Add to that the fact that the wealth is not the nation's resource.. all wealth and money does not belong to the government nor 'the nation' where they get to dictate how much is enough and whether it has to be forcibly recirculated.... if a person wishes to donate it, or they choose to spend it, or they choose to invest it, or they choose to stick it in coffee cans and bury it like pirate booty is of no consequence nor concern of the government...

 

[IlarMeilyr]

I think that billionaires should not be obligated to give anything.

It is obviously nice if they do.

But an obligation?

Nah.

 

[buckeye45_73]

90+% myth busted SO many times it is not funny...

Add to that the fact that the wealth is not the nation's resource.. all wealth and money does not belong to the government nor 'the nation' where they get to dictate how much is enough and whether it has to be forcibly recirculated.... if a person wishes to donate it, or they choose to spend it, or they choose to invest it, or they choose to stick it in coffee cans and bury it like pirate booty is of no consequence nor concern of the government...

WHATTTTTTT????? wealth is private and not a public concern......holy shit!!!!!!!!!!!!!! what next you advocate freedom and responsibility.....I cant take it!

 

[Wyatt earp]

Who said it isn't?

Oh.
Well, sorry, I thougt you were stating a serious position with the intent to sway people to agree with it, supporting it with a sound argument, etc.
My mistake.

If you're asking for supportive reference to my radical proposal consider the condition of the U.S. economy before FDR implemented his New Deal, which consisted of a progressive tax rate with an upper maximum level of 91%! That's ninety-one percent! And you should know it didn't impoverish the super-rich. It simply made them a bit less rich. What it did was prevent the Nation from becoming a plutocracy.

What he did with revenue derived from that confiscatory level of taxation was create the WPA and CCC public work programs which enabled millions of unemployed and impoverished Americans, including my father, to earn money, which they recirculated into the economy, which was immediately rejuvenated. Consider that the decades between the late 40s and the early 80s, when Reagan imposed his "trickle down," Milton Friedman supply side bullshit, were the most productive and prosperous years in our history.

That's just one example of what I'm talking about. Now I suggest you do some Google research to learn more about the New Deal and how it served to create the middle class. You can do that and pay attention to the facts, or you can listen to the right-wing water-carriers who believe anything Rush Limbaugh, a near billionaire, tells them.

In the simplest terms, in order for a unique economy such as ours to remain healthy it requires maximum circulation of the Nation's wealth resource. When a small number of exploitative individuals are able to hoard a substantial amount of that resource, the economy becomes stagnant -- as our economy presently is.

Another guy on the internet that does not know history and what happend to Europe after WW2, That does not understand how easy it was to build and sell products in the 50's thru 70's. back then you could have tolerances of plus or minus 1" and no one gave a shit. Today they have to be in the thousands of an a inch. It is a tottaly diifferent world back then when the tax rate was 91%. Americans were making money in spite of themselfs.

 

[bripat9643]

What communist entity are you aware of in which citizens are permitted to accumulate twenty million dollar fortunes? Your inability to understand that flaw in your reasoning places you squarely in the category of one-dimensional thinkers who are incapable of understanding the benefits of horizontal vs vertical distribution of the Nation's wealth resource.

In simple terms, you are the problem.

The idea that the government should decide how much you are ALLOWED to accumulate is communist to the bone.

 

[AmazonTania]

...to charitable causes?

I am not suggesting that we come up with laws that requires billionaires to give to charity, but I do think billionaires have a responsibility to use part of their fortune to better mankind.

I have a lot of respect for billionaires like Bill Gates and Mark Zuckerberg who plan to give half their fortune to charity after they die. To me, that is the right thing to do.

In your opinion, how much should a billionaire give while they are still alive? Throw out a percentage.

How much money should a person give if they are worth 1 billion? 5 billion?

That's not up for me, nor anyone else to decide.

Charity is a personal responsibility. No one can nor should decided on how much should be given, who should it be given to or when/why should it be given away.

 

[MikeK]

90+% myth busted SO many times it is not funny...

Add to that the fact that the wealth is not the nation's resource.. all wealth and money does not belong to the government nor 'the nation' where they get to dictate how much is enough and whether it has to be forcibly recirculated.... if a person wishes to donate it, or they choose to spend it, or they choose to invest it, or they choose to stick it in coffee cans and bury it like pirate booty is of no consequence nor concern of the government...

Ask yourself this question; do you think the American billionaires and multi-millionaires could have achieved the same level of financial success in any other country? If not, why not?

Hint: They did it by exploiting this Nation's material, administrative, and human resources.

 

[AmazonTania]

Ask yourself this question; do you think the American billionaires and multi-millionaires could have achieved the same level of financial success in any other country? If not, why not?

You are aware that America is not the only country with billionaires and multi-millionaires, correct?

Hint: They did it by exploiting this Nation's material, administrative, and human resources.

Explain

 

[buckeye45_73]

90+% myth busted SO many times it is not funny...

Add to that the fact that the wealth is not the nation's resource.. all wealth and money does not belong to the government nor 'the nation' where they get to dictate how much is enough and whether it has to be forcibly recirculated.... if a person wishes to donate it, or they choose to spend it, or they choose to invest it, or they choose to stick it in coffee cans and bury it like pirate booty is of no consequence nor concern of the government...

Ask yourself this question; do you think the American billionaires and multi-millionaires could have achieved the same level of financial success in any other country? If not, why not?

Hint: They did it by exploiting this Nation's material, administrative, and human resources.

WTF??? They did it because it's allowed.....and should be......why do you think the US dominates?
Exploited....wow, some commies never give up......

So explain MExico? Richest man in the world......there's hardly any government, natural resources, and most of all the human capital is in the US

here is the list....alot of countries on there, but we have by far the most

http://www.forbes.com/billionaires/

I mean Cuba has what Castro and ??????????????????????????????????????????

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

90+% myth busted SO many times it is not funny...

Add to that the fact that the wealth is not the nation's resource.. all wealth and money does not belong to the government nor 'the nation' where they get to dictate how much is enough and whether it has to be forcibly recirculated.... if a person wishes to donate it, or they choose to spend it, or they choose to invest it, or they choose to stick it in coffee cans and bury it like pirate booty is of no consequence nor concern of the government...

Ask yourself this question; do you think the American billionaires and multi-millionaires could have achieved the same level of financial success in any other country? If not, why not?

Hint: They did it by exploiting this Nation's material, administrative, and human resources.

No, they did it because like other countries, they are free to make money without fear of some shit-for-brains, miserable despot deciding he doesn't like it so he's gonna seize it. We don't do that here... yet.

 

[bripat9643]

90+% myth busted SO many times it is not funny...

Add to that the fact that the wealth is not the nation's resource.. all wealth and money does not belong to the government nor 'the nation' where they get to dictate how much is enough and whether it has to be forcibly recirculated.... if a person wishes to donate it, or they choose to spend it, or they choose to invest it, or they choose to stick it in coffee cans and bury it like pirate booty is of no consequence nor concern of the government...

Ask yourself this question; do you think the American billionaires and multi-millionaires could have achieved the same level of financial success in any other country? If not, why not?

well, no, because the governments of other countries are even bigger thieves than ours is.

Hint: They did it by exploiting this Nation's material, administrative, and human resources.

Hint: None of this stuff belongs to the government, so even if your claim were true, it wouldn't justify the government's claim on any of their money.

Furthermore, the term "exploit" is so nebulous it's virtually meaningless. Welfare leaches like you exploit the taxpayers, so it appears you owe all of us a big wad of cash.

 

[AmazonTania]

well, no, because the governments of other countries are even bigger thieves than ours is.

No, they did it because like other countries, they are free to make money without fear of some shit-for-brains, miserable despot deciding he doesn't like it so he's gonna seize it. We don't do that here... yet.

Interesting. No one believes it's possible to become a millionaire/billionaire in a country such as Hong Kong, Singapore, Australia, or Switzerland...

Either alot of people here have never been on the outside, or people here just really love America...