Killing the 1% Golden Goose

[Clementine]

Hmmm ...

First bolded: [a bunch of people] They cheat the system by working under the table and taking other people's money.

vs

Second bolded: [spoiled rich kids who 'squander' their own money] They follow the law and spend their own money, keeping those they buy items from in the workforce.

Sorry, you still sound as if you're having a jealous over the spoiled richies.

I agree with your last paragraph.

The second bolded part has to do with folks who get special tax rates because they are the "job creators"|but instead of putting the tax savings to that use, they hoard it overseas or just use it for more obscene luxury and waste. Everytime the issue of raising taxes on the rich comes up we here about how it will hurt the job creators. We here that the money saved by the rich in paying low taxes will help create new jobs. It hasn't happened. A big percentage does exactly what I described. They squander the tax breaks and what they get from low tax rates on self indulgent obscene squandering. If you are given a tax rate or loophole with the understanding that you will use it for expanding a business or investing in business that will expand the economy that is what it should be used for. It should not be used for you to experiment with $300 bottles of imported wines and to add to your wifes diamond collection.

Well you see, the thing is it isn't government's money to take, it's the persons money to use/spend/invest/save ... however they see fit. "They squander the tax breaks". ??? It's their money! Where does it say that xxx tax break = person has to spend that $ on x, y, or z only? They're playing by the rules that uncle set up but they're the bad guys? ?? And in the meantime, john 'under the table' doe takes what isn't his, what he hasn't earned. You didn't even mention him.

Every time the issue of taxing the rich more comes up, people get pissed. Why? Because the rich are the ones who are paying their fair share plus that much more in order for john 'under the table' doe to get his goodies. Where do you think the money for all these entitlement programs come from? But it's always the same out of D.C. "tax the rich more". Who will you tax when you've taxed the rich right out of the country? What would be fair would be for everyone to pay xx percent, no loopholes, no specials, nothing. Make it easy, make it fair. Middle class is getting whacked paying for everyone else too. Look at the (un)aca ... middle class peeps are getting slammed on this thing, rates sky rocketing and will continue to do so. But as long as someone else gets theirs all is ok? Nope.

I agree with you that people who truly need a helping hand should be helped. But the many who are using government hand-outs as a leg to stand on, rather than a leg up? No. Just NO.

The bolded? You sure you weren't left out of someone's will? Wow.

I am always amazed at how the left begrudges people the right to spend their own money as they see fit, yet yell at us when we question how many welfare recipients spend the money given to them for food and basic necessities.

So, no bottles of wine with your own money, but go ahead and use your EBT card for cigarettes and pot.

 

[Zoom-boing]

The second bolded part has to do with folks who get special tax rates because they are the "job creators"|but instead of putting the tax savings to that use, they hoard it overseas or just use it for more obscene luxury and waste. Everytime the issue of raising taxes on the rich comes up we here about how it will hurt the job creators. We here that the money saved by the rich in paying low taxes will help create new jobs. It hasn't happened. A big percentage does exactly what I described. They squander the tax breaks and what they get from low tax rates on self indulgent obscene squandering. If you are given a tax rate or loophole with the understanding that you will use it for expanding a business or investing in business that will expand the economy that is what it should be used for. It should not be used for you to experiment with $300 bottles of imported wines and to add to your wifes diamond collection.

Well you see, the thing is it isn't government's money to take, it's the persons money to use/spend/invest/save ... however they see fit. "They squander the tax breaks". ??? It's their money! Where does it say that xxx tax break = person has to spend that $ on x, y, or z only? They're playing by the rules that uncle set up but they're the bad guys? ?? And in the meantime, john 'under the table' doe takes what isn't his, what he hasn't earned. You didn't even mention him.

Every time the issue of taxing the rich more comes up, people get pissed. Why? Because the rich are the ones who are paying their fair share plus that much more in order for john 'under the table' doe to get his goodies. Where do you think the money for all these entitlement programs come from? But it's always the same out of D.C. "tax the rich more". Who will you tax when you've taxed the rich right out of the country? What would be fair would be for everyone to pay xx percent, no loopholes, no specials, nothing. Make it easy, make it fair. Middle class is getting whacked paying for everyone else too. Look at the (un)aca ... middle class peeps are getting slammed on this thing, rates sky rocketing and will continue to do so. But as long as someone else gets theirs all is ok? Nope.

I agree with you that people who truly need a helping hand should be helped. But the many who are using government hand-outs as a leg to stand on, rather than a leg up? No. Just NO.

The bolded? You sure you weren't left out of someone's will? Wow.

I am always amazed at how the left begrudges people the right to spend their own money as they see fit, yet yell at us when we question how many welfare recipients spend the money given to them for food and basic necessities.

So, no bottles of wine with your own money, but go ahead and use your EBT card for cigarettes and pot.

I know, right?

When government wants your money, it's fine.

When you want to keep it, it's greed.

 

[Mr. H.]

Obama is focused on killing the single most bright spot in our economy today - drilling for hydrocarbons.

IDC's - Intangible Drilling Costs, and Percentage Depletion. They are on his chopping block.

He falsely labels them "subsidies".

Why? In order to turn the populace against the men and women who are the true job creators in this country.

Obama is the ******* antithesis of what this nation stands for- a risk/reward system based on hard work and risk taken by the private sector.

He's such a ******* whore.

 

[Camp]

Hmmm ...

First bolded: [a bunch of people] They cheat the system by working under the table and taking other people's money.

vs

Second bolded: [spoiled rich kids who 'squander' their own money] They follow the law and spend their own money, keeping those they buy items from in the workforce.

Sorry, you still sound as if you're having a jealous over the spoiled richies.

I agree with your last paragraph.

The second bolded part has to do with folks who get special tax rates because they are the "job creators"|but instead of putting the tax savings to that use, they hoard it overseas or just use it for more obscene luxury and waste. Everytime the issue of raising taxes on the rich comes up we here about how it will hurt the job creators. We here that the money saved by the rich in paying low taxes will help create new jobs. It hasn't happened. A big percentage does exactly what I described. They squander the tax breaks and what they get from low tax rates on self indulgent obscene squandering. If you are given a tax rate or loophole with the understanding that you will use it for expanding a business or investing in business that will expand the economy that is what it should be used for. It should not be used for you to experiment with $300 bottles of imported wines and to add to your wifes diamond collection.

Well you see, the thing is it isn't government's money to take, it's the persons money to use/spend/invest/save ... however they see fit. "They squander the tax breaks". ??? It's their money! Where does it say that xxx tax break = person has to spend that $ on x, y, or z only? They're playing by the rules that uncle set up but they're the bad guys? ?? And in the meantime, john 'under the table' doe takes what isn't his, what he hasn't earned. You didn't even mention him.

Every time the issue of taxing the rich more comes up, people get pissed. Why? Because the rich are the ones who are paying their fair share plus that much more in order for john 'under the table' doe to get his goodies. Where do you think the money for all these entitlement programs come from? But it's always the same out of D.C. "tax the rich more". Who will you tax when you've taxed the rich right out of the country? What would be fair would be for everyone to pay xx percent, no loopholes, no specials, nothing. Make it easy, make it fair. Middle class is getting whacked paying for everyone else too. Look at the (un)aca ... middle class peeps are getting slammed on this thing, rates sky rocketing and will continue to do so. But as long as someone else gets theirs all is ok? Nope.

I agree with you that people who truly need a helping hand should be helped. But the many who are using government hand-outs as a leg to stand on, rather than a leg up? No. Just NO.

The bolded? You sure you weren't left out of someone's will? Wow.

Well you see, the thing is it isn't your money unless the government says it is your money. You may not like the way the world works, but that is how it works, in every country in the world. If you have to fall back on the arguement that "the government steals peoples money" it's an indication you have no real argument. The government, through elected officials, called for an increased tax a few years ago. The talked about doing away with what were called temporary tax cuts made in a previous administration and Congress. Those opposed to that increase claimed the increase in taxes and cancelation of the tax breaks would hurt the economy. The specific reason they gave was that the tax savings were used by the recipients of the brake to invest in business and the economy in such a way that their investments created jobs, hence they took on the wonderful name "job creators". But that is not what they did once they got to keep the tax benifit. Instead they have hoarded the money and yes, squandered it in the ways I discribed. So why should we continue to give them the tax savings? They renigged on their deal. The reasons they gave for getting the tax breaks didn't work. Some of them may have indeed used their tax savings on investments, but to many have not. The rich keep getting richer. They become more obscene with their wealth every year. If you think it's ok for a 19 year old rich kid to speed down the highway at 150 mph in a 250,000 car, one of several in his collection, and we all need to protect him and fight for him to insure he doesn't pay to much in tax, thats you, not me thankyou. In your book the dude earned and worked hard for his money. In my book he owes society for providing the environment for him to be successful and make money.

 

[Camp]

Obama is focused on killing the single most bright spot in our economy today - drilling for hydrocarbons.

IDC's - Intangible Drilling Costs, and Percentage Depletion. They are on his chopping block.

He falsely labels them "subsidies".

Why? In order to turn the populace against the men and women who are the true job creators in this country.

Obama is the ******* antithesis of what this nation stands for- a risk/reward system based on hard work and risk taken by the private sector.

He's such a ******* whore.

We own the hydrocarbons. They are a natural resource. They are owned by all the citizens of the nation. The government should make the best deal possible for our natural resources. If the people currently making profit from our natural resources are not happy with what they make, or not happy with our demands for a bigger percentage of the profits, **** 'em, let them walk. There is no shortage of investors and even competitive companys that would welcome the opportunity to profit off of our natural resources. Are we to believe that nobody will want to profit off of our hydrocarbons because they want a billion dollars and a half a billion dollars is not worth the effort?

 

[bripat9643]

The golden goose analogy is about being able to pay someone $5 to produce something you can turn around and sell for $10. Or feed a goose pennies worth of corn to sell their eggs like they are gold. The goose is the one doing all the labor.

Now you're getting it!
Who comes up with the idea for the business? Who invests his own money? Who spends 80-100 hours a week putting the plan together? Who has to hire people and make sure they are doing their jobs and fire them when they dont? Who goes years without a vacation?
It isn't the guy working the W2 job.

The farmer that owns the goose is still pretty stupid if they kill the goose no matter how hard they worked to get their farm up and running..

The farm, just like any other business, is the goose, knucklehead.

[Also pretty much everything you pointed to was labor of some sort. The labor of the business owner, especially the small business owner, is very important too.

You're forgetting the money invested. The business owner is precisely the person you claim to be irrelevant.

 

[bripat9643]

Now you're getting it!
Who comes up with the idea for the business? Who invests his own money? Who spends 80-100 hours a week putting the plan together? Who has to hire people and make sure they are doing their jobs and fire them when they dont? Who goes years without a vacation?
It isn't the guy working the W2 job.

The farmer that owns the goose is still pretty stupid if they kill the goose no matter how hard they worked to get their farm up and running.

Also pretty much everything you pointed to was labor of some sort. The labor of the business owner, especially the small business owner, is very important too.

The banker is a laborer. The accountant is a laborer. The executive is a laborer.
Was there a point you were trying to make?

He's trying anyway he can to say that investors and managers are irrelevant without actually saying it.

 

[Wildman]

The left falsely blames capitalism for the mess we are in. It's the exact opposite. Over 100 years ago, Wilson allowed banks to write legislation, which passed. It put a massive anti-capitalist system in place called the Federal Reserve. Free markets no longer ruled. It's those banks, the true 1%, who have controlled all our money and banking since then. We have to pay for our money and that means we were in debt to the banks from the start and it has only gotten worse. The value of the dollar has steadily decreased. It had gained value prior to the creation of the Federal Reserve.

Between giving us the Federal Reserve and making income tax permanent, Wilson handed control of our economy to a wealthy few, who would support politicians who would help keep them ultra powerful and continue to get even wealthier. Government has robbed us blind ever since. No one ever won a major election without the help of Goldman Sachs and their ilk. Government bent over to the wealth giants and have blamed the private sector ever since. While the true greedy people snuggle up to politicians, the less wealthy are accused of being the problem, even though they amassed wealth without having to sell their souls to the Feds. They make good scapegoats while the politicians and Federal Reserve banks reign unopposed.

Handing government more power clearly isn't the answer. We've seen what they do with power and they don't help the little people.

Nothing will change until the people realize the power we have. Too many are completely ignorant about what true freedom and liberty really is because they are too concerned about what government can do for them. They will give up anything in order to be taken care of. That just gives more power to our captors.

We need to abolish the Federal Reserve if we are to ever get back on track. Too many people are totally ignorant about how things really work. All the policies in the world won't balance things out as long as a controlling few call the shots.

More little people would succeed if politicians didn't constantly make poor decisions. We have stupid laws to control the population, but the top people, including government and the Feds are untouchable. And you wonder why we are in such a mess.

We need to abolish the Federal Reserve AND liberals, doing so would put Americans, true Americans that is..., back in control of our lives, there is way too many .gov rules, laws and regulations from the local county to the POTUS.

 

[Zoom-boing]

The second bolded part has to do with folks who get special tax rates because they are the "job creators"|but instead of putting the tax savings to that use, they hoard it overseas or just use it for more obscene luxury and waste. Everytime the issue of raising taxes on the rich comes up we here about how it will hurt the job creators. We here that the money saved by the rich in paying low taxes will help create new jobs. It hasn't happened. A big percentage does exactly what I described. They squander the tax breaks and what they get from low tax rates on self indulgent obscene squandering. If you are given a tax rate or loophole with the understanding that you will use it for expanding a business or investing in business that will expand the economy that is what it should be used for. It should not be used for you to experiment with $300 bottles of imported wines and to add to your wifes diamond collection.

Well you see, the thing is it isn't government's money to take, it's the persons money to use/spend/invest/save ... however they see fit. "They squander the tax breaks". ??? It's their money! Where does it say that xxx tax break = person has to spend that $ on x, y, or z only? They're playing by the rules that uncle set up but they're the bad guys? ?? And in the meantime, john 'under the table' doe takes what isn't his, what he hasn't earned. You didn't even mention him.

Every time the issue of taxing the rich more comes up, people get pissed. Why? Because the rich are the ones who are paying their fair share plus that much more in order for john 'under the table' doe to get his goodies. Where do you think the money for all these entitlement programs come from? But it's always the same out of D.C. "tax the rich more". Who will you tax when you've taxed the rich right out of the country? What would be fair would be for everyone to pay xx percent, no loopholes, no specials, nothing. Make it easy, make it fair. Middle class is getting whacked paying for everyone else too. Look at the (un)aca ... middle class peeps are getting slammed on this thing, rates sky rocketing and will continue to do so. But as long as someone else gets theirs all is ok? Nope.

I agree with you that people who truly need a helping hand should be helped. But the many who are using government hand-outs as a leg to stand on, rather than a leg up? No. Just NO.

The bolded? You sure you weren't left out of someone's will? Wow.

Well you see, the thing is it isn't your money unless the government says it is your money. You may not like the way the world works, but that is how it works, in every country in the world. If you have to fall back on the arguement that "the government steals peoples money" it's an indication you have no real argument. The government, through elected officials, called for an increased tax a few years ago. The talked about doing away with what were called temporary tax cuts made in a previous administration and Congress. Those opposed to that increase claimed the increase in taxes and cancelation of the tax breaks would hurt the economy. The specific reason they gave was that the tax savings were used by the recipients of the brake to invest in business and the economy in such a way that their investments created jobs, hence they took on the wonderful name "job creators". But that is not what they did once they got to keep the tax benifit. Instead they have hoarded the money and yes, squandered it in the ways I discribed. So why should we continue to give them the tax savings? They renigged on their deal. The reasons they gave for getting the tax breaks didn't work. Some of them may have indeed used their tax savings on investments, but to many have not. The rich keep getting richer. They become more obscene with their wealth every year. If you think it's ok for a 19 year old rich kid to speed down the highway at 150 mph in a 250,000 car, one of several in his collection, and we all need to protect him and fight for him to insure he doesn't pay to much in tax, thats you, not me thankyou. In your book the dude earned and worked hard for his money. In my book he owes society for providing the environment for him to be successful and make money.

Well, there you go. Just hand it all over and uncle can give us a stipend, right? At least you're upfront about it.

Except I never said that.

Look at the policies this admin has enacted, specifically (un)aca. Think as to why so many businesses were/are hanging on to what they have, not investing.

You didn't read what I wrote. The rich and middle class part of our society pay their fair share plus more. Don't you think everyone should pay their own fair share?

In your book, you think his having money (however he got it) somehow takes away from your share of the pie. It doesn't. Don't like your lot in life, then change it. You are not a tree.

And there you go again. The collective trumps the individual.

And the fact that you have reiterated time and again that the person who has inherited his money doesn't deserve it because he didn't "earn" it just reeks of flat out jealousy.

 

[editec]

The golden geese aren't being killed they are being bled dry by inflation.

Kiddies when I started paying taxes I did so paying with specie backed by silver.

That dime I paid in taxes back then fetches about $3.50 today.

So that means that our specie is has lost about 97% of its value (in comparison to silver) in MY WORKING LIFETIME.

If any of you think the socialist did this, the hippies did this, the welfare mothers did this?

Your have been tragically misinformed.

YOUR MASTERS did this, partisans.

YOUR MASTERS...not mine.

 

[Camp]

Well you see, the thing is it isn't government's money to take, it's the persons money to use/spend/invest/save ... however they see fit. "They squander the tax breaks". ??? It's their money! Where does it say that xxx tax break = person has to spend that $ on x, y, or z only? They're playing by the rules that uncle set up but they're the bad guys? ?? And in the meantime, john 'under the table' doe takes what isn't his, what he hasn't earned. You didn't even mention him.

Every time the issue of taxing the rich more comes up, people get pissed. Why? Because the rich are the ones who are paying their fair share plus that much more in order for john 'under the table' doe to get his goodies. Where do you think the money for all these entitlement programs come from? But it's always the same out of D.C. "tax the rich more". Who will you tax when you've taxed the rich right out of the country? What would be fair would be for everyone to pay xx percent, no loopholes, no specials, nothing. Make it easy, make it fair. Middle class is getting whacked paying for everyone else too. Look at the (un)aca ... middle class peeps are getting slammed on this thing, rates sky rocketing and will continue to do so. But as long as someone else gets theirs all is ok? Nope.

I agree with you that people who truly need a helping hand should be helped. But the many who are using government hand-outs as a leg to stand on, rather than a leg up? No. Just NO.

The bolded? You sure you weren't left out of someone's will? Wow.

Well you see, the thing is it isn't your money unless the government says it is your money. You may not like the way the world works, but that is how it works, in every country in the world. If you have to fall back on the arguement that "the government steals peoples money" it's an indication you have no real argument. The government, through elected officials, called for an increased tax a few years ago. The talked about doing away with what were called temporary tax cuts made in a previous administration and Congress. Those opposed to that increase claimed the increase in taxes and cancelation of the tax breaks would hurt the economy. The specific reason they gave was that the tax savings were used by the recipients of the brake to invest in business and the economy in such a way that their investments created jobs, hence they took on the wonderful name "job creators". But that is not what they did once they got to keep the tax benifit. Instead they have hoarded the money and yes, squandered it in the ways I discribed. So why should we continue to give them the tax savings? They renigged on their deal. The reasons they gave for getting the tax breaks didn't work. Some of them may have indeed used their tax savings on investments, but to many have not. The rich keep getting richer. They become more obscene with their wealth every year. If you think it's ok for a 19 year old rich kid to speed down the highway at 150 mph in a 250,000 car, one of several in his collection, and we all need to protect him and fight for him to insure he doesn't pay to much in tax, thats you, not me thankyou. In your book the dude earned and worked hard for his money. In my book he owes society for providing the environment for him to be successful and make money.

Well, there you go. Just hand it all over and uncle can give us a stipend, right? At least you're upfront about it.

Except I never said that.

Look at the policies this admin has enacted, specifically (un)aca. Think as to why so many businesses were/are hanging on to what they have, not investing.

You didn't read what I wrote. The rich and middle class part of our society pay their fair share plus more. Don't you think everyone should pay their own fair share?

In your book, you think his having money (however he got it) somehow takes away from your share of the pie. It doesn't. Don't like your lot in life, then change it. You are not a tree.

And there you go again. The collective trumps the individual.

And the fact that you have reiterated time and again that the person who has inherited his money doesn't deserve it because he didn't "earn" it just reeks of flat out jealousy.

Everyone does not pay their fair share. Income has nothing to do with it. Our current system allows the poor, the middleclass and the rich to play tricks that help them avoid paying their fair share and or taking advantage of various subsidies and benifits that they don't deserve or are entitled to. Putting blame on one segment of society or the other is part of the game we play. It's a game that prevents us from resolving our problems. The problem will reach resolution when and if we judge individuals by what they do as individuals and resist putting people into stereotypes.
My problem with the wealthy is that grandpappy and or daddy may have been golden geese who created wealth and at the same time created jobs and benifits to society in general but that should not transfer to junior if junior is a lazy bum. I have no problem with junior getting the proceeds from grandpa or daddys wealth. I have a problem with giving junior the same kind of tax incentives and breaks for him to squander instead of putting it to the use it was meant for. If junior is not a golden goose, junior shouldn't get the benifits of being a golden goose. I have no sympathy for a person who inherits an amount of wealth that brings in a million dollars a year, sits around and lives an unproductive life of obsecene weatlh derived luxury and complains about having to pay the same percentage of income in taxes as the guy who cleans his pool or washs his cars or cuts his grass because his inherited wealth makes him a "job creator".

 

[Zoom-boing]

Well you see, the thing is it isn't your money unless the government says it is your money. You may not like the way the world works, but that is how it works, in every country in the world. If you have to fall back on the arguement that "the government steals peoples money" it's an indication you have no real argument. The government, through elected officials, called for an increased tax a few years ago. The talked about doing away with what were called temporary tax cuts made in a previous administration and Congress. Those opposed to that increase claimed the increase in taxes and cancelation of the tax breaks would hurt the economy. The specific reason they gave was that the tax savings were used by the recipients of the brake to invest in business and the economy in such a way that their investments created jobs, hence they took on the wonderful name "job creators". But that is not what they did once they got to keep the tax benifit. Instead they have hoarded the money and yes, squandered it in the ways I discribed. So why should we continue to give them the tax savings? They renigged on their deal. The reasons they gave for getting the tax breaks didn't work. Some of them may have indeed used their tax savings on investments, but to many have not. The rich keep getting richer. They become more obscene with their wealth every year. If you think it's ok for a 19 year old rich kid to speed down the highway at 150 mph in a 250,000 car, one of several in his collection, and we all need to protect him and fight for him to insure he doesn't pay to much in tax, thats you, not me thankyou. In your book the dude earned and worked hard for his money. In my book he owes society for providing the environment for him to be successful and make money.

Well, there you go. Just hand it all over and uncle can give us a stipend, right? At least you're upfront about it.

Except I never said that.

Look at the policies this admin has enacted, specifically (un)aca. Think as to why so many businesses were/are hanging on to what they have, not investing.

You didn't read what I wrote. The rich and middle class part of our society pay their fair share plus more. Don't you think everyone should pay their own fair share?

In your book, you think his having money (however he got it) somehow takes away from your share of the pie. It doesn't. Don't like your lot in life, then change it. You are not a tree.

And there you go again. The collective trumps the individual.

And the fact that you have reiterated time and again that the person who has inherited his money doesn't deserve it because he didn't "earn" it just reeks of flat out jealousy.

Everyone does not pay their fair share. Income has nothing to do with it. Our current system allows the poor, the middleclass and the rich to play tricks that help them avoid paying their fair share and or taking advantage of various subsidies and benifits that they don't deserve or are entitled to. Putting blame on one segment of society or the other is part of the game we play. It's a game that prevents us from resolving our problems. The problem will reach resolution when and if we judge individuals by what they do as individuals and resist putting people into stereotypes.

My problem with the wealthy is that grandpappy and or daddy may have been golden geese who created wealth and at the same time created jobs and benifits to society in general but that should not transfer to junior if junior is a lazy bum. I have no problem with junior getting the proceeds from grandpa or daddys wealth. I have a problem with giving junior the same kind of tax incentives and breaks for him to squander instead of putting it to the use it was meant for. If junior is not a golden goose, junior shouldn't get the benifits of being a golden goose. I have no sympathy for a person who inherits an amount of wealth that brings in a million dollars a year, sits around and lives an unproductive life of obsecene weatlh dirived luxury and complains about having to pay the same percentage of income in taxes as the guy who cleans his pool or washs his cars or cuts his grass because his inherited wealth makes him a "job creator".

It isn't your money, it isn't uncle's money, it is their money to do with as they see fit. Period.

'Use it was meant for'. Again, it is their money, it isn't up to you or anyone else to determine what they do with it.

Who wrote the tax laws? So you want to 'pick and choose' who can/cannot take advantage of those laws? No. Change the laws but it applies to everyone. You really want gov't deciding who gets to keep their own money?

No, but you do have a jealous.

They don't pay the same percentage but they should because that way everyone would be paying 'their fair share, rather than some paying more and others paying none.

 

[Mojo2]

I think he favors Benito Mussolini...

Killing the 1% Golden Goose​

January 14, 2014 by Daniel Greenfield

Two years before Occupy Wall Street’s band of radical grad students set up their tents and cardboard signs in Zuccotti Park, Mayor Bloomberg warned the City Council against frivolous tax hikes. “One percent of the households that file in this city pay something like 50% of the taxes. In the city, that’s something like 40,000 people. If a handful left, any raise would make it revenue neutral.”

And then the 1 percent became the target of the left’s answer to the Tea Party. It wasn’t unusual to see bus riders wearing “We Are the 99%” buttons the way they had once carried I Heart New York bags.

New York City now has a radical leftist in Gracie Mansion, Bill de Blasio, a radical leftist City Council speaker, Melissa Mark-Viverito, and a radical leftist public advocate, Letitia James. The city is now run by the Working Families Party/ACORN and tax hikes will be used to finance generous payoffs to unions.

But the unions who rigged this election may never see those payoffs. New York City’s unfunded pensions are estimated as being as high as $136 billion. The crash may only be four years away.

...

Drive away the rich, destroy the middle class and all you’re left with is Detroit. 8 million New Yorkers depend on 40,000 millionaires and billionaires. The same California voters who supported Proposition 30 depend on the taxes of the very people they are taxing into leaving.

Wealth is not a crime and it is not redistributable. Money can be taken and put into a common pot, but the ability to perpetuate it through wealth cannot. That is a skill like any other and the practitioners of that skill are the only reason that the Jerry Browns and the Bill de Blasios have any money to play with.

The only thing separating Bill de Blasio from Detroit’s former mayor Dave Bing are those 40,000 of the 1 percent and if he kills the golden goose, the only egg will be on his face.

Killing the 1% Golden Goose | FrontPage Magazine

Once again, a great thread and a great OP!

By the way, speaking of hurting the rich, I just ran across this interesting comment from Dr. Ben Carson.

Carson on Wednesday told Fox's Bill O'Reilly that the IRS began examining his real estate holdings after his speech to the National Prayer Breakfast in February, in which he used tithing in the Bible to make a compelling case against progressive taxation. A humiliated Obama sat steaming a couple of seats away.

Carson said, "there must be something inherently fair about proportionality. You make $10 billion, you put in a billion. You make $10, you put in $1."

The black Detroit-born son of a single mother, who rose from poverty to the top of the medical profession, added, "Now some people say that's not fair because it doesn't hurt the guy who made $10 billion as much as the guy who made $10.

Where does it say you have to hurt the guy? He's just put in a billion in the pot. We don't need to hurt him."

Ben Carson Being Audited After Criticizing Obama Can't Be Coincidence - Investors.com

We are seeing the same KIND of hatred as the kind I sometimes see portrayed by film actors playing Nazi SS soldiers and officers toward Jews.

A deeply felt resentment and contempt.

Obama has brought class warfare to America.

Damn him.

 

[Zoom-boing]

Carson said, "there must be something inherently fair about proportionality. You make $10 billion, you put in a billion. You make $10, you put in $1."

This is exactly what I'm saying to the poster Camp. Everyone should paysthe same percentage, everyone should have some skin in the game.

 

[Camp]

Carson said, "there must be something inherently fair about proportionality. You make $10 billion, you put in a billion. You make $10, you put in $1."

This is exactly what I'm saying to the poster Camp. Everyone should paysthe same percentage, everyone should have some skin in the game.

Well we can all want and wish for whatever we want to want of wish for. Fact is that is not the way our system is set up and it does not look like it will be anytime soon. That is, each of us, no matter what our income, pays the same percentage in tax rates. There are to many special interest to let that happen.
In the meantime, we should make the system we have as fair and as efficient as possible. Only people who can not help themselves should recieve tax payer help. And tax breaks should only be given to folks when those tax breaks benifit the community and country. We should be able to agree that bums, whether poor bums or rich bums, should not be allowed to play the system. If we can agree that bums come in all income categories we will be making a start.

 

[American_Jihad]

The Politics of Hate and Envy

January 28, 2014 by Walter Williams

Part of the progressive agenda is to create hate and envy. One component of that agenda is to attack the large differences between a corporation’s chief executive officer’s earnings and those of its average worker. CNNMoney published salary comparisons in “Fortune 50 CEO pay vs. our salaries” (Fortune 500 2012 - CEO pay vs. our salaries - FORTUNE on CNNMoney.com). Wells Fargo CEO John Stumpf’s annual salary is $2.8 million. CNN shows that it takes 66 Wells Fargo employees, whose average salary is $42,400, to match Stumpf’s salary. It takes 57 Wal-Mart employees, who earn $22,100 on average, to match CEO Michael Duke’s $1.3 million. At General Electric, 44 employees earning $75,300 a year match CEO Jeff Immelt’s $3.3 million salary. For people with little understanding, such differences seem patently unfair. Before touching on the fairness issue, let’s look at some high salaries that progressives ignore.

Forbes lists the “Highest-Paid Football Players 2013″ (#1 Drew Brees - In Photos: Highest-Paid Football Players 2013 - Forbes). Drew Brees, quarterback for the Saints, earned $40 million. If the average Saints organization employee earned $45,000, it would take almost 900 of them to match Brees’ salary. Patriots quarterback Tom Brady earned $31.3 million, and Los Angeles Lakers star Kobe Bryant earns $23.5 million for playing basketball. It would take the earnings of more than 1,200 workers making $45,000 a year to match the earnings of Brady and Bryant.

But the “unfair” salaries of sports players pale in comparison with movie stars. According to Forbes’ listing of the highest-paid actors (Forbes' Highest-Paid Actors 2013 - Business Insider), Robert Downey Jr. earned $75 million from June 2012 to June 2013. Channing Tatum: $60 million. Hugh Jackman: $55 million. Let’s suppose the cameraman working with Downey earned $60,000. It would take the salaries of 1,250 of them to equal his salary. Oprah Winfrey’s 2012 salary came to $165 million, thousands of times what the earnings of people who work for her are.

Though sports and Hollywood personalities earn multiples of CEO salaries, you’ll never find leftists and progressives picketing and criticizing them.

...

The Politics of Hate and Envy | FrontPage Magazine

 

[JoeB131]

The Politics of Hate and Envy

January 28, 2014 by Walter Williams


Part of the progressive agenda is to create hate and envy. One component of that agenda is to attack the large differences between a corporation’s chief executive officer’s earnings and those of its average worker. CNNMoney published salary comparisons in “Fortune 50 CEO pay vs. our salaries” (Fortune 500 2012 - CEO pay vs. our salaries - FORTUNE on CNNMoney.com). Wells Fargo CEO John Stumpf’s annual salary is $2.8 million. CNN shows that it takes 66 Wells Fargo employees, whose average salary is $42,400, to match Stumpf’s salary. It takes 57 Wal-Mart employees, who earn $22,100 on average, to match CEO Michael Duke’s $1.3 million. At General Electric, 44 employees earning $75,300 a year match CEO Jeff Immelt’s $3.3 million salary. For people with little understanding, such differences seem patently unfair. Before touching on the fairness issue, let’s look at some high salaries that progressives ignore.

Forbes lists the “Highest-Paid Football Players 2013″ (#1 Drew Brees - In Photos: Highest-Paid Football Players 2013 - Forbes). Drew Brees, quarterback for the Saints, earned $40 million. If the average Saints organization employee earned $45,000, it would take almost 900 of them to match Brees’ salary. Patriots quarterback Tom Brady earned $31.3 million, and Los Angeles Lakers star Kobe Bryant earns $23.5 million for playing basketball. It would take the earnings of more than 1,200 workers making $45,000 a year to match the earnings of Brady and Bryant.

But the “unfair” salaries of sports players pale in comparison with movie stars. According to Forbes’ listing of the highest-paid actors (Forbes' Highest-Paid Actors 2013 - Business Insider), Robert Downey Jr. earned $75 million from June 2012 to June 2013. Channing Tatum: $60 million. Hugh Jackman: $55 million. Let’s suppose the cameraman working with Downey earned $60,000. It would take the salaries of 1,250 of them to equal his salary. Oprah Winfrey’s 2012 salary came to $165 million, thousands of times what the earnings of people who work for her are.

Though sports and Hollywood personalities earn multiples of CEO salaries, you’ll never find leftists and progressives picketing and criticizing them.

url]

I usually ignore Walter Williams because the man is a pathetic Uncle Tom, but there's a point to be addressed here.

In Sports and Hollywood, there is a huge disparity on what people are getting paid. But here's the thing.

The NFL, NBA and MLB have unions for their players. So if you aren't one of the stars pulling down an 8 figure salary, you still get a fair share of the profits of the sport for risking your health. The NFL recently agreed to put aside 750 million for the back-benchers who didn't get the big salaries, but did get years of repetitive head injuries. (A union fought for that.)

Similiarly, while the "Stars" in Hollywood get some pretty obscene salaries, all the bit players are unionized and get fair wages as well. Wasn't always that way, when the studios used to really abuse actors and other craftsman, but there was a labor union movement in Hollywood that changed that.

And one of the guys who fought for this fairer treatment? Ronald Reagan. That Commie Union Bastard.

 

[The Rabbi]

The Politics of Hate and Envy

January 28, 2014 by Walter Williams


Part of the progressive agenda is to create hate and envy. One component of that agenda is to attack the large differences between a corporation’s chief executive officer’s earnings and those of its average worker. CNNMoney published salary comparisons in “Fortune 50 CEO pay vs. our salaries” (Fortune 500 2012 - CEO pay vs. our salaries - FORTUNE on CNNMoney.com). Wells Fargo CEO John Stumpf’s annual salary is $2.8 million. CNN shows that it takes 66 Wells Fargo employees, whose average salary is $42,400, to match Stumpf’s salary. It takes 57 Wal-Mart employees, who earn $22,100 on average, to match CEO Michael Duke’s $1.3 million. At General Electric, 44 employees earning $75,300 a year match CEO Jeff Immelt’s $3.3 million salary. For people with little understanding, such differences seem patently unfair. Before touching on the fairness issue, let’s look at some high salaries that progressives ignore.

Forbes lists the “Highest-Paid Football Players 2013″ (#1 Drew Brees - In Photos: Highest-Paid Football Players 2013 - Forbes). Drew Brees, quarterback for the Saints, earned $40 million. If the average Saints organization employee earned $45,000, it would take almost 900 of them to match Brees’ salary. Patriots quarterback Tom Brady earned $31.3 million, and Los Angeles Lakers star Kobe Bryant earns $23.5 million for playing basketball. It would take the earnings of more than 1,200 workers making $45,000 a year to match the earnings of Brady and Bryant.

But the “unfair” salaries of sports players pale in comparison with movie stars. According to Forbes’ listing of the highest-paid actors (Forbes' Highest-Paid Actors 2013 - Business Insider), Robert Downey Jr. earned $75 million from June 2012 to June 2013. Channing Tatum: $60 million. Hugh Jackman: $55 million. Let’s suppose the cameraman working with Downey earned $60,000. It would take the salaries of 1,250 of them to equal his salary. Oprah Winfrey’s 2012 salary came to $165 million, thousands of times what the earnings of people who work for her are.

Though sports and Hollywood personalities earn multiples of CEO salaries, you’ll never find leftists and progressives picketing and criticizing them.

url]

I usually ignore Walter Williams because the man is a pathetic Uncle Tom, but there's a point to be addressed here.

In Sports and Hollywood, there is a huge disparity on what people are getting paid. But here's the thing.

The NFL, NBA and MLB have unions for their players. So if you aren't one of the stars pulling down an 8 figure salary, you still get a fair share of the profits of the sport for risking your health. The NFL recently agreed to put aside 750 million for the back-benchers who didn't get the big salaries, but did get years of repetitive head injuries. (A union fought for that.)

Similiarly, while the "Stars" in Hollywood get some pretty obscene salaries, all the bit players are unionized and get fair wages as well. Wasn't always that way, when the studios used to really abuse actors and other craftsman, but there was a labor union movement in Hollywood that changed that.

And one of the guys who fought for this fairer treatment? Ronald Reagan. That Commie Union Bastard.

Wow, racism, ignorance, and pickign the least significant point you can while undermining your own argument. All in one post.
Congrats, Joe. Post of the Day!

 

[Bombur]

Now you're getting it!
Who comes up with the idea for the business? Who invests his own money? Who spends 80-100 hours a week putting the plan together? Who has to hire people and make sure they are doing their jobs and fire them when they dont? Who goes years without a vacation?
It isn't the guy working the W2 job.

The farmer that owns the goose is still pretty stupid if they kill the goose no matter how hard they worked to get their farm up and running..

The farm, just like any other business, is the goose, knucklehead.

[Also pretty much everything you pointed to was labor of some sort. The labor of the business owner, especially the small business owner, is very important too.

You're forgetting the money invested. The business owner is precisely the person you claim to be irrelevant.

I don't remember arguing that anyone was irrelevant so you look pretty ridiculous when you claim I did something I clearly didn't do.

The goose is an animal on the farm. The analogy is not based on the premise that the goose is selling their own eggs. The goose does the work and the owner sells the product of that work.

Simple analogy that has confused you greatly. Being able to turn around own and sell the product of another person's labor is an incredibly important part of capitalism.

 

[The Rabbi]

The farmer that owns the goose is still pretty stupid if they kill the goose no matter how hard they worked to get their farm up and running..

The farm, just like any other business, is the goose, knucklehead.

[Also pretty much everything you pointed to was labor of some sort. The labor of the business owner, especially the small business owner, is very important too.

You're forgetting the money invested. The business owner is precisely the person you claim to be irrelevant.

I don't remember arguing that anyone was irrelevant so you look pretty ridiculous when you claim I did something I clearly didn't do.

The goose is an animal on the farm. The analogy is not based on the premise that the goose is selling their own eggs. The goose does the work and the owner sells the product of that work.

Simple analogy that has confused you greatly. Being able to turn around own and sell the product of another person's labor is an incredibly important part of capitalism.

The farmer also labors. As does the manager. Thus the distinction is artificual and irrelevant.