The truth about taxes

[RightDown]

The Dow is at 16000 because a corrupt and inept government has made the stock market the ONLY hedge most Americans have against runaway inflation--inflation that the government tries to hide by keeping interest rates artificially low and flat out lies about when it says runaway government spending is not creating negative inflationary pressures. Greece is the country that is currently experiencing the worst economy among developed countries in the world. But its stock market is doing just fine for the same reason ours is.

Private sources crashed our economy. The government failed to regulate the financial sector properly. Runaway greed and criminality amongst the financial sector players doomed our economy necessitating a bailout by the gov. in the trillions.

Greece's economy is nothing like the US economy. The US is monetarily sovereign. Greece, as a member of the Euro-nations, is not.

Greece's federal government must live within means set by the Euro. The US federal government has no means to live within. The only boundary to the government's ability to pay any bill on demand is that of inflation. And the US has been flirting more with deflation over the past few years...no COLAs, remember?

" The US federal government has no means to live within."..
I'm wondering how you do not see a problem with that.

No, that's why I typed it. The only limitation to a monetarily sovereign gov.'s ability to spend is inflationary concerns.

 

[RightDown]

This is all a part of the choices we make for ourselves, the lifestyle we are willing to build for ourselves. Do you expect me to look to the individual who chooses to work at a fast food chain as a manager and say that "I" should have more of an understanding for those decisions they make? Should their compensation between them and that of an educated experience level of a surgeon be less of a salary gap? Just how are we to determine someone's pay scale if not based on education and skill level? I'm not willing to pay someone a salary of $70,000 for flipping burgers, sorry. If you desire to make a better life for yourself, then stop with the wallowing sad story, and work to achieve a salaried job you are happy with.

I also see that you are unwilling to demonstrate exactly how a business "ought" to be run through your demonstration of 'good faith' as owner. Why should such an opportunity discourage you, if all the tools to learn how to attain and run a business are there? Why stop at simply being among the labor force, and not strive for something that is more gratifying to your cause?

You've made an excellent case for Universal Healthcare. Under that scenario, the burger flipper is covered and the private owner is free to pursue profit. The risk is shared universally and payments for coverage are buttressed by our monetarily sovereign federal government.

Again, Labor is necessary to all production. Labor is comprised of practically all americans. We need solutions, not complaints about the costs of coverage. And as you inferred, Universal Healthcare coverage would ameliorate both matters quite well.

You must be joking.
Tell us, oh great one, how does the US Govt build, fund and administer a health insurance program for 315 million people?
From where does the money to pay for it come?

Dollars are created by gov. spending and taxes destroy dollars. That's why deficits are necessary to economic growth, debt is not a bad thing and taxes really are, for the most part, a bad thing.

We're off the gold standard, we have been for over 40 years. Where did you think the trillions of bailout dollars came from? Under Bush's bed? No. The gov. spending created the payments.

 

[RightDown]

And this is where you display your enormous and profound ignorance [MENTION=46262]RightDown[/MENTION]. See, it is not the responsibility of the federal government to keep people "above the poverty line".

You're not entitled to what other people earn. Period.

Judging by the quality of your thinking memorialized in your responses, I'd say you are about 13 years old. And a big fan of Ayn Rand.

The people are responisble for the general welfare of the citizenry. Didn't you know that?

I guess you didn't.

Judging by the idiocy of your responses, I'd say you're retarded and drooling on yourself.

The people are not responsible for shit, you marxist idiot. The person is responsible for the individual. When needed, they can draw voluntary assistance from their family, their friends, their neighbors, their church, their community, and charity.

Welcome to America. If you're so afraid of freedom and choice, Cuba is waiting for you...

Another intelligent, no, brilliant right winger. Your choice of font colors, the pastels, they are striking.

One more thing, if it weren't for the efforts of others, you wouldn't even exist Mr. rugged individual.

Chew on that for a bit.

 

[RightDown]

And Spiderman, I'm done with you. You say you're a realty magnate that doesn't pay FICA taxes b/c of your S-corp. Right. I inform you that rental income is passive income not subject to FICA. I know b/c I actually own properties and do my own taxes.

You're BSing.

Then you think you can tell me that required minimum distributions are the same thing as lump sum optional distributions. Wrong again.

I think everything you mentioned is a lie. From your vast holdings, to your realty portfolio.

I think you are a poseur. Please waste someone else's time.

 

[thereisnospoon]

I have never seen more unpaid cheerleaders for the wealthy than in this thread.

The rich are engaging in class warfare against you. And they are winning hands down.

They are rich. You are not.

"Rich" means the relative gap / disparity between their net worth and yours.

You are labor. Labor is to be controlled because that keeps the relative gap between what they have and you have operational and that keeps them in the driver's seat.

Labor is necessary to productivity. Not everyone can be the rich boss. Someone has to do the work. And doing that necessary work should not relegate the workforce to living paycheck to paycheck with no prospect or hint of security. Redistribution is what government does. Kick a little bit of that gravy to the working men and women.

Honestly, stop helping these guys that own you. They don't need your help.

You know who does need your help? People just like you: Labor.

I have seen leftist pro union pap before, but you are the all time award winner.
You poor uninformed individual....Without business there is no need for labor.
You rail against the wealthy, yet you whine about jobs and wages. Ok genius, who do you think builds the businesses that create the jobs and enable workers to receive a paycheck?
Deal with this fact. The person or people who've risked everything to build a business have all of the skin in the game. The workers have very little. They can walk away anytime they like and find another company for employment. Meanwhile if the business dies, the owners are left with nothing.
And you have the gall to whine about business owners. BTW , Mr I hate capitalism, most business owners are NOT wealthy. In fact I know a guy who is a painting contractor. He also works for the temp agency I use when I need additional labor for large jobs. Another guy with that same temp agency who also works with me is a brick mason.
I request these men because they are reliable and do good work. They know better.
There is no such thing as a wealth gap or income gap. These concepts are born of the liberal agenda of class envy as a political tool.
There is no "share". It is none of anyone's business what another person earns or does with their money. There is one thing we all are required to realize. Another person's money is NOT OUR money.

Well what do you know another snotty right wing knowitall. Your assessment of the owner/worker risk apportionment is way off.

In fact I know a guy.... I swear if it weren't for insults, uneducated observations and asinine anecdotal comments, you right wingers would be silent.

I rail against the financial elites that treat their workers like garbage...sort of the way you esteem labor.

I did not say that managers / owners are not necessary to build a business. But no more so than the Labor that truly does the work.

Do me a favor pal, unless you are management, you are labor, so stop stabbing your colleagues in the back playing Uncle Tom to the rich. They don't care about you. They don't need you...except as labor. you're not one of them

And one more thing Pal, the gap between net worth of individuals is what defines wealth, you moron. Otherwise if everyone had the same level of net worth, there would be no rich.

I swear to god you people aren't useful idiots for the plutocrats. You're downright dependable idiots.

I apologize for my lack of civility.

"Your assessment of the owner/worker risk apportionment is way off."
No. It's spot on. Because it is fact. Period.
"I rail against the financial elites that treat their workers like garbage...sort of the way you esteem labor.".....Please stop the nonsense. And of course you can provide examples of this. Facts only. No blogs. No opinion pieces about CEO vs Worker pay. The two are mutually exclusive.
Let's see those examples.
Oh.Instead of just stating my observations are 'uneducated', prove that. State a fact to the contrary. You don't get to have an opinion without backing up with facts.
"I did not say that managers / owners are not necessary to build a business. But no more so than the Labor that truly does the work."......Labor is a commodity. It's value is based solely on need. In fact many companies operate successfully without the expense of labor. They simply farm out tasks to contractors.
Here's an example.
In New Jersey, each community has a Dept of Public Works. The workers are full time employees with union representation. They do tasks such as fill pot holes. Mow the grass in parks and athletic field, collect leaves in the fall, low snow in the winter. The costs are prohibitive.
Where I live now, all the above tasks are privatized through competitive bidding. The costs are lower because the town does not have to negotiate wages, benefits and such.
Here's another example. The business in which I am employed has 4 full time workers. All of the other stuff we do is contracted out. There is no need to hire full time workers when outside contractors can do just as good if not a better job and do it with a lower cost.
The contractors are on an as needed basis. Some of the larger franchises do have at least management staff but the workers are contractors. Also as needed.
The bottom line is this..The first priority of a business is to turn a profit for the owners and investors. If the owners figure out ways to maximize profits by reducing the need for labor, so be it.
"You're not one of them"...ahh..The unionist mentality of "us vs them"....One of the reasons why just 7% of the private sector work force is unionized is "us vs them"....It's a loser
"the gap between net worth of individuals is what defines wealth, you moron"....
HUH?....No, what defines wealth is the individual's opinion of himself. For example. a guy that makes $150k per year living in a $2500 per month 800 square foot walk up in Manhattan is middle income.
Take that guy to Topeka, Kansas and he's living in 4500 sf house with a heated pool and three car garage.
Rich? Rich is a family like the Waltons. Rich is a farmer in Iowa that despite scratching out a moderate income from his crops and a part time job, but has everything he wants and needs.
Get it?
Rich is not an amount of money. Wealth is not 'stuff' or a large home...
As for your insults, Oh I could kick your ass from here to Texas with insults, but I refuse to stoop to your level.
Lack of civility? Don't get me started. Just dial down the rhetoric and have a discussion.
Your call.

 

[P@triot]

Judging by the quality of your thinking memorialized in your responses, I'd say you are about 13 years old. And a big fan of Ayn Rand.

The people are responisble for the general welfare of the citizenry. Didn't you know that?

I guess you didn't.

Judging by the idiocy of your responses, I'd say you're retarded and drooling on yourself.

The people are not responsible for shit, you marxist idiot. The person is responsible for the individual. When needed, they can draw voluntary assistance from their family, their friends, their neighbors, their church, their community, and charity.

Welcome to America. If you're so afraid of freedom and choice, Cuba is waiting for you...

Another intelligent, no, brilliant right winger. Your choice of font colors, the pastels, they are striking.

One more thing, if it weren't for the efforts of others, you wouldn't even exist Mr. rugged individual.

Chew on that for a bit.

You get that folks? You owe RightDown and the government for your existance. It wasn't the FREE WILL of your parents. Nope! It was all RD here and his fellow Dumbocrats that deserve all of the credit.

 

[auditor0007]

• The top 1% of the wealthy earn 13% of all income but pay 39% of all income taxes (that is 3x's as much taxes as their share of the income: 13x3=39)

• The top 5% pay an astounding 64% of all income taxes

• The top 20% —the “rich”—already pay 94.1% of income taxes

• The bottom 60% pay on net less than zero income taxes, once the tax credits the government pays them are taken into account

Top 1% earns 13% of the wealth but pays 39% of the taxes

Top 5% paid 40% of taxes, what is their 'fair' share?

Top 20% Paid 94.1% of Income Taxes in 2009

Excerpt From: Wayne Allyn Root. “The Ultimate Obama Survival Guide.” Regnery Publishing, 2013-03-26. iBooks.
This material may be protected by copyright.

Check out this book on the iBooks Store: https://itunes.apple.com/us/book/ultimate-obama-survival-guide/id601965000?mt=11

Boo hooo hooo, the rich pay all the federal income taxes. Boo hoo hoo. But they pay shit in state taxes and payroll taxes, and they really don't pay that high of a percentage in federal taxes because most of their earnings are from capital gains. Quit ignoring all other forms of taxation. Tell me why it is the same people you cry about paying all the income taxes are not paying their fair share of all other taxes. Got an answer?

Here is a much more realistic graph of who pays what when all taxes are taken into account. We do have more than one form of tax in this country. Obviously you are oblivious to that little bit of information.

Now go cry me a ******* river.

 

[TemplarKormac]

You've made an excellent case for Universal Healthcare. Under that scenario, the burger flipper is covered and the private owner is free to pursue profit. The risk is shared universally and payments for coverage are buttressed by our monetarily sovereign federal government.

Again, Labor is necessary to all production. Labor is comprised of practically all americans. We need solutions, not complaints about the costs of coverage. And as you inferred, Universal Healthcare coverage would ameliorate both matters quite well.

You must be joking.
Tell us, oh great one, how does the US Govt build, fund and administer a health insurance program for 315 million people?
From where does the money to pay for it come?

Dollars are created by gov. spending and taxes destroy dollars. That's why deficits are necessary to economic growth, debt is not a bad thing and taxes really are, for the most part, a bad thing.

We're off the gold standard, we have been for over 40 years. Where did you think the trillions of bailout dollars came from? Under Bush's bed? No. The gov. spending created the payments.

Huh? Do you have any clue how the economy works?

 

[TemplarKormac]

• The top 1% of the wealthy earn 13% of all income but pay 39% of all income taxes (that is 3x's as much taxes as their share of the income: 13x3=39)

• The top 5% pay an astounding 64% of all income taxes

• The top 20% —the “rich”—already pay 94.1% of income taxes

• The bottom 60% pay on net less than zero income taxes, once the tax credits the government pays them are taken into account

Top 1% earns 13% of the wealth but pays 39% of the taxes

Top 5% paid 40% of taxes, what is their 'fair' share?

Top 20% Paid 94.1% of Income Taxes in 2009

Excerpt From: Wayne Allyn Root. “The Ultimate Obama Survival Guide.” Regnery Publishing, 2013-03-26. iBooks.
This material may be protected by copyright.

Check out this book on the iBooks Store: https://itunes.apple.com/us/book/ultimate-obama-survival-guide/id601965000?mt=11

Boo hooo hooo, the rich pay all the federal income taxes. Boo hoo hoo. But they pay shit in state taxes and payroll taxes, and they really don't pay that high of a percentage in federal taxes because most of their earnings are from capital gains. Quit ignoring all other forms of taxation. Tell me why it is the same people you cry about paying all the income taxes are not paying their fair share of all other taxes. Got an answer?

Here is a much more realistic graph of who pays what when all taxes are taken into account. We do have more than one form of tax in this country. Obviously you are oblivious to that little bit of information.

Now go cry me a ******* river.

And this chart proves what, exactly? Other than that the rich pay higher taxes than the poor, it doesn't prove a thing. Yeah, I can read the url too. Ezra Klein? The same one who frequents Rachel Maddow's show? Honestly, did you really think you could pull that on someone? He is a political scientist, not an economist.

As for that graph being 'realistic' I think it did more to prove the opposing point of view than yours. Now go cry me a freaking river.

 

[Spiderman]

Look pal, I have worked with tax qualified retirement plans for over 15 years. I think I have a slightly better understanding of how they work than you do. And suffice it to say, you are completely wrong with your statement. How do I know? B/c you just described requirede minimum distributions which have nothing to do with a retirement plan's normal form of distribution benefit. RMDs are set up so people cannot leave their assets in the tax qualified trust indefinitely, they have to start taking a taste at age 70.5 unless they are non-highly compensated employees still working at that age.

Lump sum distributions are, by far and away, the primary and sole form of distribution in most plans.

prove it



I don't give a shit what you think. You said you don't invest because it's gambling and then you think you can tell me that the vast majority of people take ALL their money out of retirement savings in one lump sum and then lose all the advantages of tax deferral.

At most a retiring employee might have to roll his 401K into his IRA to get the money off the company books but that is not a lump sum distribution and then RMD rules still apply.

Anyone who takes all his money out of a qualified retirement account in one lump sum is an idiot and deserves to be broke.
.



Funny I didn't lose any money in 2008 and neither did you since you don't "gamble". In fact my portfolio has come back and then some so tell me how was any of my money "stolen"?



If you can't afford kids then don't have them. again that is being responsible.



I'm not negligent. In fact I am probably overly cautious.

Congratulations on your life of rugged individualism. I've been on my own since I was 14. I've learned that life is its own reward and meaning only exists in the service of others. And I've smiled today. Have you?

So you were living on your own paying rent and working full time at 14?

I doubt that.

I just told you that I work in the retirement plan industry and here you go trumpeting your ignorance ...again.

Yes, people have the right to leave their money in the trust until they must take an RMD. But in the real world, the one that you seem to have zero grasp of, people that retire use their retirement funds to live on. The average 401k plan account balance at retirement is something like 130,000. There's small cross section of retirees that average around a quarter of million dollars. Doesn't really matter though once the fees and costs hit. Even the inventor of the 401k calls it a crock for most people.

You still haven't proven that most people take their retirement money in a lump sum distribution.

People need their retirement dollars at retirement and most can't wait to recover market losses.

If you know so much then you must know that in retirement one should not have his money exposed to risk.

Novel concept...happens to be true. And it is also true that the only way to get that money is to take a distribution from the retirement plan. And since the vast majority of retirement plans only have a lump sum form of distribution, that is the form of benefit they take. It is illegal to circumvent plan provisions by providing benefit forms not in the plan's adoption agreement.

Again you haven't proven your case here.

I'm certain you'll fire back that people should save more!! Let me put that to bed right now. Look at the average household income and how its flat lined over the years, look at the national savings rate, look at the cost of living. All those rank and file jobs out there have to be performed by somebody. Get it? Why should they be consigned to a horribly uncertain life doing work that is necessary to the operation of this economy / country?

You don't pay attention at all do you? I have only been talking about the employee and employer contributions to SS. If that money was saved in the real world and not in a government program people would have far more money to retire.

You should have quit while you're a head. I have 15 years XP and an advanced degree in tax qualiified retirement planning and you're a Wikipedia Wiz.

And funny for someone so smart you still think the stock market is "gambling" and you don't realize that you don't lose money unless you sell at a loss.

I wouldn't mind your screw ups if you weren't such a bastard about it. But you are. You're insulting and pretty vicious. I don't know what's soured you on life but you are one hell of a hard roll.

Yeah I have a problem with people telling me what to do. And I have the notion that what I earn should be mine.

So you lived long enough to earn the back the dough that was stolen from you in the great real estate heist. Congratulations. Think of how much more money you could have had if the boys on Wall Street hadn't taken a nice big portion of your pie for themselves. And they'll do it again, and you'll probably praise them for it too. I don't know.

Nothing was stolen from me or from you. So quit it with the victim spiel.

Unfortunately your particular sociopathy is common amongst the far right wing. Freedom to you is nothing more than hoping to god people fail and feel it. Killed in an accident? Tough shit for the survivors, you should have bought more insurance that you clearly cannot afford. Can't afford life insurance? Then you shouldn't have had kids to begin with? Lost your job b/c your fatass elitest boss moved the factory to Mexico? Tough, get out there and compete.

Ah another two sided thinker. Everyone is a right wing monster or a left wing saint.

It's not tough to plan for contingencies. If you have kids it's up to you to plan for their well being. That's responsible.

This stuff doesn't make you tough or self-reliant. It just makes you a monster.

Your opinion. You don't know Jack Shit about what I do or what I give do you?

And to answer your question pal, it was me whose father died at 39, unforseeabley and accidentally. I received SS and I worked to pay a mortgage at 14. I don't pat myself on the back for that nor do I feel that I have to stomp on other people just so I can feel a little bit better about myself and my efforts.

Everyone has a sad story. I was orphaned at 10 ended up in foster care because my parents had no will, no insurance , no plan.

I'll spare you the details of what it was like in the foster system

I lied about my age and started working full time at 15 got myself emancipated at 17 quit school and started working. At 21 I bought my first rental property. So don't cry to me about the school of hard knocks

Give up your quest for self-esteem, it's nowheresville, man. Get engaged in life and with people and start serving them.

Save your preaching and your dim witted assumptions about me because you have no idea what I do or what I give to people do you?

You assume anyone who thinks SS is a poor way to invest is a "monster" because it's impossible for a better way to exist right?

The best way to "serve" people is to let them reap the fruits of their labor. SS does not do that.

 

[zeke]

prove it



I don't give a shit what you think. You said you don't invest because it's gambling and then you think you can tell me that the vast majority of people take ALL their money out of retirement savings in one lump sum and then lose all the advantages of tax deferral.

At most a retiring employee might have to roll his 401K into his IRA to get the money off the company books but that is not a lump sum distribution and then RMD rules still apply.

Anyone who takes all his money out of a qualified retirement account in one lump sum is an idiot and deserves to be broke.
.



Funny I didn't lose any money in 2008 and neither did you since you don't "gamble". In fact my portfolio has come back and then some so tell me how was any of my money "stolen"?



If you can't afford kids then don't have them. again that is being responsible.



I'm not negligent. In fact I am probably overly cautious.



So you were living on your own paying rent and working full time at 14?

I doubt that.

I just told you that I work in the retirement plan industry and here you go trumpeting your ignorance ...again.

Yes, people have the right to leave their money in the trust until they must take an RMD. But in the real world, the one that you seem to have zero grasp of, people that retire use their retirement funds to live on. The average 401k plan account balance at retirement is something like 130,000. There's small cross section of retirees that average around a quarter of million dollars. Doesn't really matter though once the fees and costs hit. Even the inventor of the 401k calls it a crock for most people.

You still haven't proven that most people take their retirement money in a lump sum distribution.



If you know so much then you must know that in retirement one should not have his money exposed to risk.



Again you haven't proven your case here.



You don't pay attention at all do you? I have only been talking about the employee and employer contributions to SS. If that money was saved in the real world and not in a government program people would have far more money to retire.





And funny for someone so smart you still think the stock market is "gambling" and you don't realize that you don't lose money unless you sell at a loss.



Yeah I have a problem with people telling me what to do. And I have the notion that what I earn should be mine.



Nothing was stolen from me or from you. So quit it with the victim spiel.



Ah another two sided thinker. Everyone is a right wing monster or a left wing saint.

It's not tough to plan for contingencies. If you have kids it's up to you to plan for their well being. That's responsible.





Your opinion. You don't know Jack Shit about what I do or what I give do you?

And to answer your question pal, it was me whose father died at 39, unforseeabley and accidentally. I received SS and I worked to pay a mortgage at 14. I don't pat myself on the back for that nor do I feel that I have to stomp on other people just so I can feel a little bit better about myself and my efforts.

Everyone has a sad story. I was orphaned at 10 ended up in foster care because my parents had no will, no insurance , no plan.

I'll spare you the details of what it was like in the foster system

I lied about my age and started working full time at 15 got myself emancipated at 17 quit school and started working. At 21 I bought my first rental property. So don't cry to me about the school of hard knocks

Give up your quest for self-esteem, it's nowheresville, man. Get engaged in life and with people and start serving them.

Save your preaching and your dim witted assumptions about me because you have no idea what I do or what I give to people do you?

You assume anyone who thinks SS is a poor way to invest is a "monster" because it's impossible for a better way to exist right?

The best way to "serve" people is to let them reap the fruits of their labor. SS does not do that.[/QUOTE]


It all just sound so good doesn't it. Just give that money to the markets and retire rich.

Of course that is bull shit. But it sounds so good.

Obviously spider man, you haven't spent much time with real people. For the 18 years I wrote mortgage loans I was constantly amazed at how little financial sense MOST people had. And it didn't matter what the education level was.

Some or even most find financial planning to complicated, to boring or they just don't feel they have the money to invest. People with 2% contributions going to their 401k and putting the money in a Money Market account. Yes sir that will make you rich.

No, Social Security is absolutely necessary if we are not going to educate our high schoolers on sound money management. Which we don't.

btw, do you counsel your tenants on money management? So they can quit renting and start owning? You do know that most of a families net worth is tied up in the equity of their real estate holdings? And real estate has been coming back somewhat.

I am sure you give all your tenants free advice on money management. Yes?

 

[editec]

Oh those poor poor rich people.

They suffer so..

 

[zeke]

Oh those poor poor rich people.

They suffer so..

I feel for them also. Did you know that if a rich person makes a million a month, that they will be required to get by on only about $600,000 dollars for that month?

HOW WILL THEY SURVIVE?

 

[Mac1958]

.

Once we've devolved into the "nyah nyah, nanny nanny boo boo" phase of discussing appropriate income taxation, it's a safe bet that the conversation won't be particularly interesting or fruitful going forward.

.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

I have never seen more unpaid cheerleaders for the wealthy than in this thread.

The rich are engaging in class warfare against you. And they are winning hands down.

They are rich. You are not.

"Rich" means the relative gap / disparity between their net worth and yours.

You are labor. Labor is to be controlled because that keeps the relative gap between what they have and you have operational and that keeps them in the driver's seat.

Labor is necessary to productivity. Not everyone can be the rich boss. Someone has to do the work. And doing that necessary work should not relegate the workforce to living paycheck to paycheck with no prospect or hint of security. Redistribution is what government does. Kick a little bit of that gravy to the working men and women.

Honestly, stop helping these guys that own you. They don't need your help.

You know who does need your help? People just like you: Labor.

I have seen leftist pro union pap before, but you are the all time award winner.
You poor uninformed individual....Without business there is no need for labor.
You rail against the wealthy, yet you whine about jobs and wages. Ok genius, who do you think builds the businesses that create the jobs and enable workers to receive a paycheck?
Deal with this fact. The person or people who've risked everything to build a business have all of the skin in the game. The workers have very little. They can walk away anytime they like and find another company for employment. Meanwhile if the business dies, the owners are left with nothing.
And you have the gall to whine about business owners. BTW , Mr I hate capitalism, most business owners are NOT wealthy. In fact I know a guy who is a painting contractor. He also works for the temp agency I use when I need additional labor for large jobs. Another guy with that same temp agency who also works with me is a brick mason.
I request these men because they are reliable and do good work. They know better.
There is no such thing as a wealth gap or income gap. These concepts are born of the liberal agenda of class envy as a political tool.
There is no "share". It is none of anyone's business what another person earns or does with their money. There is one thing we all are required to realize. Another person's money is NOT OUR money.

Well what do you know another snotty right wing knowitall. Your assessment of the owner/worker risk apportionment is way off.

"In fact I know a guy...." I swear if it weren't for insults, uneducated observations and asinine anecdotal comments, you right wingers would be silent.

I rail against the financial elites that treat their workers like garbage...sort of the way you esteem labor.

I did not say that managers / owners are not necessary to build a business. But no more so than the Labor that truly does the work.

Do me a favor pal, unless you are management, you are labor, so stop stabbing your colleagues in the back playing Uncle Tom to the rich. They don't care about you. They don't need you...except as labor. you're not one of them

And one more thing Pal, the gap between net worth of individuals is what defines wealth, you moron. Otherwise if everyone had the same level of net worth, there would be no rich.

I swear to god you people aren't useful idiots for the plutocrats. You're downright dependable idiots.

I apologize for my lack of civility.

You still haven't given me a good excuse as to why you just don't start your own company and put your money where your mouth is. Show these business owners how YOU would prefer to place benefits and pay into the hands of labor. The fact that all you'd rather do is whine and complain says a lot. Sounds like you need to get off your lazy ass and experience life from the other side of the hiring table, apply yourself, get an education, and take some initiative. Idiots are those who speak of how someone OUGHT to run their business, without having any of the experience or basic knowledge themselves when it comes to having actually done any of the work. Some people have grown tired of complainers who have no self driven initiative to actually go out there and do something themselves.

 

[zeke]

.

Once we've devolved into the "nyah nyah, nanny nanny boo boo" phase of discussing appropriate income taxation, it's a safe bet that the conversation won't be particularly interesting or fruitful going forward.

.

Really Mac? You come here for "discussing appropriate income taxation".

LMAO. Knowing that the conversation won't be particularly interesting or fruitful?

Why you do that? Better to just blast insults and laugh.

I know you have intelligent friends that share your POV. Do yo discuss appropriate income taxation with them? What do they say? That taxes for the very very rich are to high?

Why am I not surprised.

 

[Mac1958]

.

Once we've devolved into the "nyah nyah, nanny nanny boo boo" phase of discussing appropriate income taxation, it's a safe bet that the conversation won't be particularly interesting or fruitful going forward.

.

Really Mac? You come here for "discussing appropriate income taxation".

LMAO. Knowing that the conversation won't be particularly interesting or fruitful?

Why you do that? Better to just blast insults and laugh.

I know you have intelligent friends that share your POV. Do yo discuss appropriate income taxation with them? What do they say? That taxes for the very very rich are to high?

Why am I not surprised.

My, you really can be touchy.

Insults? Laugh? Where? And by the way, I didn't quote you in my post. So clearly you knew precisely what I was saying, because you knew what you said before I posted that. How is that an insult? If I were far off, you wouldn't have taken it so personally. Perhaps you know that I was right and got angry.

And, just curious, what is my POV on appropriate income taxation? I've posted it several times. There's no law that says you have to know it, but I suspect your guesses would be wrong. JoeB knows, and he liked it. Some of my friends agree with me, some don't. I hope that's okay.

And indeed, I'm always on the lookout for mature thoughts, opinions and ideas. Even here! The only people who are not are the closed-minded partisan ideologues.

There. I have, as usual, answered all questions in a direct and civil manner, a courtesy I am rarely provided by partisan ideologues. No problem, though, I'm used to it.

Maybe some decaf, huh?

.

 

[Spiderman]

I just told you that I work in the retirement plan industry and here you go trumpeting your ignorance ...again.

Yes, people have the right to leave their money in the trust until they must take an RMD. But in the real world, the one that you seem to have zero grasp of, people that retire use their retirement funds to live on. The average 401k plan account balance at retirement is something like 130,000. There's small cross section of retirees that average around a quarter of million dollars. Doesn't really matter though once the fees and costs hit. Even the inventor of the 401k calls it a crock for most people.

You still haven't proven that most people take their retirement money in a lump sum distribution.



If you know so much then you must know that in retirement one should not have his money exposed to risk.



Again you haven't proven your case here.



You don't pay attention at all do you? I have only been talking about the employee and employer contributions to SS. If that money was saved in the real world and not in a government program people would have far more money to retire.





And funny for someone so smart you still think the stock market is "gambling" and you don't realize that you don't lose money unless you sell at a loss.



Yeah I have a problem with people telling me what to do. And I have the notion that what I earn should be mine.



Nothing was stolen from me or from you. So quit it with the victim spiel.



Ah another two sided thinker. Everyone is a right wing monster or a left wing saint.

It's not tough to plan for contingencies. If you have kids it's up to you to plan for their well being. That's responsible.





Your opinion. You don't know Jack Shit about what I do or what I give do you?


Everyone has a sad story. I was orphaned at 10 ended up in foster care because my parents had no will, no insurance , no plan.

I'll spare you the details of what it was like in the foster system

I lied about my age and started working full time at 15 got myself emancipated at 17 quit school and started working. At 21 I bought my first rental property. So don't cry to me about the school of hard knocks

Give up your quest for self-esteem, it's nowheresville, man. Get engaged in life and with people and start serving them.

Save your preaching and your dim witted assumptions about me because you have no idea what I do or what I give to people do you?

You assume anyone who thinks SS is a poor way to invest is a "monster" because it's impossible for a better way to exist right?

The best way to "serve" people is to let them reap the fruits of their labor. SS does not do that.[/QUOTE]


It all just sound so good doesn't it. Just give that money to the markets and retire rich.

Of course that is bull shit. But it sounds so good.

You don't "give " money to the market. You purchase assets. You get something for your money.

Obviously spider man, you haven't spent much time with real people. For the 18 years I wrote mortgage loans I was constantly amazed at how little financial sense MOST people had. And it didn't matter what the education level was.

So people won't bother to learn about finances and that's my fault? So people with financial sense have to have their retirement compromised because of social security because others won't learn how to handle their own money?

Some or even most find financial planning to complicated, to boring or they just don't feel they have the money to invest. People with 2% contributions going to their 401k and putting the money in a Money Market account. Yes sir that will make you rich.

Once again I find myself repeating to you people that I am talking about the employer and employee contributions to SS being saved in the real world here not anything beyond that though more savings is always better.

No, Social Security is absolutely necessary if we are not going to educate our high schoolers on sound money management. Which we don't.

We won't because our government schools want to raise government dependents.

btw, do you counsel your tenants on money management? So they can quit renting and start owning? You do know that most of a families net worth is tied up in the equity of their real estate holdings? And real estate has been coming back somewhat.

I am sure you give all your tenants free advice on money management. Yes?

Why should I counsel anyone? And BTW I have told people how I established my rental properties but I find that most people will not do what I did. So I don't waste my breath anymore.

 

[Spiderman]

Oh those poor poor rich people.

They suffer so..

Who is talking about rich people?

 

[zeke]

.

Once we've devolved into the "nyah nyah, nanny nanny boo boo" phase of discussing appropriate income taxation, it's a safe bet that the conversation won't be particularly interesting or fruitful going forward.

.

Really Mac? You come here for "discussing appropriate income taxation".

LMAO. Knowing that the conversation won't be particularly interesting or fruitful?

Why you do that? Better to just blast insults and laugh.

I know you have intelligent friends that share your POV. Do yo discuss appropriate income taxation with them? What do they say? That taxes for the very very rich are to high?

Why am I not surprised.

My, you really can be touchy.

Insults? Laugh? Where? And by the way, I didn't quote you in my post. So clearly you knew precisely what I was saying, because you knew what you said before I posted that. How is that an insult? If I were far off, you wouldn't have taken it so personally. Perhaps you know that I was right and got angry.

And, just curious, what is my POV on appropriate income taxation? I've posted it several times. There's no law that says you have to know it, but I suspect your guesses would be wrong. JoeB knows, and he liked it. Some of my friends agree with me, some don't. I hope that's okay.

And indeed, I'm always on the lookout for mature thoughts, opinions and ideas. Even here! The only people who are not are the closed-minded partisan ideologues.

There. I have, as usual, answered all questions in a direct and civil manner, a courtesy I am rarely provided by partisan ideologues. No problem, though, I'm used to it.

Maybe some decaf, huh?

.

Mac, as I've said before, IF people don't agree with you, you get all weird. And Mac, I don't care what you and your friends do or do not do. I am not mad. I even "spoke" civilly to you even though I was being a smart ass. My default position.

I just think it weird that a person like you identifies more with the likes or a temple of Carmac or davy or any of the other strange, one dimensional people that post here.

There I answered all your concerns in a civil, Republican manner. I didn't say jack shit worth reading. Just like most of the posts.

btw, how is the search on here for mature reasonable thoughts and opinions going? Chances are you won't find them here. To many insults and laughing going on. But keep on trying. Glad you and Joe agree on something. I agree a lot with Joe as well. That almost makes us allies.

But really Mac. Quit with the claims that I must be angry cause I like to give you a hard time. I am not angry Mac. Just like ******* with you. I think there is another poster that feels the same. The one that, when asked where they are, they say inside Macs head. That's funny Mac.