What do the *evil* rich do when you tax the shit out of them?
topcat
Day Brown
> This is what they do...
>
> http://www.nj.com/forums/statehouse/index.ssf?artid=248698
to the bottom. If, however, the federal government raised the taxes on
the rich, and after all, it only makes sense to tax the people who
actually have the money, then the rich have to move to another country,
and be dependent on the police and military there to protect them.
Which in almost all cases, requires more bribe money. Then too, while
they can move their own rectal orifices, moving their factories (which
has been done, as discussed below), isnt so easy.
Many did move plants to Mexico, but now we see how the maldistribution
of wealth there has produced millions of poor that have no investment in
the system to protect, which in turn tends to produce revolutions.
Taxing the lower and middle classes dont make sense because they no
longer have a positive net worth. What they have done is borrowed the
money (eg creditcards) to pay the taxes, but now we see bankruptcy has
created problems for creditors, and as a result, the IRS does not
actually get the money. Which is the whole point of taxes.
Not that I expect a zealot like yourself to understand all this. But I
took economics from Walter Heller who said there aint no free lunch.
Even if you are rich.
Witziges R�tsel
"Day Brown" <dayh...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:4b6b1e93$0$28423$ec3e...@news.usenetmonster.com...
> topcat wrote:
>>
>> This is what they do...
>>
>> http://www.nj.com/forums/statehouse/index.ssf?artid=248698
> That's one of the reasons the American states UNITED. To prevent a drive
> to the bottom.
[skip]
>
> Not that I expect a zealot like yourself to understand all this. But I
> took economics from Walter Heller who said there aint no free lunch.
But doesn't Taco Bell have some real good deals on its bargain menu?
topcat
"Day Brown" <dayh...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:4b6b1e93$0$28423$ec3e...@news.usenetmonster.com...
I'm quite sure I understand the situation far better than you.
The first problem is that the 50% of people who pay only 4% of the taxes are
bankrupting the system. Like bugs are drawn to a flame, if we didn't have
the welfare state, we wouldn't have as many people coming here to mooch off
the welfare state. If the irresponsible knew there would be no larger
handout for additional children, they might think twice before having those
children.
The second problem is liberalism has led to a "entitlement mentality". You
feel you deserve it, even if there isn't enough money to give it to you or
even if someone else has to pay for it (i.e. - "the rich"). This also needs
to be changed if the US is to survive.
And no one should have to pay more taxes. The size and scope of the federal
government is the problem. It has put itself in the middle of social
re-engineering projects, including the idiotic statements we hear from our
Dem elected officials like Harry Reid - "we're going to focus on creating
jobs". Government doesn't create jobs. Government needs to get out of the
way so the private sector can create jobs. But Dems and liberals never
understand this.
TC
Witziges R�tsel
news:hkfbd...@news5.newsguy.com...
>
> "Day Brown" <dayh...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:4b6b1e93$0$28423$ec3e...@news.usenetmonster.com...
>> topcat wrote:
>>> This is what they do...
>>>
> coming here to mooch off the welfare state.
>
Bert Hyman
<z...@roer.invalid.com> wrote:
If I want to help people, I use my own money; I suggest you feel free to
do the same. You could even join with like-minded people to maximize the
effect of your donations.
Don't send your armed thugs around collecting for your pet charity.
--
Bert Hyman St. Paul, MN be...@iphouse.com
Witziges R�tsel
"Bert Hyman" <be...@iphouse.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9D1597BD774...@216.250.188.140...
Patriot Games
>This is what they do...
>http://www.nj.com/forums/statehouse/index.ssf?artid=248698
aka: Vote with your feet.
fost...@gmail.com
>
> Not that I expect a zealot like yourself to understand all this. But I
> took economics from Walter Heller who said there aint no free lunch.
> Even if you are rich.
See how pissy the looters get when they can't get their hands on other
people's money people???
The looters hate it when they can't get their ill gotten gains!
topcat
"ma...@merde.com" <fost...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:abaf8bc4-cef3-4a04...@a5g2000yqi.googlegroups.com...
************
Yup, if a bum on the street comes up to me with a gun and robs me of 50% of
my money, it's a crime.
It the government takes 50% of my money and gives it to the bum, it's just
the right thing to do.
TC
Day Brown
> I'm quite sure I understand the situation far better than you.
list below, does not solve the problem of where the money comes from in
the first place. Just because I say we should tax the rich because they
are the people with the money, does not mean we should not fund
abortions to stop the parasites from breeding.
I'm not talking about what is fair, but what mite be done that will work
whether we like it or not. I'm all for cutting Social Security back to
what FDR had in mind in the first place- that minimum needed to survive
in case, as we see, private investments are lost in ponzi schemes or
whatever. That anyone on the dole should get more money than those
working to make a living is shameful.
Day Brown
rather than just paying down the debt and properly funding national
security. So as to, for instance, install an effective barrier to
prevent illegal entry, and dilengently search for illegals to deport?
There is a manifest failure in logic that is clearly due to group think,
in this case of the Right, but just as bad on the Left.
Day Brown
makes sense to tax the people with the money, and go on to how the money
is given away. Which is a whole different issue. You can take all the
bums out to have them shot for all I care. It'd be euthanasia to end
their misery.
topcat
Uhhh....no. The point is all the same. It's immoral to tax the people with
the money. It's counter productive to tax the people with the money. The
correct move is to do away with the welfare state and force people to be
responsible or face the consequences. It's the opposite now, if the people
who are productive don't pay the extortion, we pay the consequences.
TC
fost...@gmail.com
>
> Just fucking classic; to ignore the original point, about how it only
> makes sense to tax the people with the money,
Once again for effect:
See how violent and angry the looters get when they can't have other
peoples money???
They get so fucktardedly pissed when someone suggests that they can'y
steal from the pockets of the porductive!
Chaos out of Order
> "Day Brown" <dayhbr...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:4b6d98cc$0$5902$ec3e...@news.usenetmonster.com...
>
>
>
> > topcat wrote:
> >> "ma...@merde.com" <foster...@gmail.com> wrote in message
It's immoral to tax the people with money? What are you, a prince?
The peasantry don't deserve an education or health care? We're just a
step above slaves and should know our place. Since it is the working
class that is the true driving force of our economy, who cares what
some elitist desk jockey thinks?
RichterScale
> topcat wrote:
>> This is what they do...
>>
>> http://www.nj.com/forums/statehouse/index.ssf?artid=248698
> That's one of the reasons the American states UNITED. To prevent a drive
> to the bottom. If, however, the federal government raised the taxes on
> the rich, and after all, it only makes sense to tax the people who
> actually have the money, then the rich have to move to another country,
> and be dependent on the police and military there to protect them.
there are so few rich that the best way for the govt to get lots of
money is to tax the masses. that is where the numbers are. dam 50 /
50 chance and you dums still pick the wrong answer. this country is in
trouble with morons like you voting.
topcat
"Chaos out of Order" <goof...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:26ad0d89-a969-4a17...@b1g2000prc.googlegroups.com...
**********
People deserve what they're willing to work for and what they're able to
acheive. The Constitution doesn't guarantee anyone a living.
The elitist are the left-wingers in this country feeding you the nonsense
you seem to believe. Nancy Pelosi flies all over the place, wining and
dining herself, while you sit there thinking she's "fighting" for things you
want.
TC
Day Brown
> Uhhh....no. The point is all the same. It's immoral to tax the people with
> the money. It's counter productive to tax the people with the money. The
> correct move is to do away with the welfare state and force people to be
> responsible or face the consequences. It's the opposite now, if the people
> who are productive don't pay the extortion, we pay the consequences.
shot for all I care. We are where we are, with a massive debt that will
remain even if we do what you say. Where else do we get the money, if
not from the people who actually have it?
Because of the housing bust, many, if not most, middle class families no
longer have a positive net worth. To tax them, they need to BORROW the
money. Which means there is less money available to be lent out by
Venture Capital to start new businesses. Tarp has made the funds
available to the banks, but they dont want to lend the money out to the
losers, like in minority neighborhoods, that wont pay it back. You cant
tax those people either. Walter Heller got that across.
However, Walter never envisioned a Global Economic impact on the US like
we see now. Whatever we do will more likely succeed or fail depending on
what happens in other economies whether we like it or not. There no
longer is any policy we can put in that will properly respond to some of
what the rest of the global economy does.
Day Brown
> People deserve what they're willing to work for and what they're able to
> acheive. The Constitution doesn't guarantee anyone a living.
middle class with no net worth are worthless. That has a lot to do with
why profits are off in creditcard outfits.
If you want to tax people, Walter Heller showed they need to have enuf
income to cover their subsistence; if you cut into that, their diet and
health declines, they are no longer productive, and the profits gained
by their employers declines. And well... we cant have that.
Taxing the rich is not a good idea, but there is no other option if you
want the money to support the military and police and prisons.
Bert Hyman
<dayh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Because of the housing bust, many, if not most, middle class families
> no longer have a positive net worth.
Unless they're forced to sell their home or want to borrow against it,
the value of their home relative to what they owe on it is immaterial.
> To tax them, they need to BORROW the money.
Again, the value of their home doesn't affect their access to cash,
unless they're borrowing against it to pay their day-to-day expenses.
Bert Hyman
<dayh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> topcat wrote:
>> People deserve what they're willing to work for and what they're able
>> to acheive. The Constitution doesn't guarantee anyone a living.
> What they DESERVE is not the point.
Really? That's interesting.
> The IRS needs the MONEY.
You're apparently confusing the IRS, which is merely a collection
mechanism, with the Congress, which is spending far more money than it
has, and far more money than it will ever be able to take in.
The idea that the government should dramatically cut spending has never
crossed your mind, has it?
Day Brown
troops with as many guns as needed to protect property rights. But if
you dont have the money to pay the troops, then the mobs get whatever
remains. You can have the mobs shot, but you cant get the money to
support the payroll of the troops cause the mobs dont HAVE the fucking
money.
Read Gibbon's 'Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire', which begins with
the fall of the republic into the tyranny of Caesar. He came back from
looting Gaul with the money to pay his own troops at the same time when
the rich Senators in Rome failed to pony up the money to support a large
army to defend the city. When he crossed the Rubicon, everyone knew it
was all over. The mobs, like those you refer to, thot it was great.
Tyrants routinely seized the assets of the rich if they wont pony up the
to pay for:[bread & circuses]=[beer & football]
It aint upta me. I'm not talking about what anyone deserves.
Geopinion
>
> news:4b6d98cc$0$5902$ec3e...@news.usenetmonster.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > topcat wrote:
> >> "ma...@merde.com" <foster...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> - Show quoted text -
Are you kidding? We should be taxing ONLY the wealthy. In fact, the
first taxes in this country were levied on the top wealth holders.
Income from labor should be exempt from income taxes and replaced by
taxes on capital gains. Those with enough money to sit around and
just let the money earn interest should be supporting those who must
labor for their wages.
OF COURSE, the wealthy currently pay the bulk of the taxes - they have
the bulk of the wealth and earnings. Somehow, we've come to believe
that the wealthy support the working poor, but it is actually the
other way around. Without workers, there would be no wealth to
accumulate (unless you want to revert to a feudal system). Without
the purchasing power of a healthy, laboring middle class, there would
be no market at all.
I say, tax the wealthy at a rate of at least 50%. What are they going
to do about it? Move somewhere? The tax burdens in most other
developed nations is higher than that in the US. Would they give up
being extremely wealthy - highly unlikely.
It's time the wealthy paid for the privilege of living in a country
where the accumulation of enormous wealth is possible.
MLW
Day Brown
> there are so few rich that the best way for the govt to get lots of
> money is to tax the masses. that is where the numbers are. dam 50 /
> 50 chance and you dums still pick the wrong answer. this country is in
> trouble with morons like you voting.
if that. 100 million workers worth nothing is still nothing. People have
been paying the IRS with creditcards. But now, creditcards are defaulted
so that the IRS does not, in fact, GET THE MONEY.
Collapse, by Diamond shows how people, with no remaining investment to
protect in a system are soon exploited by demagogues who will then seize
all the assets of the rich to gratify the mob's instinct for revenge.
Ever since Caesar walked into Rome, the rich have failed to pony up enuf
money to hire enuf troops to protect their assets.
Day Brown
SHOULD do? I tried to be clear about what they would do whether we like
it or not. What they should do with the money is another issue; I merely
note what they will do if they actually want to get the money. Go to the
people who actually have it.
If you had read Machiavelli, you would have understood this. Do that.
Day Brown
that they no longer actually have it. Machiavelli makes it pretty clear
that when the masses no longer have any investment in the system to
protect, a demagogue will arise from among the gullible offering to
seize the assets of the rich to gratify their taste for revenge.
I do not recommend this, but its the way people are. Time and again the
rich have failed to pay governments enuf- to then hire enuf troops to
protect the rich and their assets. When the troops have enuf kin in
desperate straits, they quickly change sides hoping the loot they bring
home will make them heroes and result in lotsa pussy.
Bert Hyman
<dayh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Bert Hyman wrote:
>> In news:4b706058$0$5888$ec3e...@news.usenetmonster.com Day Brown
>> <dayh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Because of the housing bust, many, if not most, middle class
>>> families no longer have a positive net worth.
>>
>> Unless they're forced to sell their home or want to borrow against
>> it, the value of their home relative to what they owe on it is
>> immaterial.
>>
>>> To tax them, they need to BORROW the money.
>>
>> Again, the value of their home doesn't affect their access to cash,
>> unless they're borrowing against it to pay their day-to-day expenses.
>>
> I am not arguing about how they should handle their money, simply
> noting that they no longer actually have it.
No. You're simply noting that some people have "negative net worth", due
to the fact that their homes are worth less than before. That says
nothing at all about cash at hand or income.
Day Brown
>> Uhhh....no. The point is all the same. It's immoral to tax the people with
>> the money. It's counter productive to tax the people with the money. The
>> correct move is to do away with the welfare state and force people to be
>> responsible or face the consequences. It's the opposite now, if the people
>> who are productive don't pay the extortion, we pay the consequences.
> Are you kidding? We should be taxing ONLY the wealthy. In fact, the
> first taxes in this country were levied on the top wealth holders.
>
> Income from labor should be exempt from income taxes and replaced by
> taxes on capital gains. Those with enough money to sit around and
> just let the money earn interest should be supporting those who must
> labor for their wages.
>
> OF COURSE, the wealthy currently pay the bulk of the taxes - they have
> the bulk of the wealth and earnings. Somehow, we've come to believe
> that the wealthy support the working poor, but it is actually the
> other way around. Without workers, there would be no wealth to
> accumulate (unless you want to revert to a feudal system). Without
> the purchasing power of a healthy, laboring middle class, there would
> be no market at all.
>
> I say, tax the wealthy at a rate of at least 50%. What are they going
> to do about it? Move somewhere? The tax burdens in most other
> developed nations is higher than that in the US. Would they give up
> being extremely wealthy - highly unlikely.
>
> It's time the wealthy paid for the privilege of living in a country
> where the accumulation of enormous wealth is possible.
I dont make a moral argument. But the Laffer curve is not linear. There
is some point where raising taxes on the rich and lowering them on the
lower classes results in more money to pay down the debt in the near
term, and increased consumer spending in the longer, that then
translates into more corporate profits to the rich.
But that analysis assumes that what consumers buy will do them good. If
you gave more money to the poor in my neck of Ozark woods, you'd see
more beer cans along the roads and even more fetal alcohol. Giving it to
the rich results in bigger McMansions, but when the construction jobs
are done, the unemployment rises again.
The trick is to lower the taxes on the middle class, who are the people
who start small business that grows into larger enterprises, increasing
employment every step of the way.
fost...@gmail.com
> It's time the wealthy paid for the privilege of living in a country
> where the accumulation of enormous wealth is possible.
>
> MLW
Brilliant!!!
Take the money away from the people who pay the "working poor" and we
will see less "working poor"????
How is life in bizzaro world????
fost...@gmail.com
> Collapse, by Diamond shows how people, with no remaining investment to
> protect in a system are soon exploited by demagogues who will then seize
> all the assets of the rich to gratify the mob's instinct for revenge.
>
> Ever since Caesar walked into Rome, the rich have failed to pony up enuf
> money to hire enuf troops to protect their assets.
You have it backwards. The government in the US plundered the housing
industry to placate the poor.
Now the middle class and wealthy are suffering because the government
let the poor into a system they didn't belong into.
The "rich" have paid plenty, the poor has now ruined the entire
system.
We are in the current crisis because of the poor and the governments
meddling.
Day Brown
>> I am not arguing about how they should handle their money, simply
>> noting that they no longer actually have it.
>
> No. You're simply noting that some people have "negative net worth", due
> to the fact that their homes are worth less than before. That says
> nothing at all about cash at hand or income.
>
which has gone up, with their income, which has not. You could also
argue with the lending institutions which had to BORROW money from the
govt because their customers were fucking broke.
And where did the govt get the TARP money? It borrowed it from the rich,
just like Machiavelli said.
Day Brown
who should not be breeding. Or if they want, provide fertility clinic
services where they can select from among thousands of the most
promising Y chromosome lines so that the next generation will be smart
enuf to learn a trade and not be poor, but taxpayers to support your
retirement. But its not upta me.
I'm just talking about the way things work whether we like it or not.
as Machiavelli and Gibbon will tell you, its always the aristocracy that
encourages the immigration and breeding of the poor. This floods the
labor market to reduce the cost of wages, and distracts the middle class
from the manipulation of the system by the rich.
I never said the poor should own real estate. But by saying so, and by
encouraging their voting, they created another bureaucracy to be staffed
by the friends of the rich.
But just because you have to tax the rich to stabilize the economy and
pay down the debt, is no reason you have to give the money to the poor.
Bert Hyman
<dayh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Bert Hyman wrote:
>>> I am not arguing about how they should handle their money, simply
>>> noting that they no longer actually have it.
>>
>> No. You're simply noting that some people have "negative net worth",
>> due to the fact that their homes are worth less than before. That
>> says nothing at all about cash at hand or income.
>>
> You could argue with those who are trying to manage their debt load-
> which has gone up, with their income, which has not.
If that's what you want to talk about, that's what you should say.
A decrease in the value of a person's home doesn't place them deeper in
debt.
If their "debt load" has increased, it simply means they've borrowed
more money.
Day Brown
to pay the IRS. Which is what I said at the outset. Which is what
Machiavelli says about the way republics evolve. I dont claim the rich
are evil, only that they are the people with the fucking money.
And Machiavelli shows, that if the govt borrows it from them rather than
taxing them, the shit will inevitably hit the fan. Now, if the rich had,
as it was claimed, invested to create jobs in the USA instead of foreign
competitors, then the middle class would have the incomes to pay the
taxes. But they didnt do that.
Each of the rich saw more profit investing offshore. Its a race to the
economic bottom. The lower the middle class incomes, the lower the
selling price must be, which is had only by outsourcing jobs to where
the cost of labor is lower. Which reduces American middle class incomes
to the point where they can no longer pay taxes. Or support what has
been called the "consumer economy".
Bert Hyman
<dayh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I dont claim the rich are evil, only that they are the people with the
> fucking money.
Are you just another thief like Willie Sutton?
He's the guy who claimed he robbed banks "because that's where the money
is."
Bert Hyman
wrote:
> Or---the many cases of a 18 yr old, having never worked in their
> lives, inheriting $2-3 billion--then spending millions on buying
> politicians or influencing the political system for their personal
> gain.
Are you complaining about a corrupt system peopled by corrupt
politicians who sell their votes, or something else?
You can't buy what's not for sale.
Bert Hyman
wrote:
> But you can,
How, exactly?
> Bertie
What do you prefer to be called? Smorsie? Boardie? Petulant Whining
Child?
> You can change laws, deregulate, or accept money like the Gingrich
> Repulbican congress did, Kenny Starr did, Alphonse D'Amato did, Dan
> Burton did, and Fred Thompsen did
Sure sounds like these folks you're whining about sold something to
someone.
And, you're somehow certain that no Democrat in the history of the late
Republic ever did the same?
Very nearly every law passed and every regulation enacted is intended to
benefit some party or harm another. The legislation and regulation
proposed under the corrent regime is no exception.
Since our legislators and regulators are all ignorant hack polticians
who know nothing of what they're doing, the only thing they have to
guide their behavior is how much money they can make in the process.