It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Upper Income Taxpayers become John Galt

page: 3
8
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 5 2009 @ 04:01 PM
link   
reply to post by whatukno
 



Originally posted by whatukno
reply to post by dolphinfan
 



What is greed and how do you define greedy? There in lies the question.



Greed: a selfish and excessive desire for more of something (as money) than is needed




Herein lies the problem. Who decides how much I 'need'? I do. Not you, not the gov't.


Part of the problems we are in today stem from greedy people. During the housing boom a few years ago, people flipped new homes on a regular basis getting quick and easy profits and escalating the price of a home far beyond what that home should have been worth. It priced many others out of the market.

Remember I said new homes. Flipping properties you buy and renovate isn't the same situation. If you buy a home in order to fix it up and sell it for a profit is not greedy it's smart investing. But to buy say an unfinished condo unit in a high rise in Sarasota Florida, just to sell that same unfinished condo for a profit within a month, is complete greed.


So, let's say I have $50,000 cash to work with. I can either:

Renovate an older home and resell it at a profit

Buy a new property and resell it at a profit.

Why is one greed and the other just good business?

Nobody is forcing a buyer to buy a home.

But the Dems made it possible to buy more house than a man could afford. Gov't involvement got us into this mess, not the speculator.




posted on Mar, 5 2009 @ 04:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by FlyersFan
....People who make money and have it taken away are just going to stop making money.....


this is the problem with your argument.

the idea is NOT to "make money". this is what a looter does.

the idea IS to "create value". this is a John Galt.

indeed: we need people to stop making money.



posted on Mar, 5 2009 @ 04:08 PM
link   
reply to post by jsobecky
 


you just LOVE injecting political rhetoric into your arguments, dont you?

neither the "Dems" nor the goverment at large are capable of regulating a mans conscience.

if you buy a house, and add value to that house, you are entitled to those gains.

if you speculate on the market by flipping houses, you add no value and are entitled to nothing.



posted on Mar, 5 2009 @ 05:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by tgidkp
i do agree with the premise of your article, but i think your application is too broad and you're unwittingly labeling looters as Galts.

It's possible. I don't think so .. but it's possible.

At any rate. People who make a bunch of money are going to stop making it because it no longer is worth their time or effort to make it because it'll just be taken away.

This will have a negative ripple effect.



posted on Mar, 6 2009 @ 04:33 AM
link   
reply to post by tgidkp
 


Inconsidered plebian drivel...

According to you, a car salesman "adds no value" and all his salary should be confiscated, right?

According to you, advertising firms add no value. Construction firms add no value (bricks are bricks, before or after building right?).

According to you, a shop owner adds nothing, because he is just buying goods at a lower price and selling them on for a markup, right?

Only children, the mentally deficient, and socialists think that a job must involve "making" something to be worthwhile. The rest of us recognise that wealth generation can be a subtle and nuanced activity, and that commerce in its purest form enables everyone to attain wealth.

Nobody decides who is "entitled" to money, apart from the market. If a person buys a house, does nothing, and then sells it on for a profit; its because they did something to be able to do that. They bought at the right time, or the marketed the house properly etc. Neither you, nor anyone else, has the right to dictate what manner of business should be "entitled". It is my god given natural right. If you disagree, come and take it by force.



posted on Mar, 6 2009 @ 05:36 AM
link   
there should be some sort of deliniation in the income flow
instead of just putting a threashold number out there & say
$250,000.00 is the crossing point.


a Quarter-Million for a tax year breaks down to somewhere near $5,000.oo
per week....or $20,833.oo per month

that type of income is a lot different than a salesman or one of those now
rare 'house flippers' who might make $40k-$140k in as little as 60 days.
but have little to no income/profits for weeks or months between projects.


but in each case of money flow... the earner is probably not spending
anywhere near the percentage of takehome pay the poor or blue-collar
needs to spend to survive, i.e., 100%.


i suggest we look & rate a person's wage compensation, and many other factors as well... to properly guage the rate of income tax they will be assessed.

there's a lot of workers that need to constantly work overtime, work holidays, work shifts with a pay differential to increase their annual 'income'...
besides, if i hit the a couple of exactas-trifectas during the course of a year,
and added those 'winnings' to the gross-adjusted-income...
i just might be put into a higher tax-bracket, & that's fair & democratic ?



posted on Mar, 6 2009 @ 06:15 AM
link   
I'm a proponent of a flat tax, somewhere in the 15-20% range for individuals.

The tax code could be greatly simplified.



posted on Mar, 6 2009 @ 06:20 AM
link   
reply to post by tgidkp
 



Originally posted by tgidkp
reply to post by jsobecky
 


you just LOVE injecting political rhetoric into your arguments, dont you?


Not really. But the facts are what they are.



neither the "Dems" nor the goverment at large are capable of regulating a mans conscience.


How is it then, that the sub-prime market flourished?



posted on Mar, 6 2009 @ 02:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by 44soulslayer
reply to post by tgidkp
 

Inconsidered plebian drivel...Only children, the mentally deficient, and socialists...


whoa there with the name calling. i have noticed, on this board, that use of the word "drivel" is a sure sign of an amateur debater. ("clearly" also fits that category.)


According to you,...According to you,...According to you,...


the point is, in all of your examples, that there is actually value added in each of these processes. real actual value.

but, lets say, the car salesman takes his monies and trades stocks as commodities (speculative investing). because of the inflation/deflation that occurs during this process, he is in fact stealing value from other humans. bleeding the system. this is not the same as long term capital investment, which actually does add value to the system.

yes, the lines are blurry. and that is the whole point of the question, "who is John Galt?" people like to use and abuse the blurry lines in order to disconnect their moral behaviors from their environment.

but, idealistically speaking, the line is very clear: 'make money' vs. 'create value'



posted on Mar, 6 2009 @ 02:47 PM
link   
reply to post by jsobecky
 


this is a conversation about idealism. in such an idealistic world (as Ayn Rand's), it does not matter what government policies are. what matters is personal, individual choice. and in the end of Atlas Shrugged, as in the real world, mr. galt had to search high and low to find the individuals that were worth saving...and there were few. essentially EVERYONE was at fault.

granted, our system (created by the Dems, if you prefer) was built to allow people to follow "the american dream." and people did. if big brother says its okay, then it must be, right? everyone else is doing it...."who is john galt?"



posted on Mar, 6 2009 @ 07:33 PM
link   
reply to post by tgidkp
 


This thread is about the current reality. And idealism, if you will. But since we live in the real world, it is worth concentrating on that angle.

Rand's heroes were objectivists from birth. I doubt any one of us fits that bill. Given that we have already failed the objectivist ideal at some point, is there any redemption for us? Should we, can we, continue to pursue the ideal?



posted on Mar, 6 2009 @ 07:42 PM
link   
reply to post by jsobecky
 


no. you are right about that. there is no redemption. which now just makes this whole thread sound like nothing more than whining and complaining.

we will get the chance to start again. but we will probably get it wrong next time, too.

bah. i prefer to stay with my pie in the sky ideologies.



posted on Mar, 7 2009 @ 05:27 AM
link   
The 'going Galt' Phenom spreads

From Michelle Malkin. With video of Whoopie Goldberg on that vile tv show - The View - having a fit about taxes.

Going Galt ...



posted on Mar, 7 2009 @ 05:41 AM
link   
reply to post by tgidkp
 


Amateur debater eh... send me a U2U if you want a challenge match on "Trading is an inherently immoral activity".

You intrigue me. You're eloquent enough, and yet your views are so illogical. I'd really like a debate in the debate forum (after this year's tournament ends) if you're up for it.

In the interim, I'll just have to point out that there is no fundamental difference between physical and paper trading. Trading a stock or trading goods are the same thing. Just physical possession doesn't change the fundamentals of the trade.

Whether a person is a second hand car salesman or a stockbroker, their actions are the same thing. They both buy and sell assets for a profit or loss.



posted on Mar, 7 2009 @ 12:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by felonius
Ah, socialism! Gotta love it!

all hail comrade obama!


Its actually trying to work around the socialism that is going to be the problem. Their are aspects of all types of gov that are good. we should just take the good from each and try and balance it out.



posted on Mar, 12 2009 @ 02:22 PM
link   
Sometimes satirical comedy can say it better than anyone...

The Rand Illusion

"You have nothing to offer us. We do not need you." -John Galt



posted on Mar, 13 2009 @ 10:57 AM
link   
John Galt, Meet Tyler Durden.



If upper income taxpayers want to leave the country, so be it. Of course they will be replaced. Who are we to care what upper income people do? It doesn't matter in the end.

So go ahead John Galt's of the US leave, see if we care.



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join