Super rich pay no taxes, page 5

Pages: << 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 16 times

reply posted on 27-8-2012 @ 02:16 PM by charles1952

reply to post by poet1b

Dear poet1b,

I think there's something I'd like to nail down before we go much further. I don't know why it is, but this one small point just won't leave me alone.

You've just posted:

Military is the biggest expenditure of the general budget in you links.

But your original statement was:

Most of the fed gov expenditures goes to the military and interest on the debt for money spent on the military.

My response was:

Would you provide some evidence for your statement? I haven't seen anything yet that supports it.

Do you think you should reconsider your first statement? Perhaps, take it back as an error?

With respect,
Charles1952

reply posted on 27-8-2012 @ 02:19 PM by Unity_99

Originally posted by XLR8R
reply to post by beezzer

Exactly, well just like before the gold standard was abolished...I think. Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't everybody rich, poor and everything in between pay something arround 16%? That would fix so much it's not even funny.

Except you cannot pay anything if you're poor and shouldnt even pay a penny until you are middle middle class for your family size.

I don't believe in sales tax as that taxes the poor and believe very strongly in graduated income tax with the loop holes closed, ie. so that corporations and individual wealthy, will pay a good portion of what is needed, ie. up to 50% for the super wealthy.

That is if we're not in the Venus Project.

And would be spendng a portion of the taxes on grass roots business and business sharing programs to replace monopolies and share the wealth around and provide a lot of good healthy competition and close the loop holes allowing corporations to exploit third world countries, as well, so its better off at home guys.

And really educate people in their schools even, to think with your money, don't buy products from sharks and criminals who exploit others.

That is what the governments should be doing.

edit on 27-8-2012 by Unity_99 because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 27-8-2012 @ 07:22 PM by wildtimes

reply to post by charles1952

Your post is one of the very best I've ever seen.

. Thanks, charles. (Yes, I'm a girl.)
I'm very glad that people can read my posts and feel positive about them.

edit on 27-8-2012 by wildtimes because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 27-8-2012 @ 10:25 PM by pavil

Originally posted by poet1b

Obviously you have no idea what it takes to become a skilled worker. You don't recognize that the people who hire you see you as expendable as you see your employees to be?These days most people hiring unskilled workers are hiring illegals, and as far as I am concerned they are a bunch of criminals. Oh! And illegals risk their lives to escape their oppressive countries, only to be exploited by people who see them as inferior and expendable.

Poet, Yes I do know what it takes to become a skilled worker. I hire people more skilled then me quite often. Why wouldn't I do that? Being a very skilled worker does not necessarily mean they are entrepreneurs in my business.

I am well aware of what the marketplace wants and desires and I deliver a superior service to my clients compared to my rivals. My growth numbers and profits bear that out. None of that has anything to do with the statement you made about employees being as much of an entrepreneur as the entrepreneur themselves. I have a problem when you make an employee equivalent to the entrepreneur of a business. They are two entirely different beasts. Perhaps I am misunderstanding you.

I don't hire illegal aliens and I don't treat my employees badly either. They are ultimately, replaceable to my business and I proceed knowing that. The few that show the entrepreneurial spirit, I offer them the ability to strike out on their own, with my financial backing. And yes, I even make money of of that.

edit on 27-8-2012 by pavil because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 27-8-2012 @ 11:01 PM by ofhumandescent

Because they are above the law.

'the law' only applies to the common man.

And the comman man and woman have through their apathy and compliance allow it so - so it will continue until a revolution of sorts takes place which is highly unlikely with the wave to skull technology.

reply posted on 28-8-2012 @ 01:13 AM by johnisonline

This is just pure Madness & it has to Stop.

Let the Rich Pay more Tax....

reply posted on 28-8-2012 @ 06:17 AM by poet1b

reply to post by charles1952

Maybe I could have used different terminology, but the point remains the same. Excepting SS and Medicare which is paid from FICA taxes, from which the general budget borrows, military spending is by far where most of fed spending goes, what creates our huge deficits. And again our vast spending on military almost exclusively benefits the super rich.

reply posted on 28-8-2012 @ 06:33 AM by poet1b

reply to post by pavil

I know people who actually create the new technology that creates new markets that create new jobs. They work long hours at small start ups that might possibly some day earn them a big chunk of money, but it is a long bet, currently against the odds.

Tesla almost wound up homeless on the streets of NYC, and his tech breakthroughs probably created more jobs than anyone in history, while someone like JP Morgan earned great wealth destroying jobs and markets for his own personal gain.

Here's the rub. Conservatives have done a great job of convincing people like you that you are superior, so that you will support politicians that write laws in favor of the JP Morgans of this world that screw over the Teslas of this world. Laws that in fact work against your own best interest.

You might want to consider this reality.

reply posted on 29-8-2012 @ 11:35 AM by pavil

Originally posted by poet1b
reply to post by pavil

I know people who actually create the new technology that creates new markets that create new jobs. They work long hours at small start ups that might possibly some day earn them a big chunk of money, but it is a long bet, currently against the odds.

Tesla almost wound up homeless on the streets of NYC, and his tech breakthroughs probably created more jobs than anyone in history, while someone like JP Morgan earned great wealth destroying jobs and markets for his own personal gain.

Here's the rub. Conservatives have done a great job of convincing people like you that you are superior, so that you will support politicians that write laws in favor of the JP Morgans of this world that screw over the Teslas of this world. Laws that in fact work against your own best interest.

You might want to consider this reality.

Bad Example there. Here's the actual reality. Tesla was a brilliant scientist / inventor, but a HORRIBLE business person. He may have been onto something very beneficial to humanity, but he did not have a business model to deliver on that. He didn't have a plan to make it profitable and without that, funding ceased. Never mind that he made bitter enemies with Edison. Not everyone has what it takes to be an entrepreneur. Tesla "could" have been rich, he chose badly, very badly in fact, business-wise. You can be the greatest Baker or car designer in the world, that doesn't translate into a successful business or making money.

I'm not a fan of Big Banks or Investment Bankers or the Federal Reserve. I think they have crippled our economy just as badly as the entitlement State we have created. There is a huge difference between being highly skilled in a field and being a business person in the same field. I come across people that I wonder how the hell they have succeeded in their business, given their seeming lack of knowledge in that said business. Truth is, they don't have to be skilled workers, they have to be skilled marketers and business people.

reply posted on 29-8-2012 @ 07:30 PM by poet1b

reply to post by pavil

I agree, Tesla was a very bad business person, but he still did great things for the world and the worlds economy, far more than any business man. It wasn't Teslas lack of talent, it was what he focused on. Which is why your claims that the guy who runs the business is superior to the craftsman who performs the actual work is pure nonsense.

By the way, Edison got screwed out his patent on the lightbulb. Edison went broke defending his patent against JP Morgan, who then bought his company, GE. If we could get rid of buggers like Morgan, we might be driving flying car that get a 1000 miles to the gallon.

reply posted on 29-8-2012 @ 07:39 PM by MidnightTide

When I see threads like this, I know nothing is ever going to change.....well, except when it all comes crumbling down, but too late for us all then. Yes, go ahead and tax the super rich, close all those loopholes where corporations get away with paying no tax (then ship jobs overseas).......but I may be alone in this, but you also need to address the entitlements the government has no business in giving people.

The problem is two fold - you have a few people making a ton of cash and not paying, and a lot of people contributing nothing and collecting......then you have the few suckers, the middle class, paying for it all.

edit: In before someone tells me people want to work and contribute, well let me tell you I see hundreds of people with zero intentions of wanting to work hard to earn a living.

edit on 29-8-2012 by MidnightTide because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 29-8-2012 @ 08:05 PM by glasshouse

reply to post by wildtimes

Who really, really needs several million dollars?

Who really really needs a flat screen tv?
Who really really needs a macbook or ipod?
Who really really needs most of the things they own?
Let's just go house to house and take all those things people don't really really need and spread it around.
It's a really really slippery slope.

edit on 29-8-2012 by glasshouse because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 29-8-2012 @ 10:34 PM by wildtimes

reply to post by glasshouse

Who really really needs a flat screen tv?
Who really really needs a macbook or ipod?
Who really really needs most of the things they own?
Let's just go house to house and take all those things people don't really really need and spread it around.
It's a really really slippery slope.

Yep, it is.
Fact is, no one needs those things......what they need is food, shelter, clothing, and a sense of safety.
Heaven forbid we should all pitch in to make sure that everyone has those things, which they really, really need!

reply posted on 29-8-2012 @ 11:57 PM by poet1b

reply to post by MidnightTide

Shutting down welfare would save the fed about 2.50 or so.

Going after the super rich would rake in trillions.

Oh, and pay back the working class for all the Money the super rich stole from them.

Most importantly, getting rid of the super rich would make this a whole lot better country.

reply posted on 29-8-2012 @ 11:59 PM by glasshouse

reply to post by wildtimes

I'm not suggesting we shouldn't pitch in to help people that can't help themselves.
I'm just suggesting that you don't really need most of the things you own.
It seems you're happy to apply that standard when speaking about others but not yourself.

reply posted on 30-8-2012 @ 12:07 AM by glasshouse

reply to post by poet1b

What qualifies as "super rich"?
We could confiscate every cent from every U.S. citizen that is a billionaire and it would still fall just shy of covering the deficit. It would also fall close to 13trillion short of the debt.

Who stole money from you?
How would getting rid of business owners and investors make this a "whole lot better country"?

reply posted on 30-8-2012 @ 07:33 AM by wildtimes

reply to post by glasshouse

It seems you're happy to apply that standard when speaking about others but not yourself.

Well, I don't have a flat screen tv, I have a hand me down old-fashioned tube; my computer was a gift from my parents, and my ipod was a gift from my husband.

I have no car payments, sit on 2nd hand or discarded-by-others furniture, in a 2br home that constantly needs work that isn't done, and one old-timey flip phone.

If everyone wants what I have, that's fine with me. I have about $200 in my checking account, and enough food to last maybe a week. Haven't been on vacation in (thinking....) 8 years. Don't go out to dinner or the movies more than twice a year, and only buy clothes off the clearance rack or at thrift stores, and that only when my other stuff dies entirely.

I'm applying the "really, really needs standard" to anyone who has in excess of, oh, say, $1,000,000 .
I will never, ever in this lifetime know what that's like. I don't waste my money on the lottery, either.

So kindly back off. You feeling defensive or something? Bit of excess in your life, perhaps? I sure could use a few hundred grand, but I'm not willing to sell my soul to get it. I make do with what I have. It's not that hard, really.

reply posted on 30-8-2012 @ 11:50 AM by pavil

Originally posted by poet1b
reply to post by MidnightTide

Shutting down welfare would save the fed about 2.50 or so.

Going after the super rich would rake in trillions.

Oh, and pay back the working class for all the Money the super rich stole from them.

Most importantly, getting rid of the super rich would make this a whole lot better country.

You want to shut down welfare AND go after the super rich........good luck with that one.

What exactly do you mean by "going after the super rich" and where are you getting your numbers from? Can't just spout that off without some measure of evidence.

Sounds a lot like redistribution of wealth to me. It's sounds good when you have no wealth to distribute and totally scary to those who have some wealth. Me, it scares me, since I will be one of the ones to have my assets "distributed". No thank you.

reply posted on 30-8-2012 @ 12:15 PM by wildtimes

reply to post by pavil

totally scary to those who have some wealth. Me, it scares me, since I will be one of the ones to have my assets "distributed". No thank you.

Oh, right. Heaven forbid you could help out a fellow human and still have plenty.
????
"No thank you". Kinda ironic.

You won't be getting a "thank you" because you aren't willing to do anything to deserve one. Ya know what I mean? But hey, millions of frustrated people who have no wealth yet are working their tails off don't deserve anything either.

edit on 30-8-2012 by wildtimes because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 30-8-2012 @ 12:25 PM by glasshouse

reply to post by wildtimes

I'm applying the "really, really needs standard" to anyone who has in excess of, oh, say, $1,000,000

Like I said, you're happy to apply that standard to someone else but not yourself. If you're going to set a standard, why not apply it to everyone instead of just a group of which you're not a member.

I sure could use a few hundred grand, but I'm not willing to sell my soul to get it.

Are you suggesting that someone who worked hard in school and made good decisions regarding their occupation and probably took many risks to start a business sold their soul? Instead of selling your soul, why not try getting a grant, get a degree and find a better job. Or maybe try to get a loan and start a small business.

You feeling defensive or something? Bit of excess in your life, perhaps?

Believe it or not, just because I don't subscribe to class warfare doesn't make me wealthy. I made less than $20,000 last year. I drive a car with over 300,000 miles. I don't own a home and I don't have a spouse to help pay the rent.
The fact is that the person with a million dollars probably already contributed more to the economy than both of us combined. How much is enough in your eyes? I just find it interesting that people are so willing to take from others to appease their own moral narcissism.