Identifying evil people

page: 7
56
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 7 2012 @ 07:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by Valhall
Since it appears that Mitt Romney being a successful business man and having a net worth of 250 million dollars is the major "evil" point about him, I thought I'd take the time to identify a few notable "evil people" based on what is apparently the Democratic/Liberal ideology of when a person starts to "go evil". Now, according to their tax plan and Obama and Biden's own campaign statements, people "go evil" when a married couple makes $250,000 in one year. (I'd like to note that while I don't give a flying flamingo who you boink or who you love the Gay/Lesbian community needs to really re-think their battle for getting recognized with legitimate marriages. Marriage is evil in the eyes of the current administration. The marriage penalty is coming back. If you're married you "go evil" at a combined income of $250,000 in one year. If you are not married you each can make up to $200,000 per year before you "go evil"...so I'm just saying. You're selling your soul to the devil if you get married...by about $150,000/year!)

So, normalizing the data to where $250,000 net worth is unity and then measuring everyone richer against that first indicator that "you've gone evil", here's the breakdown on some notable names. Please use this list any time you want to ensure you don't vote for or support by purchasing products these evil people. You can thank me later.



edit on 10-6-2012 by Valhall because: (no reason given)


I dont see a source where you show the Dems stating mo-money=evil

I think the are tring o state that Rmoney is out of touch with lower income people and doesnt care.

47% dont matter to him. Those are his words.




posted on Oct, 7 2012 @ 07:26 AM
link   
reply to post by Aazadan
 


I'd like to thank you for taking multiple posts and hundreds of words to succinctly lay out just how economically horrendous the redistribution of wealth via government regulations are...you did a splendid job. The income tax rate for a couple earning $250,000 is 33%. That's $82,500. That's the equivalent of this couple paying the salaries of two average income workers in their taxes. They are already paying in (to break even at the end of the year) $6875/month in taxes. And, no matter, how you slice it, this couple is working for only two-thirds of their actual earnings, since 33 cents of every dollar they make is going to the government in taxes. This does not include sales tax, state tax, property tax, gasoline tax, or any of the other myriad of taxes we all get levied. And they want to raise the taxes on this couple more.

You state this number, 250,000, is where people have a disproportionate percentage more of disposable income. I argue that is incorrect, but let's just assume you ARE correct. THAT is Romney's point. It is the disposable income that is the potential for economic growth. And, as I stated in prior posts, if that disposable income is used to start a business, grow a business or invest in a business that will start-up or grow, it creates jobs! If it's handed to government it will NOT grow jobs. This administration has shown no sign of reducing itself so that the administrative costs taken out of every dollar it squeezes out of the middle class (and 250,000 IS the middle class, by the way) will be reduced so that there is a fighting chance more of that dollar will go toward actually stimulating the friggin economy. Instead, this administration has decided that more money means more agencies and more cumbersome laws designed to squeeze more money out of the lower and lower numbers of people actually working so that the cycle can repeat and they can hire more government workers who will not have the job of growing the economy but of further squeezing the fewer and fewer income-producing (which is tax-revenue producing) jobs out of existence until finally...

we're a nation of government workers pretending work, and the administration pretends to pay us. But we'll all be making the same...most likely some where way below "evil". And the top (that would be THEM) will be the only ones left in that range.

And the world will be right at last, right?



posted on Oct, 7 2012 @ 08:04 AM
link   
And that you argue for multiple posts that the way to fix things is just tax the crap out of someone who makes a little more than you so that...what??? Exactly what? I want to hear what you think you get out of it, other than the satisfaction their earned income gets whittled down to closer to where you are. I want to hear what you THINK you get out of it.

Let's review the economics of the "enviable"...because that's what fuels the entire democratic redistribution of wealth philosophy. Effing envy. So let's review it:

As discussed, on the targeted evil couple of 250,000 gross income combined, they are currently paying $82,500 in taxes. That leaves them $167,500. Now, they pay taxes to their state (if their state has an income tax) so you have to reduce it by that. On average the states that have income tax are around 4%, so this couple is paying in around $10,000 to state income taxes. Please note I'm not applying any deductions here...that's Romney's plan as well, to reduce deductions and exemptions which will simplify the tax code and then you can just talk on straight gross income as I'm doing.

So now this couple is around $157,500. Here's where the envy kicks in. They may live in a newer home or a larger home, anyway, let's just say a "home of greater value". Guess what? They pay more taxes. They pay more property taxes, they pay a greater chunk of local millage applying to the local school, and local improvements....damn their hides. They may drive a more expensive car...or two! Guess what, they pay higher taxes. They pay higher excise taxes and higher taxes in the form of relicensing, etc. They may have more income to take weekend road trips...guess what, they pay more taxes. They pay more gasoline taxes that go toward road improvements. They may spend more money on food. Guess what, they pay more sales tax. They may buy more expensive clothing, guess what? they pay more sales tax. They may use more electricity/natural gas in their home utilities, guess what, they pay more energy taxes and sales tax. All the while, every single one of these "enviable" transactions is a transaction where a local individual, or a local government agency, is handed funds that improve the local area or keep a local worker employed.

Instead, what the democrats want to do is take some of that money because it's just frigging evil that someone can have extra money that allows them to have a slightly better home and slightly better car and slightly better clothing. Let's hand it to someone who has never worked, never attempted work, and has no plan to work. Let's see how we're going to use that money:

Well, the administrative costs of the government doling out funds to those who don't care to be contributing partners in society can't even be ascertained, but some calculations place it at as high as 80%. So, only 20 cents of what we pay in might actually go to do the following things:

1. Pay someone else's rent
2. Pay someone else's utilities
3. Pay someone else's health care
4. Pay someone else just straight spending power for cigarettes and booze or whatever they want.
5. Pay someone else's cell phone.
6. Pay someone else's car insurance, car repairs

Now, here's the problem. Food bought with food stamps is exempt from sales tax. You just knocked the local and state economy out of sales tax revenue. You reduced the spending power of the earning couple, eliminated the sales tax of their dollars, and handed a small percentage of that "disposable income" (after you deduct administrative costs) to a person who will spend their food stamps with no associated tax revenue generation involved. Section 8 housing is usually exempt from property tax. So instead of the couple of "disposable income" being able to live in a nicer home that would generate more real estate property tax to the local and state level, the money is handed to the government, you reduce by the administrative costs, and you spend it on section 8 housing that produces no real estate property tax revenue.

And then, please don't forget, all the income (that should read COST) that went to the receiving person will generate not a spit of income tax...not one cent. Because to tax this person would truly make you evil.

So you redirect "enviable income" away from who earned it and away from a tax-revenue-generating economy to a government agency that pays more of the dollar received to itself than it does to anyone who actually could use it, and hands the rest to a person who will not generate any income tax, virtually no sales tax, no real estate tax....

Please remember, the government really doesn't like to tax itself. Do you realize there is more than one government agency right now that is criminally in default by multiple pay periods/years on payroll tax? Do you realize that they are not being disciplined nor pressured to pay those payroll taxes?

and you have the audacity to pretend that's a sustainable economy.
edit on 10-7-2012 by Valhall because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 7 2012 @ 08:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by Valhall
And that you argue for multiple posts that the way to fix things is just tax the crap out of someone who makes a little more than you so that...what??? Exactly what? I want to hear what you think you get out of it, other than the satisfaction their earned income gets whittled down to closer to where you are. I want to hear what you THINK you get out of it.

Let's review the economics of the "enviable"...because that's what fuels the entire democratic redistribution of wealth philosophy. Effing envy. So let's review it:

As discussed, on the targeted evil couple of 250,000 gross income combined, they are currently paying $82,500 in taxes. That leaves them $167,500. Now, they pay taxes to their state (if their state has an income tax) so you have to reduce it by that. On average the states that have income tax are around 4%, so this couple is paying in around $10,000 to state income taxes. Please note I'm not applying any deductions here...that's Romney's plan as well, to reduced deductions and exemptions which will simplify the tax code and then you can just talk on straight gross income as I'm doing.

So now this couple is around $157,500. Here's where the envy kicks in. They may live in a newer home or a larger home, anyway, let's just say a "home of greater value". Guess what? They pay more taxes. They pay more property taxes, they pay a greater chunk of local millage applying to the local school, and local improvements....damn their hides. They may drive a more expensive car...or two! Guess what, they pay higher taxes. They pay higher excise taxes and higher taxes in the form of relicensing, etc. They may have more income to take weekend road trips...guess what, they pay more taxes. They pay more gasoline taxes that go toward road improvements. They may spend more money on food. Guess what, they pay more sales tax. They may buy more expensive clothing, guess what? they pay more sales tax. They may use more electricity/natural gas in their home utilities, guess what, they pay more energy taxes and sales tax. All the while, every single one of these "enviable" transactions is a transaction where a local individual, or a local government agency, is handed funds that improve the local area or keep a local worker employed.

Instead, what the democrats want to do is take some of that money because it's just frigging evil that someone can have extra money that allows them to have a slightly better home and slightly better car and slightly better clothing. Let's hand it to someone who has never worked, never attempted work, and has no plan to work. Let's see how we're going to use that money:

Well, the administrative costs of the government doling out funds to those who don't care to be contributing partners in society can't even be ascertained, but some calculations place it at as high as 80%. So, only 20 cents of what we pay in might actually go to do the following things:

1. Pay someone else's rent
2. Pay someone else's utilities
3. Pay someone else's health care
4. Pay someone else just straight spending power for cigarettes and booze or whatever they want.
5. Pay someone else's cell phone.
6. Pay someone else's car insurance, car repairs

Now, here's the problem. Food bought with food stamps is exempt from sales tax. You just knocked the local and state economy out of sales tax revenue. You reduced the spending power of the earning couple, eliminated the sales tax of their dollars, and handed a small percentage of that "disposable income" (after you deduct administrative costs) to a person who will spend their food stamps with no associated tax revenue generation involved. Section 8 housing is usually exempt from property tax. So instead of the couple of "disposable income" being able to live in a nicer home that would generate more real estate property tax to the local and state level, the money is handed to the government, you reduce by the administrative costs, and you spend it on section 8 housing that produces no real estate property tax revenue.



Aren't you forgetting "trickle down". Wuithout the poor getting all the help, then those making $250,000 wouldn;'t be making $250,000. They would then pay less taxes, keeping their after tax income the same. So in reality helping the poor does nothing to hurt the upper classes.



posted on Oct, 7 2012 @ 08:25 AM
link   
reply to post by sligtlyskeptical
 


You apparently don't know what "trickle down" means. In fact, it's a given you don't. "Trickle down" has nothing to do with sustaining welfare as a way of life. Welfare was never intended as a way of life. It was initiated as a stop gap to assist a person in getting back on their feet. Even Clinton, the greatest economic president of my lifetime, knew this.

"Trickle down" economics is about disposable income being used to further the economy, create jobs, decrease the percentage of "poor" and increase tax revenue-generating jobs. It has NOTHING to do with sustaining a welfare system and retaining people as slaves to the government on a subsistence way of life so they don't have to work.
edit on 10-7-2012 by Valhall because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 7 2012 @ 08:30 AM
link   
reply to post by sligtlyskeptical
 


And PLEASE explain to me how increasing the welfare rolls and increasing expenditures to non-productive people makes the $250,000 couple earn money. Please explain that one to me because I'd love to hear this rationale.



posted on Oct, 7 2012 @ 08:36 AM
link   
reply to post by downwind
 


See...you just showed the ignorance on the left. "Harvesting" does not mean that he made his money off of doing anything that negatively impacted anybody. It is a standard investment term used by capital investment companies. They invest either at start up, or they invest at an expansion time for a business. They retain their investment in the business, possibly even increasing that investment to assist along the way, with the goal of the business becoming profitable and self-sustaining at the target size. Once the business becomes profitable, they "harvest" their original investment from the company and move on to invest in another venture.

You just proved my point. You think people who make money are evil. You don't even take the time to learn what you're talking about, you just use a word in a WRONG and negative connotation to present a business transaction in an evil light.

edit on 10-7-2012 by Valhall because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 7 2012 @ 08:38 AM
link   
reply to post by hotbread
 



Yeah, I did. Sorry...they are probably the devil himself. I'll do better next time.



posted on Oct, 7 2012 @ 09:15 AM
link   
reply to post by Valhall
 



This is easy. Evil doesn't have anything to do with income.
Strange that you and the star givers get that impression.
Indicative of great misunderstanding, to not just the answer but the concept itself.
Let me try to explain the evil gauge.

Evil does not give a compassionate thought to, recognize, or help those less fortunate than themselves. This is the borderline. Actual evil steps over this line, although you can be evil simply by resting here. Much is case by case and dependent on your own fortune, circumstances or bit of bad luck. Clearly a prisoner is not going to consider the plight of those less fortunate than himself. Some exceptions are obvious but they are glaringly so and fairly unanimous agreement can easily be made over them.

"If you can, help others; if you cannot do that, at least do not harm them." Dalai Lama



posted on Oct, 7 2012 @ 09:41 AM
link   
reply to post by newcovenant
 


I'm not sure what the point of your sermon was, so I'll approach it from the two possible intentions I can think of:

1. If you think I think that people with money are evil, you neither "get it", nor have you read the thread. I don't think that...you're preaching to the choir.

2. If you are trying to imply that people with disposable income (i.e. what the liberals classify as "wealthy") don't care about people with less, nor do they have charitable hearts....you're about as wrong as you can be. I'm sure there truly are some "evil-hearted" rich people out there who don't do squat for anybody...positive of it, but I'm willing to bet the vast majority of people with disposable income do a lot of charitable contributions (and I mean even charitable acts that DON'T qualify as donations under the IRS...like handing someone cash directly, or buying groceries for someone whose family needs food, or taking a mother to buy clothing for her children). Charitable acts to the poor and needy were originally the responsibility of churches and charitable organizations.

That's back before Roosevelt got involved on some clueless position he had in his head that citizens "with" couldn't take care of their fellow citizens "without" and screwed up the works. The more money taken out of my paycheck and handed to the government (that once again has ENORMOUS administrative costs that come out of that tax dollar before anyone is "assisted") decreases the amount of money I can either hand directly to, spend directly on, or contribute to a charitable organization or local church or outreach program that will have substantially less administrative costs (for instance, I don't contribute to any charitable organization that has administrative costs exceeding 3% so that's 97 cents of every dollar donated going to who needs it).

So if you're implying that the government stealing more of a person money to fuel their bureaucratic machine is somehow "righting" some "evil" that exists because people with disposable income aren't assisting their fellow man....you're way off base. What the current administration is doing is GROWING the percent of the country who is now classified as "needing" by their failed economic policies. And Obama has been quite honest about how he views the poor. They are a "substantial" voting block. It's a nice insurance plan for increasing and guaranteeing votes to sustain your "system".
edit on 10-7-2012 by Valhall because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 7 2012 @ 09:55 AM
link   
And let me be straight on another position that the liberals have wonked out beyond reality.

Here are the TRUE entitlement programs:

VA
Social Security
Medicare

That's it. For every recipient of payments from those three funds the recipient is ENTITLED to their payment. They are entitled by way of their PARTICIPATION and ABIDANCE in the program requirements that made them ENTITLED TO a benefit from the fund.

Here are the programs that are NOT entitlement programs:

AFDC
Foodstamps
Medicaid
SSDI
free cell phones
free car insurance/car repairs
Section 8 housing

and probably so many more that to create the list would make me want to puke. Probably a lot of programs that I don't even know about.

No one, by way of their actions (and especially if you have never worked, never paid taxes and never contributed to the revenue of the government) is ENTITLED to any payment from those programs. You QUALIFY by way of standards set by the government (which change and become either more lax or more strict based on the administration) and you are receiving funds based on nothing you did or do. You just qualify by way of your "situation" or "condition".

No where in the constitution and no where in the bill of rights are we declared to be "entitled" to a hand-out that is completely disassociated with our participation in program requirements in order to "earn" it. So the left really needs to get their view straightened out.
edit on 10-7-2012 by Valhall because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 7 2012 @ 09:55 AM
link   
reply to post by Valhall
 


'Great' men are nearly always 'bad' men.



posted on Oct, 7 2012 @ 10:00 AM
link   
post removed for serious violation of ATS Terms & Conditions



posted on Oct, 7 2012 @ 10:03 AM
link   
reply to post by VforVendettea
 


Yeah, Ghandi was a real pisser wasn't he?



posted on Oct, 7 2012 @ 10:09 AM
link   
This thread for some reason piss's me off...I can't nail down why?

The way I read what the op was saying is that a certain portion of us feel Romney is evil because of his net-worth?

No

It's what comes out of this " crackers " mouth.

If I'm misunderstanding...I apologize



posted on Oct, 7 2012 @ 10:11 AM
link   
Super wealthy people like Bill Gates the mega heavy weights in todays market..Worked incredibly hard to amass the buisnesses they run today,An they deserve to reap the rewards of ther endevours,And if that means cutting them some slack with taxes to entice them to keep there buisness plants factorys ect in the country as oppose to off shore tax havens give them the insentives theve earned it an then some.Thease sucsesfull buisness titans employ thousands of workers Directors Managers sales people secreterys engineers manufacture also knock on effect to local buisnesses feeder industrys creates even more jobs So each of thease Wealthy buisness titans is responsable for creating all of thease employees each paying income tax into the Nations coffers.....



posted on Oct, 7 2012 @ 10:14 AM
link   
post removed for serious violation of ATS Terms & Conditions



posted on Oct, 7 2012 @ 10:14 AM
link   
reply to post by Valhall
 


Where did you find these figures? Obama's have $11.5 Billion? How is that possible? They had something like $150,000 upon entering office, and about $1.4 million as of last year. Doesn't make sense.

Please let us know where these figures originated.



posted on Oct, 7 2012 @ 10:22 AM
link   
reply to post by Valhall
 



So, (lol) if it wasn't for government, wall st. Banks.... Big corps that cant clean up their mess...if they wouldn't put us in the f position to have to need food stamps to feed our kids or help paying high rent...If we had the jobs to be able to afford the basics in life...


Ha better???



posted on Oct, 7 2012 @ 10:22 AM
link   
My major reasoning for Mitt Romney being evil is his acts of abuse toward animals (strappin one to the roof of his car)
and condoning, even becoming part of the faction on Earth that would use human exploitation to succeed in life AKA Moving his companies to China for poor peasant children to work for 37 cents a day.

I base my judgement on this:

According to a 1997 study done by the Massachusetts Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (SPCA) and Northeastern University, animal abusers are five times more likely to commit violent crimes against people and four times more likely to commit property crimes than are individuals without a history of animal abuse.

Read more: Abuse Connection - The Link Between Animal Cruelty and Interpersonal Violence | Pet-Abuse.Com Animal Cruelty Database www.pet-abuse.com...

Abuse Connection


So mine is wholly based on his personality....don't even get me started on Obamanation.



But a lot of rich people do tend to fit sociopathic and psychopathic traits as one article clearly states:

A 2010 study found that 4 percent of a sample of corporate managers met a clinical threshold for being labeled psychopaths, compared with 1 percent for the population at large. (However, the sample was not representative, as the study’s authors have noted.) Another study concluded that the rich are more likely to lie, cheat and break the law.


I hope it hasn't already been posted lol.
NY Times Sunday Review





new topics
top topics
 
56
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join