you know I agree with you....

but your question reminds me of the two old fisherman, one looked at the other and said "All fisherman are liers except you and me..... and I'm not that sure about you".

:1orglaugh

I cant believe I am getting into this....but lets talk about "trickle-down economics" or as I love to call it "Reaganomics...the true reason that Bill Clinton is as popular as he is"......

Understand that I love politics, but I don't debate them in an open forum normally because it always seems like I am bashing when I am simply pointing out my opinions....but here goes nothing :)

The problem in your little senario Punkworld is that this is what would have happened in a real world scenario....

Man #3 would eat Meal # 5 for one year while he saved his $25 per day.....at the end of a year he would start a new company called "Man #3's Half Priced Meals" because he figured out a way to grow the Meals for pennies on the dollar instead of buying them from the neighboring village like they had done for the last hundred years. Then he would hire Men #8, 9, and 10 and still pocket $132.50 at the end of the day for himself.

In this scenario, with the same amount of money everyone is living better off......

It is deep....think about it.....


--T

ahahahaa.......



:::looks sideways suspiciously at Daveplays:::

Then, man #3 would be taxed about $60, which would got to new men 11, 12 and 13 who choose not to work now that the village has instituted a nice new welfare program. Men 11, 12 and 13 tell their relatives from other villages, who move in and also claim a share of this wonderful thing called welfare. Man #3 must then think about downsizing, or maybe going partners with man #1 in some way.


Which brings us to mergers and aquisitions.


Cont'd....... (by someone else)

You are a sad individual....

Let companies decide wheter they want or not to give you a raise.... (and thats is whether you BADLY need it or not... )
Let companies decide to pay or not their retired employees...

When the government can tax those rich corporations and distribute the money to those who needs it!!

As for giving money to little league... dude... damn... I'm in tears....

AS far as your pathtic TV-phone.... yeah thats so cool... lets invest in that while there's around 13% of americans living under the poverty level.... mmh.. about 35 millions... alot of kids and single mothers...!

You are pathetic... seriously...

no it's not equal across the board, but the post was in relation to the point of the thread and 12click's post.
btw guys earning over a million here pay less % tax than guys on $60,001 - it reaches a point then heads back down.
anything I earnt over 60k last year I paid 48.5% tax on. (because I wasn't a member of a private health fund the conservative government slugged me with an extra 1.5% which only the 20% (at the time) of "rich" people earning over 50k pay - trying to push me into private enterprise.

I know. Sorry about that, my reply was more directed to the masses rather than in direct reply to your post. Holy shit.

No really, holy shit. And people say that taxes are insane in Canada.
Well, I suppose we have it similar, because the higher up the income food chain you go, the higher you are taxed here too.

But someone earning $500k a year is taxed amazingly heavily, and if the communists had their way they would be taxed at probably 60% or more.

Because after all..... all men are created equal, so everyone should be given an equal share, right?
Right xxxpaydesign? yeah, sure komrade.

and let me guess....

We'll all let YOU decide who is "in need" and who isn't?

and who gives their money away - and who doesn't....?


....and you think I'M Nuts?


:1orglaugh :1orglaugh :1orglaugh

Socialism looks good on paper....

It has never, nor will it ever work - but it does look good on paper.

It denies the basic human desire to excell -
to do better, work harder for greater benefits is how we excell.

It's true in sports and in life.

And that's a good thing.

We do not progress by trying to make everyone equal.

We are not all created equal - thinking we are looked good on paper too - but it isn't the case.

Some people are going to fail - it's been that way since we lived in caves - the strong shall survive - you know.... it's the nature of the beast.

xxxdesign-net, your inability to comprehend the most understandable tax analogy i've ever seen, is almost dumbfounding. You sir, are an idiot.

Jesus you're really a dumb fuck.

Of course, there is no way to disagre with you without appearing to oppose what is decent and humane. To criticize socialist ideals is to place oneself in opposition to a world in which social justice and harmony will previal.

Socialists have always contrived to demonstrate by example what everyone else already knows: Equality and freedom are inherently in conflict. This is really all that socialist efforts have shown, over the dead bodies of millions of people. In talent, intelligence, and physical attributes, individuals are by nature different and unequal; consequently, the attempt to make them equal can only be achieved by restricting - ultimately eliminating - their individual freedom. For the same reason, economic redistribution can be carried out only be force. Socialism is theft.

you must be new around here. Calling me dumb is like putting a bulls eye on your undersized brain. Now we'll have fun over your stupidity.

No, you're too dumb to earn more than $14.50
The rest of the people who ARE smart enough to earn more shouldn't have to waste it on low lives like yourself because, for whatever reason, you can't make it in this world.

Says who? the poor ass *you* who can't make it?
By giving people like you who can't make it in this world, you weeken the entire population by sucking the wealth from the successfull and throwing it down the piss hole that is you.

Or are you too dumb to get that?:1orglaugh

Who talked about equality here?? :helpme

Stop making assumptions... and go buy yourself some IQ points.. here.. :2 cents: :2 cents:

Re-Read the thread closely... read my posts.. and maybe.. just maybe... you'll get what I meant... DumbDumb :Hollering


Im out... no challenge here.... losing my time...

Yeah - I don't blame you -

Come back anytime - we enjoyed making fun of you !!


:thumbsup

Smartest thing you've said in this entire thread, idiot.

uh, once you reach that level where you are considered rich, you'll realize how untrue your fairy tale above is.
When I'm not busy paying 6 figures in taxes, I'm paying 7 and I have the best accountants money can buy.
This silly clap trap about the rich getting a free ride is what keeps you from intelligent debate on the subject.

it's a lot I know.. but to be honest I mind less about the 47% tax rate than I do about the 1.5% trying to force me into private enterprise. I actually voted against the last tax cut we had here because it was the sweetener for the goods and services tax...

I don't mind paying tax if it keeps people from stealing my car or whatever. but in all honesty the top marginal tax rate of 47% should kick in a lot higher than 60k.. The other thing is that If you get a second job it's immediately taxed at 47% regardless of what income you're on which is plain retarded.. I don't believe the tax rates are a big disincentive.. no one turns down a payrise or can't do with extra money.. but the second job thing is stupid. No one should be taxed extra for taking on a second job and working that much harder.
When I started lecturing I set up a family trust so i'd pay fuck all tax on the extra income.

Rush Limbaugh had this on his show friday. It sounds better than it reads for some reason.

i should get some lawyers and see if i can be tax-free, too!

I want to go work with 12Clicks :thumbsup

A bunch of us are considering buying an island somewhere and setting up shop. If we can convince 12clicks to join us, we will have a large enough economy that we can declare ourselves a country.


50 residents ---- no tax. :thumbsup

:1orglaugh

There are lots of Carribean Islands with no income taxes, they earn theirs by sheltering money for tax evaders from around the world.

I would have a lot less trouble paying taxes if we paid for health care, child care, preschool education and broke the cycle of poverty in this country. It is amazing how Canada and Western Europe can deal with these things and the US cannot.

The US economy has instututionalized slavery, we just call it the minimum wage; a wage no one can live on. You can be of any race and be a slave now, no discrimination at all.

Fuck.... count me in.

:thumbsup

Once we are a country, we can start sending teams to the Olympics.


Whose up for bobsleigh?

Who's paying for the infrastructure?

Sewerage, cabling, roads, etc etc?

Or will you be living in grass huts, shitting in a hole in the ground, riding pushbikes and washing your dishes in water from your own personal wells?

Back breaking hard work, sweat and dedication -

or we'll just pay someone to do it.

:winkwink:

Bobsledding? - Like in the Snow?

Where exactly IS this island anyway? :eek7

I think that you can redefine the scope of the issue by greatly reducing the waste in the system. Granted there will always be significant governmental waste. Human nature is for everyone to feel that their job is the most important. People will always sucker people into laziness at the expense of taxpayers.

Imagine how much more there would be to squander if we stopped squandering!

We don't need $1200 hammers. We don't need a federal budget to ensure that all federal forms are in both English and Spanish. We don't need to be paying farmers to not grow food. We don't need a huge well budgeted justice department to fight free speech. We don't need to be paying millions to study mating habits of fruitbats.

We do need to pay for an adequate national defense. We do need roads.

If we kept spending down, we would need to charge less in taxes. Let the people decide what to do with their money. If I want the homeless to be fed I'd volunteer at a soup kitchen. I am astounded to see the sheer amount of waste in the simplest of things. The thing that really pisses in my wheaties is that every other day I work I put money in someone else's pocket, and it's generally for no good reason. Besides, I've never even seen a friggin fruitbat.

You don't seem to comprehend the analogy. The "food stamps" you are talking about are exactly what would change the situation for the better - the rich giving up wealth to feed the poor.

Also, did I ever say the rich should give up all their wealth? I mentioned in my post that extra wealth would mean a 10th car for the rich, while it would mean food or education for the poor.

Personally, I have no problem with certain people being richer than others. However, the richer you are, the more you can spare while still being rich. It's not about equal distribution of property/income, but about providing the basics for those that need it. Ofcourse, the rich will still have way more money available for luxury goods, there´s nothing wrong with that. But first the basics for everyone need to be taken care of.

The point with providing the basics for those that need it is that it also benefits the rich. The rich don't get rich all by themselves, they require employees, consumers, infrastructure, etc. The poor are essential for this. Let the poor starve and the whole economy will suffer.

Besides that, the whole idea of the rich being rich because they work harder is fundamentally flawed. Wealth is primarily caused by wealth - the rich can get their children a good education, a good social network, money to start up companies, carreer opportunities etc. The poor can´t. So, for most of the rich their wealth isn´t something they achieved by themselves, but something they achieved because of the chances that were given to them.

Jose Cuervo did it, why can't we?

For those that think taxes limit freedom:

Freedom requires certain things. For instance food, so you can stay alive. And a house, so you have a place to sleep, rest, study or do work. And ofcourse chances at a good education, so with hard work you can enhance your knowledge and find jobs. But medical care is essential as well, so your freedom is not taken away by illness. And physical protection is obviously just as essential, since without it anyone with bad intent can just take your freedom away.

Now, if people are entitled to freedom, they must also be entitled to those things - otherwise, they don't have freedom at all.

Now, taxes take away a certain amount of freedom. However, the freedom that can be provided when using them to fill the basic needs of all is much greater.

Note that I'm not talking about equal redistribution of all goods - just about filling the basic needs of those who need it.

Problem is, I see people who live on welfare with no ambitions whatsoever to better themselves. 5 kids - have one more and your checks get bigger. The system breeds reliance on the system.

My girlfriend worked at a grocery store until recently, and she told me daily about people who would come in with really nice clothes, obviously freshly salon done hair and nails, who pay with food stamps. No big deal really so far, but then for the non-food items which the gov't doesn't cover, they pull out a wad of hundreds to pay for their paper plates.

Another case, she overheard a girl considering getting a job, who decided against it upon hearing she'd lose eligibility for section 8 housing.

If we cut these people off for all but the hardest cases, they will be forced to get jobs. McDonalds is always hiring.

That's why the system should change. More checking should be done before someone gets social benefits, and people receiving those benefits should be forced to find work if at all possible.

While I do not mind paying three quarters of my income to supply those who really need it with the basics, I do mind paying even a single cent for those that are too lazy to work. That speaks for itself.

You think too much dude.

http://www.vladi-private-islands.de/...6_clark_1.html


some of these islands come pre-owned and already developed.

And think about it..... at $50k x 50 webmasters, that's 2.5 mil. I think we'd be able to run a fucking cable out and build a few dozen nice cabins. Probably have enough to buy a nice cabin cruiser too, for those monthly trips to the mainland.

Haven't you seen Cool Runnings? :1orglaugh

Better than thinking too little.

Not in this case. Already-developed islands are the only way to go these days. Sheesh, I thought this was common knowledge!

That island has virtually nothing. You'd probably need US$15-20 million just to get started with 50 homes.

Think about what just the logistics of construction would cost.

Homes. Man you are so negative. Are you this negative about everything?

That's just ONE island. There are thousands for sale out there, and around the world. Thousands. Some have near-resorts already built, some have nothing. It all depends on what you want.


And in many of these countries, a couple of mil goes a LONG way towards getting things built.


And i said "cabins"... not homes. Think positive. And try to dream WITH, not against. Just try. Once.

You are definitely dreaming that's for sure...

Now I'm going to sleep to dream pleasant dreams of a presidential assasination....

Sorry, when I hear negativity, I react.


Pleasant dreams mite.

How silly. I don't own 10 cars but I'm taxed as if I did. The poor should go get a job.

No, just as long as they give it all to the undeserving.
that's not a desision you get to make.
No its not, its about those who need it going out and earning it.

how good of you to not mind success.

yes, by those who need getting a job.

wrong. Let the poor starve and eventually they'll understand they have to go get a job. The rich don't need leeches, they need productive members of society.

what socialist clap trap!
Are you saying that the rich all had ancestors who were born shitting gold?
Or did their ancestors earn it.

incorrect. again.
most people being taxed at the *rich* tax rate made their money by earning it. It might be a comfort to you to think rich people had a leg up on you but it just isn't true.

You need to get out of whatever liberal college is teaching you this shit before you're ruined for life.:1orglaugh

It is my understanding that the largest group of poor in the USA are the working poor. It is also my understanding that it is this group that receive the bulk of government subsidies of one type or another. The bulk of the poor have jobs but the employers are not required to may a livable wage. The current minimum wage is actually worth less than the minimum wage of thirty years ago, so the working poor are poorer than they were thirty years ago.

It is also my understanding that when the government puts out its employment stats they consider anyone that is employed 20 hours per week as being employed.

Noone is saying you don't pay a lot of taxes. The thing is you're not paying taxes on a lot of money that you could/should be paying. Noone is saying you don't pay a lot in taxes, but we get more tax breaks and tax offsets than the poor do. So, I have no problem giving some breaks back to 'the working poor'. The lazy poor is a different subject.

When you say something over simplistic...expect the same type of response.

You seem to have no grasp whatsoever of the way things are in this world.


First of all, let me start with your idea that the rich are rich because they earned it, and not because of chances given to them.

A good education helps in getting a good job, right?
Take a quick look at what tuition is for colleges like Harvard, Yale, Princeton.

Having some start-up money helps in setting up a company, right?
Parents tend to lend their children money for such things. For instance, some friends of mine just got $50k from their parents for starting up their own company. Also, banks will be much more likely to lend money to you if you have rich parents.

Having a good social network helps becoming succesful in life, right?
Having your parents give you a position in their company works wonders. Joining a good fraternity (contribution: a few k $ per year) in college works wonders. Having your father play golf with the owner of a company you want to work in works wonders.

Now, you say their parents or ancestors <b>earned</b> it. So? What the fuck does that have to do with anything? My great grandfather died while fighting the nazi's, does that make me a hero?


Now, you seem to think the poor are all lazy people that are unwilling to work. Bullshit. There are plenty people working 10 hours a day every day at minimum wage just to be able to eat at night.

Besides that, do you really think everyone without a job does not want one?
I know many people who are looking for jobs all day, every day but are unable to find anything. So, should they all just starve just so you <b>can</b> buy that 10th car?


I personally have never been in any financial trouble in my life, and most likely never will be. However, I'm not so much of an asshole that I will whine about having to pay taxes that are necessary to feed the poor.

SOCIALISM WORKS!

All you have to do is look at the world and notice how many socialist countries are doing great.

btw, I always wonder how many liberals telling us we don't take care of poor people enough are sitting in their 4 bedroom house, typing it on one of their 5 computers and wondering which of their three cars they'll take to the store to pick up lobster for next weekends dinner party.

I always wonder why people think that if you give a fuck about the lives of other people, you must be a socialist.

(btw, I only have 3 computers here under my desk, and prefer roast beef and steak over lobster)

You're not a socialist for caring about other people.

You are one for thinking that everything should be redistributed for no reason other than some people work harder than others and have more toys.

There is no point to wealth redistribution. Take two people. One works hard, invests his money back into himself somehow to help him advance. The other is flat broke and pisses his money away on stupid shit.

Take all their toys away and give them $20,000. In one year, the first person will be doing okay and back on his way to doing really well. He will either have a small business or be going to school, or both. The other person will have a big screen TV, surround sound, 4 new game systems with 100 games, and a mountain of beer cans in his backyard.

Do we take all their goodies away AGAIN and redistribute the wealth once more?