|
Post by Hannu Smail on Oct 31, 2011 10:48:34 GMT -6
well first off i think the states need to tax more like Canada. giving tax breaks to the uber rich if so stupid and should get people who arent super rich (everyone on this board) pissed off. the fact that it doesnt just shows how uninformed/brain washed people are. you can never justify spending 40 gs on wine. if you can you are a horrible person. there are people on the streets that are starving and need money and you are throwing away your money. you guys are eating up the fox news scare tactics. no one would take away your season tickets. i talking about the wealthy wealthy people. that dont really need 25 million a year compared to 2 million a year. seriously would your life actually improve if you made 25 mil a year and not 2 million a year? probably not by a lot. BTW, I've never watched Fox News. I have taken courses in Economics, Taxation, Finance, and Accounting though, and did my post-graduation studies in those areas. m. X2, wonder if we passed each other in the hallway deuce?
|
|
|
Post by JordyRamone on Oct 31, 2011 10:50:45 GMT -6
"Give me one good reason why the increases shouldn't stop at $380,000." 1 well you could tax the smaller brackets less. some people cant afford to live. ie put a roof over there heads, pay for day care, put food on the table. for those people they need the money to LIVE. where as the uber-rich just need it to buy expensive wines/boats/bigger homes. so the non rich needs the money more. 2 lowering the gap between the rich and the poor. should people really have to starve on the streets/die from a aliment because they cant afford the medicines? i would rather not have this gap grow cause it would start to resemble a 3rd world country. the gap needs to change a quick search a found this The Wealth Distribution In the United States, wealth is highly concentrated in a relatively few hands. As of 2007, the top 1% of households (the upper class) owned 34.6% of all privately held wealth, and the next 19% (the managerial, professional, and small business stratum) had 50.5%, which means that just 20% of the people owned a remarkable 85%, leaving only 15% of the wealth for the bottom 80% (wage and salary workers). In terms of financial wealth (total net worth minus the value of one's home), the top 1% of households had an even greater share: 42.7%. sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.htmlwhy do the rich need to be so rich? why do poor people starve? if they loved America they should love and take care of the people who live there. poverty is a huge problem. spending 40 gs on wine when the 40 gs could give someone the treatment they need to LIVE is way more important. it sounds like you dont believe in any taxes. do you think everyone should pay the exact same percentage?
|
|
|
Post by JordyRamone on Oct 31, 2011 10:55:07 GMT -6
I agree with a few different points on this board but for me this whole thing comes down to the fact that the planet we live on is really REALLY effed up. We live in a world where as someone said people will spend 40 grand on wine when a huge portion of the world is starving to death. We live in a world where if a celebrity passes away people are crying buckets but when hundreds of thousands of kids are murdered by their government no one cares. If you can live with yourself spending money one bull Crap that you really dont need while holocausts happen thats your problem since society tolerates it. ...like hockey tickets? Or high-speed internet to read forums like this? The world is effed up, but so is that statement, in my humble opinion. are you comparing spend 40 gs on wine to buying hockey tickets or getting high speed internet??
|
|
|
Post by Hannu Smail on Oct 31, 2011 11:03:34 GMT -6
...like hockey tickets? Or high-speed internet to read forums like this? The world is effed up, but so is that statement, in my humble opinion. are you comparing spend 40 gs on wine to buying hockey tickets or getting high speed internet?? Yes, that's exactly what I'm doing..... Come on, of course not. But selanne indicated there should be a certain level of guilt associated with spending excess money on wants vs needs, and I just disagree with that statement. I give generously to local charities because I recognize that I have it very, very well in comparison to a large portion of the population. I strive to teach my kids the same - they should feel a certain sense of obligation to give back should they (hopefully) live comfortably as adults. That doesn't mean we should deprive ourselves of things we don't really *need* because others can't. ps - what's with this $40,000 bottle of wine argument?
|
|
|
Post by TheDeuce on Oct 31, 2011 11:13:20 GMT -6
I agree with a few different points on this board but for me this whole thing comes down to the fact that the planet we live on is really REALLY effed up. We live in a world where as someone said people will spend 40 grand on wine when a huge portion of the world is starving to death. We live in a world where if a celebrity passes away people are crying buckets but when hundreds of thousands of kids are murdered by their government no one cares. If you can live with yourself spending money one bull Crap that you really dont need while holocausts happen thats your problem since society tolerates it. OK, David Thomson has $30 billion dollars. Where does he send the cheque to put an end to the murder of children and other various and sundry holocausts that go on in the world? Can someone please draw the line for me that shows how confiscating the assets of those who are deemed 'rich' by someone else will put an end to the suffering in the world. Make no mistake, if I could bring about world peace and end all suffering by donating my ST fund to the cause, I'd do it. As would those evil billionaires who some feel don't have a right to keep that which they've legitimately earned. Incidentally, those same billionaires donate hundreds of millions to philanthropic causes. www.usatoday.com/money/2010-06-16-billionaire-pledge_N.htmIf over-taxing the rich would solve the problems of the world, there would be no more problems left in the world. Money won't solve the worlds issues. And I STILL haven't heard any tell me why it's OK for a government to take more assets from the uber-rich. They're already paying huge amounts of tax in absolute dollars. Why is that not enough? Why do they pay more for the same basic service than the rest of us do? Just because they have it to take? In any other discussion, that would be called stealing. m.
|
|
|
Post by TheDeuce on Oct 31, 2011 11:13:42 GMT -6
BTW, I've never watched Fox News. I have taken courses in Economics, Taxation, Finance, and Accounting though, and did my post-graduation studies in those areas. m. X2, wonder if we passed each other in the hallway deuce? Drake Centre, U of M? m.
|
|
|
Post by TheDeuce on Oct 31, 2011 11:15:21 GMT -6
"Give me one good reason why the increases shouldn't stop at $380,000." 1 well you could tax the smaller brackets less. some people cant afford to live. ie put a roof over there heads, pay for day care, put food on the table. for those people they need the money to LIVE. where as the uber-rich just need it to buy expensive wines/boats/bigger homes. so the non rich needs the money more. 2 lowering the gap between the rich and the poor. should people really have to starve on the streets/die from a aliment because they cant afford the medicines? i would rather not have this gap grow cause it would start to resemble a 3rd world country. the gap needs to change a quick search a found this The Wealth Distribution In the United States, wealth is highly concentrated in a relatively few hands. As of 2007, the top 1% of households (the upper class) owned 34.6% of all privately held wealth, and the next 19% (the managerial, professional, and small business stratum) had 50.5%, which means that just 20% of the people owned a remarkable 85%, leaving only 15% of the wealth for the bottom 80% (wage and salary workers). In terms of financial wealth (total net worth minus the value of one's home), the top 1% of households had an even greater share: 42.7%. sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.htmlwhy do the rich need to be so rich? why do poor people starve? if they loved America they should love and take care of the people who live there. poverty is a huge problem. spending 40 gs on wine when the 40 gs could give someone the treatment they need to LIVE is way more important. it sounds like you dont believe in any taxes. do you think everyone should pay the exact same percentage? OK, let me try this again: What right do other people have to the money of the uber-rich?There. Distilled down to the basic essence. m.
|
|
|
Post by Hannu Smail on Oct 31, 2011 11:21:09 GMT -6
X2, wonder if we passed each other in the hallway deuce? Drake Centre, U of M? m. '96-'99.
|
|
|
Post by TheDeuce on Oct 31, 2011 11:24:21 GMT -6
2000-2006 (Off and on, part time studies). m.
|
|
|
Post by JordyRamone on Oct 31, 2011 11:28:20 GMT -6
"Give me one good reason why the increases shouldn't stop at $380,000." 1 well you could tax the smaller brackets less. some people cant afford to live. ie put a roof over there heads, pay for day care, put food on the table. for those people they need the money to LIVE. where as the uber-rich just need it to buy expensive wines/boats/bigger homes. so the non rich needs the money more. 2 lowering the gap between the rich and the poor. should people really have to starve on the streets/die from a aliment because they cant afford the medicines? i would rather not have this gap grow cause it would start to resemble a 3rd world country. the gap needs to change a quick search a found this The Wealth Distribution In the United States, wealth is highly concentrated in a relatively few hands. As of 2007, the top 1% of households (the upper class) owned 34.6% of all privately held wealth, and the next 19% (the managerial, professional, and small business stratum) had 50.5%, which means that just 20% of the people owned a remarkable 85%, leaving only 15% of the wealth for the bottom 80% (wage and salary workers). In terms of financial wealth (total net worth minus the value of one's home), the top 1% of households had an even greater share: 42.7%. sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.htmlwhy do the rich need to be so rich? why do poor people starve? if they loved America they should love and take care of the people who live there. poverty is a huge problem. spending 40 gs on wine when the 40 gs could give someone the treatment they need to LIVE is way more important. it sounds like you dont believe in any taxes. do you think everyone should pay the exact same percentage? OK, let me try this again: What right do other people have to the money of the uber-rich?There. Distilled down to the basic essence. m. What? That's like saying what right does the government to tax me? Taxes make us a first world country. So we should tax the rich more because they don't rely on it to survive. Poverty is a problem
|
|
|
Post by selanne405 on Oct 31, 2011 18:53:21 GMT -6
Hannu, whether or not someone feels guilt really isnt up to me. Also lets remember that this is just a really generalized conversation so its not like we can really asess what percent of "wealthy" people actually appear to give a damn about other people.
Its great that clearly your a generous person, I definitely wish there were more of you. But I think there is a moral line drawn between wants and needs and myself personally when I see people using money for really un needed bs it really just bothers me, but hey as I said we don't know what people do with their lives that person could be extremely generour to charities.
Side note, I've always wondered when a wealthy person makes a big ass charitable donation what percentage of their wealth that actually represents, for all we know it could be less than or the same as a middle class person.
Thedeuce-I doubt there really is any place a person could simply throw a big cheque at to solve the massive injustices that are happening all over the world. The reality is to actually effect any change would require a minor revelation by most people in regards to the truth and a willingness to actually make a sacrafice to do something about it. Example, in my intro to political sci class 2 years ago my prof was talking about the perception of policies supporting environmental protection, she asked if there was a way the government could better protect the environment but it would cost people more in their taxes would be people support it? I doubt they would, even though it could save our eco system at the end of the day people really just care first and foremost about the balance in their bank account.
I was really just expressing disgust over the fact that we live in a planet where people are dieing in mass numbers and most people really only care about themselves and their money.
|
|
|
Post by labatt50 on Nov 1, 2011 10:51:16 GMT -6
If taxing the rich and corporations was so bad for the economy, how do you explain the post WWII Keynesian boom? The top marginal tax rate in the US during this period was over 90%, yet the economy was the strongest it has ever been. Also, wages for the vast majority of Canadians has been stagnant for the past 30 years, while income for the rich has skyrocketed. Neoliberal economic policy has been taking money out of the pockets of average citizens and lining the pockets of the rich for too long. Its time for the balance of power to be tilted back toward the middle class, not the rich/corporations.
|
|
|
Post by TheDeuce on Nov 1, 2011 11:14:10 GMT -6
OK, let me try this again: What right do other people have to the money of the uber-rich?There. Distilled down to the basic essence. m. What? That's like saying what right does the government to tax me? Taxes make us a first world country. So we should tax the rich more because they don't rely on it to survive. Poverty is a problem No, that's not like questioning the right of, or need for, governments to tax. Governments need to tax the citizenry to provide common goods and services which are either impossible or impractical to acquire on an individual basis. Roads and bridges, public buildings, police, and the military are all legitimate areas of government involvement. However, what you seem to be advocating is a confiscation of assets from those whom you apparently deem to be unworthy of retaining that which they have legally and legitimately acquired in order to distribute to those who, while having done nothing to entitle themselves to those assets, you deem to be worthy of those assets. I have yet to hear a rational argument in favour of this proposal. I've seen numerous references to how wealth is distributed disproportionately and how obscene some might find it to pay $40,000 for a bottle of wine, but no one is either willing or able to justify this notion that people who earn a certain value of assets should have those assets taken away and given to those who did not earn those assets. I find the repeated references to the theoretical $40,000 bottle of wine to be disingenuous considering that every member of this forum would, I suspect, not hesitate to spend that much or more over the next few years on season tickets. At least that bottle of wine may go up in value and provide a return on investment in five years. Our ST's will be worth exactly zero in that same timeframe. m.
|
|
|
Post by JordyRamone on Nov 1, 2011 12:51:59 GMT -6
What? That's like saying what right does the government to tax me? Taxes make us a first world country. So we should tax the rich more because they don't rely on it to survive. Poverty is a problem No, that's not like questioning the right of, or need for, governments to tax. Governments need to tax the citizenry to provide common goods and services which are either impossible or impractical to acquire on an individual basis. Roads and bridges, public buildings, police, and the military are all legitimate areas of government involvement. However, what you seem to be advocating is a confiscation of assets from those whom you apparently deem to be unworthy of retaining that which they have legally and legitimately acquired in order to distribute to those who, while having done nothing to entitle themselves to those assets, you deem to be worthy of those assets. I have yet to hear a rational argument in favour of this proposal. I've seen numerous references to how wealth is distributed disproportionately and how obscene some might find it to pay $40,000 for a bottle of wine, but no one is either willing or able to justify this notion that people who earn a certain value of assets should have those assets taken away and given to those who did not earn those assets. I find the repeated references to the theoretical $40,000 bottle of wine to be disingenuous considering that every member of this forum would, I suspect, not hesitate to spend that much or more over the next few years on season tickets. At least that bottle of wine may go up in value and provide a return on investment in five years. Our ST's will be worth exactly zero in that same timeframe. m. Whatever man you aren't listening to me. I am over it. Maybe we need to settle this with a beer.....or wine maybe
|
|
|
Post by JordyRamone on Nov 1, 2011 12:54:46 GMT -6
If taxing the rich and corporations was so bad for the economy, how do you explain the post WWII Keynesian boom? The top marginal tax rate in the US during this period was over 90%, yet the economy was the strongest it has ever been. Also, wages for the vast majority of Canadians has been stagnant for the past 30 years, while income for the rich has skyrocketed. Neoliberal economic policy has been taking money out of the pockets of average citizens and lining the pockets of the rich for too long. Its time for the balance of power to be tilted back toward the middle class, not the rich/corporations. Very well said! Bravo
|
|