rich gets richer

Status
Not open for further replies.
N

netrox

New Member
Joined
Mar 12, 2003
Messages
4,769
Reaction score
0
Wait a minute.... and you still think they should get tax cuts?

"The super-rich got even wealthier this year, despite the stumbling economy.

Forbes magazine released its annual list of the 400 richest Americans on Wednesday, and their combined net worth climbed 8% this year, to $1.37 trillion."

Tax them at 40%!

Forbes 400 richest Americans list for 2010: Gates is No. 1 - Sep. 22, 2010
 
Tax the "rich" 40% ?? Did it ever occur to you that some people have worked very hard for their $$....know how to make $$...while there are others who don't....or even care! Jealousy rears it's big head!
 
What might be better is to see how much they contribute as part of their philanthropy. Look at Bill Gate's contribution. I'd rather see them use their own money as they see fit on how it's spent than to let the govt have it and blow it on pork or some nonsense program. Let's see, the govt is now at a $13 trillion dollar debt. Yeah, they sure do know how to spend money correctly.
 
Still, may I have the $200 pretty please? :D
 
I am sure that giving 40% of a billion ($400,000,000) to government is gonna ruin your life. It's just $600,000,000 is just not enough for you.

You don't "work for it." They become extremely rich because they're geniuses and love doing it. Their traits and intelligence and skills make them who they are. And also note that a lot of them got from inheritances. Hardly "work."

I have no issue with their massive wealth but capitalism shows that progressive tax rate is the most fair system for the society and that's something you just FAIL to comprehend.

"What might be better is to see how much they contribute as part of their philanthropy. Look at Bill Gate's contribution. I'd rather see them use their own money as they see fit on how it's spent than to let the govt have it and blow it on pork or some nonsense program. Let's see, the govt is now at a $13 trillion dollar debt. Yeah, they sure do know how to spend money correctly."

Let's see... by the time Clinton left office with 40% tax rate, we're left with surplus. By time Bush left with all the tax cuts, we're left with trillions in the hole. I guess you're right. In fact, if it was not for Bush tax cuts, we would NOT be in such a deep debt.

I am so sorry it hurts you so much that you'd have to give away $400,000,000 and still have $600,000,000 left to spend.
 
what if the billionaire had a puppy dog that needed to have life saving surgery that cost $900,000,000?

You evil liberals would kill the puppy over money ....
you would rather get your hands in his pockets than save the puppy.









:giggle:
 
Not every millionaire/billionaire is born with a silver spoon in their mouths!....And so what if it's inherited? It's their money, their choice on how to spend it, save it and distribute it.
 
netrox said:
I am sure that giving 40% of a billion ($400,000,000) to government is gonna ruin your life. It's just $600,000,000 is just not enough for you.

You don't "work for it." They become extremely rich because they're geniuses and love doing it. Their traits and intelligence and skills make them who they are. And also note that a lot of them got from inheritances. Hardly "work."

I have no issue with their massive wealth but capitalism shows that progressive tax rate is the most fair system for the society and that's something you just FAIL to comprehend.

"What might be better is to see how much they contribute as part of their philanthropy. Look at Bill Gate's contribution. I'd rather see them use their own money as they see fit on how it's spent than to let the govt have it and blow it on pork or some nonsense program. Let's see, the govt is now at a $13 trillion dollar debt. Yeah, they sure do know how to spend money correctly."

Let's see... by the time Clinton left office with 40% tax rate, we're left with surplus. By time Bush left with all the tax cuts, we're left with trillions in the hole. I guess you're right. In fact, if it was not for Bush tax cuts, we would NOT be in such a deep debt.

I am so sorry it hurts you so much that you'd have to give away $400,000,000 and still have $600,000,000 left to spend.
Click to expand...

Hmm...and yet Obama's deficit spending of $2.7 trillion dollars in two years (projected) outpaces Bush's deficit spending ~$2.3 trillion dollars during his 8 years in office. Obama is spending money more than 4 times faster. If you want to talk about deep in debt better start looking at Obama for a change....and worry, too.

When Bush's tax cut became effective it helped reduced the deficit from $450 billion in 2004 to $175 billion in 2007 and all while were we at war in Iraq, too. And then in 2008 the economy began to sour because of the whole Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac mess which created a sort of dominos effect on the whole economy. 2009 year saw a jump in deficit spending of about $475 billion dollars.
 
Man, for a guy who seem to have serious personal issue about the rich, I wonder what's going on.
 
Don't you remember Clinton had taxed wealthy people by adding 10% national sales tax on luxury stuff. Guess what happened? It last only 6 months, alot people got lay off because rich people said, huh me pay more tax? Ok I got 50 people work for me, so Im laying them off, so long sucker. That is what rich people did back then.

Once a person has enough money they got leverage, can't beat that.

Same goes to Famous wealthy guy named Golisano, he owns Paychex and used to live in New York, New York decided to slap more tax bill on him, guess what he did? He moved down to Florida! Who gets the last laugh?
 
The luxury tax debacle. The luxury taxes simply caused people to buy less jewelry and fewer expensive cars, planes and especially yachts. Jobs were lost where some 25,000 of them were from the boat-building industry. This job loss actually cost the government money rather a way to generate tax revenues. It was one of those "D'oh!" moment.
 
kokonut said:
Man, for a guy who seem to have serious personal issue about the rich, I wonder what's going on.
Click to expand...

You are mistaken to think that I have issues with the rich.

and I mean big time!
 
Raising taxes against the rich isn't the answer. The top 25% of income earners pay 86% of all federal income taxes. The top 1% pay almost 40% of all federal income taxes.

In 1980, when the top income tax rate was 70%, the richest 1% only paid 19% of all income taxes; now, with the top rate of 35%, they pay more than double that share.
Click to expand...
Taxes and Income - WSJ.com

Not gonna work in helping with the debt. It's a spending problem, not about not getting enough taxation revenues. Everybody should already know that.
 
We all know that rich is getting richer and poor, poorer. It shouldn't be surprising.

Poor people can work hard all their life (even harder than rich people) and still be poor. It depends on a lot of factors.


And that link you gave out, kokonut isn't it in an "opinion" article?

I like this better since it seems to be more of gray area.

FAQ on Bush tax cuts: What you need to know - Sep. 15, 2010

But writer got it, no one knows. We can't predict future especially where it will go with tax cut or getting rid of it.

Interesting how they said that rich probably like to save money instead of spend it. I can see myself doing it too if I was very rich.


But yeah, spending should be controlled. I would rather have government spend money on education for children and to ensure that none of teachers are underpaid and overworked instead of create a pointless war (such as invasion of Iraq) to spend billions on.
 
kokonut said:
Raising taxes against the rich isn't the answer. The top 25% of income earners pay 86% of all federal income taxes. The top 1% pay almost 40% of all federal income taxes.


Taxes and Income - WSJ.com

Not gonna work in helping with the debt. It's a spending problem, not about not getting enough taxation revenues. Everybody should already know that.
Click to expand...

same ole' conundrum... yes yes yes the top dogs pay that much for tax... which is nothing comparable to the amount their corporations earn from federal contracts - oil, defense contractors, airlines, etc.
 
netrox said:
I am sure that giving 40% of a billion ($400,000,000) to government is gonna ruin your life. It's just $600,000,000 is just not enough for you.

You don't "work for it." They become extremely rich because they're geniuses and love doing it. Their traits and intelligence and skills make them who they are. And also note that a lot of them got from inheritances. Hardly "work."

I have no issue with their massive wealth but capitalism shows that progressive tax rate is the most fair system for the society and that's something you just FAIL to comprehend.

"What might be better is to see how much they contribute as part of their philanthropy. Look at Bill Gate's contribution. I'd rather see them use their own money as they see fit on how it's spent than to let the govt have it and blow it on pork or some nonsense program. Let's see, the govt is now at a $13 trillion dollar debt. Yeah, they sure do know how to spend money correctly."

Let's see... by the time Clinton left office with 40% tax rate, we're left with surplus. By time Bush left with all the tax cuts, we're left with trillions in the hole. I guess you're right. In fact, if it was not for Bush tax cuts, we would NOT be in such a deep debt.

I am so sorry it hurts you so much that you'd have to give away $400,000,000 and still have $600,000,000 left to spend.
Click to expand...

just what are you Netrox????? DUMB?????
you need to read the real life story of Bill Gates!!!
he suffered and worked, worked and worked for his first $1.oo!!!!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top