Pay your fair share, or else.

robert l. bentham said:
i like that, but it's me, and i'm by no ones definition "that guy"...:D
Click to expand...
I don't have much money but I am "rich".

I've a great family and a good life. That's what really matters. The fact remains that while most of life's pleasures are free (like going to a beautiful park), I can't just buy stuff whenever i want.

millionaires aren't really rich, they just lots of other people's money
 
robert l. bentham said:
i like that, but it's me, and i'm by no ones definition "that guy"...:D
Click to expand...

i own my own home, in fact we (pops and i) have some rental properties too so i dont worry about rent
i dont care about things for me much or at all...... i worry about my kids a bunch tho...:D so i don't worry about the cost of things cause i dont really want anything anymore... like you say, it's about family in the end... and ur friends... and colleagues that you respect... and beyond the memory of us, what else is there? all ur wisdom, cash, prestige, position... u leave that all behind...
 
Fade said:
You've told us numerous times that the super rich are the ruling class. You have also told us that millionaires are not the real super rich. So how does Romney's 200 million worth, make it into your super rich and ruling class category?
Click to expand...
200 million is as much wealth as 200 millionaires. There are two orders of magnitude between Romney and mere millionaire. Mitt Romney is as many times more wealthy than someone of a million dollars net worth as is someone of a million dollars net worth over someone of $5000 net worth. That's just simple arithmetic. Do you still remember arithmetic?
 
Yes I do, and I also remember your definition of the super rich, which you seem to have forgotten.
 
*** WE INTERRUPT THIS BROADCAST FOR AN IMPORTANT WARNING ***
Local election with "national implications" reclassified as having "no implications what's so ever".




*** WE NOW RETURN YOU TO YOUR REGULAR BROADCAST *** .

:jerry:
 
Fade said:
Yes I do, and I also remember your definition of the super rich, which you seem to have forgotten.
Click to expand...

what? no hidden link... thats not really a reminder... its ur remembrance of things... i wanna see it.... scott walker is a douchebag.... highlight the stuff about how walker voters support obama....
 
Fade said:
Yes I do, and I also remember your definition of the super rich, which you seem to have forgotten.
Click to expand...

So I did a search under my name for the word "rich" and clicked the oldest link. I got this. Seems at that time I had the rich at 0.01% or there abouts saying that " the majority of people, by far, (and I'm just talking about North America here) earn only between 5000 to a couple of million a year." - so I was talking about incomes there but the same sort of distribution applies to wealth. Unfortunately most resources break things down into fairly broad ranges which hide the structure near the top end.

If you want to get a feel for the top echelon check out Forbes billionaires list. Look, there's the dark lord Soros (lagging somewhat behind those two beacons of righteousness, the Koch brothers). Filtering for the US there are 424 billionaires. That's roughly 1 in a million Americans are billionaires (0.0001%). Millionaires are very much more common (but measured differently but it still gives you a feel for the numbers) at a mere 5 and a bit millions households, or about 5% of households. If, for the sake of comparison, we say that the wealth is actually controlled by the head of the household then 1.67% of Americans are millionaires.

Beyond these two fairly easily discovered wealth values data gets harder t find but if going up 3 orders of magnitude of wealth can rarify the proportion by 4 orders then up two orders to rarify by 2 is still pretty ballpark. Now, excuse me if that guestimation is somewhat inexact, it's not as easy as I'd like to find real numbers but its not too far a stretch to say that someone worth $200 million is in the top 0.01%, which would, according to what I said above, put him in the company of the rich and not the merely well off.

You think I've given a bunch of inconsistent definitions so perhaps you could do me the honour of looking those up for me and make your case properly - or you could hold your accusations until you have something to back them up.
 
FluffyMcDeath said:
Who's money do you think the conservatives are spending? Those guys are the ones who want to increase military spending while decreasing their contribution to that spending. How that maths work out? Oh, other people's money will fill the gap. You put up the money to help some rich guys capture an oil field and how do they thank you? They charge you more for the oil you already paid for.
Click to expand...

You are confusing conservatives with GOPers. Not all GOPers are conservatives while some GOPers are Progressives.
 
faethor said:
It appears you're a millionaire if you're paying 11% tax rate.
http://www.nationalmemo.com/david-cay-johnston-the-fortunate-400/
Click to expand...

Most millionaires do not get pay checks totaling $1M. Typically most millionaires have it structured to earn the money on Capital Gains taxes and not Federal Income Taxes (and associated payroll taxes). Just like how Warren Buffet does it, he earns about $100K in pay checks while his secretary earns mover then $200K in pay checks, which do you think is going to pay more in federal income taxes, the one making $100K or $200K?

We could eliminate all this horse crap if we went to a fair tax. But that would allow people to make money while taxing those who earn money in the black market, can't have that I suppose.
 
Dammy said:
Most millionaires do not get pay checks totaling $1M. Typically most millionaires have it structured to earn the money on Capital Gains taxes and not Federal Income Taxes (and associated payroll taxes). Just like how Warren Buffet does it, he earns about $100K in pay checks while his secretary earns mover then $200K in pay checks, which do you think is going to pay more in federal income taxes, the one making $100K or $200K?

We could eliminate all this horse crap if we went to a fair tax. But that would allow people to make money while taxing those who earn money in the black market, can't have that I suppose.
Click to expand...
Exactly right in so far as our economy is weighing money unequally. Someone that does physical labor and earns $200K will pay more in taxes for their hard work than someone that earns $200K in interest on their large sum of money, who does no real work. It's unfair. Income should be income. No matter the method if you gain $200K more in labor or interest the taxes should be the same. (Actually I'd argue the interest earner should pay more because he's not really creating wealth where the laboror is.)

Now this is a bit related to but different than a 'fair tax'. We could still have a graduated tax rates and wipe out the differences in method of earning money for different tax calculations.
 
Dammy said:
You are confusing conservatives with GOPers. Not all GOPers are conservatives while some GOPers are Progressives.
Click to expand...
So you're saying that actual conservatives DON'T want to spend tax income on the military - it's Progressives who want that.
 
Dammy said:
You are confusing conservatives with GOPers. Not all GOPers are conservatives while some GOPers are Progressives.
Click to expand...
For example Ronald Reagan raised taxes and tripled the deficit. - A clear indication of Progressive spending went amoke by the GOP. Strangely people call him one of the best conservatives ever.

Whereas we have Obama who didn't raise taxes but kept the tax cut into place and brought out more tax cuts. He is spending more than Reagan but comparatively not as fast as the deficit isn't tripling under Obama. - Strangely he's called a Progressive.

.... The more I talk to Republicans the more I find terms such as Progressive / Socialist / Communist and Fascist are used for degradating the opposition and appear to adhere to no consistent definitions.
 
faethor said:
.... The more I talk to Republicans the more I find terms such as Progressive / Socialist / Communist and Fascist are used for degradating the opposition and appear to adhere to no consistent definitions.
Click to expand...
...and if you ask them what they mean by that they'll give you a link to stock online definition they've clearly never read.
 
I said:
Yes I do, and I also remember your definition of the super rich, which you seem to have forgotten.
-------------------------

And McDeath countered with:
"You think I've given a bunch of inconsistent definitions so perhaps you could do me the honour of looking those up for me and make your case properly - or you could hold your accusations until you have something to back them up."
-------------------------

I swear Fluffy, sometimes you make it too easy. Fade never forgets.

http://www.whyzzat.com/threads/ltstanfos-big-blunder.786/#post-11341
Quote McDeath: "You might think that having a million dollars is rich but that's just upper middle class. The rich have assets a hundred thousand times as much"

http://www.whyzzat.com/threads/the-stupidity-of-fines.13648/#post-41856
Quote McDeath: "And Mitt isn't even super rich."
 
Fade said:
I said:
Yes I do, and I also remember your definition of the super rich, which you seem to have forgotten.
Click to expand...
Super rich != rich

http://www.whyzzat.com/threads/ltstanfos-big-blunder.786/#post-11341
Quote McDeath: "You might think that having a million dollars is rich but that's just upper middle class. The rich have assets a hundred thousand times as much"
Click to expand...
Well, thanks for looking. The first sentence is consistent with current position. The second one looks like it could have used an or between hundred and thousand but I didn't put one so go ahead and enjoy that one.
http://www.whyzzat.com/threads/the-stupidity-of-fines.13648/#post-41856
Quote McDeath: "And Mitt isn't even super rich."
Click to expand...
Well, he isn't, is he. but he is rich.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top