It does make you wonder where homeless people(of course through no fault of their own) would plug in their Chevy Volts. Oh well, bureaucrats cannot be bothered with such details when redistributing.
It does make you wonder where homeless people(of course through no fault of their own) would plug in their Chevy Volts. Oh well, bureaucrats cannot be bothered with such details when redistributing.
The concept of diminishing marginal utility is a bit above the heads of most of this board's membership, I suspect.
The history of human thought recalls the swinging of a pendulum which takes centuries to swing. After a long period of slumber comes a moment of awakening. -Peter Kropotkin
All conservatives are such from personal defects. They have been effeminated by position or nature, born halt and blind, through luxury of their parents, and can only, like invalids, act on the defensive.
-Ralph Waldo Emerson
In the end, the argument is moot, because you're basing their ability solely based on numerical funds. To tax one person more than another is discriminatory, and were it to be reversed, then there would be open revolt, but the rich are a minority, so the larger mass of people see no problem with it.
There are only two reasons to tax the rich excessively. One is because they can get away with it, because people lack sympathy for the rich,and two, because the government wastes more than 700k a day, and doesn't want to have to actually be responsible with their money.
Taxing the rich is also ultimately only hurting the poor. The rich, having lots more money, generally tend to own, or having controlling interests in businesses, thus allowing them to set the price of goods and services. This means that any tax hike against them is useless, because they will simply figure the extra tax into the costs of goods and services, meaning that we pay the tax, not them.
"Government screws up everything. If government says black, you can bet it's white. If government says sit still for your safety, you'd better run for your life!"
--Wayne Allyn Root
www.rootforamerica.com
www.FairTax.org
The problem is that they have emotion-based dogmatic moral views that conflict with economic rationality. While it's clear enough that the actual costs imposed on different economic classes can only be made equivalent by different prices, they believe that the wealthy earned their spot through hard work and saving (despite the empirical research to the contrary), and that their productivity is punished instead of rewarded through progressive taxation, though it be consistent with diminishing marginal utility.
The history of human thought recalls the swinging of a pendulum which takes centuries to swing. After a long period of slumber comes a moment of awakening. -Peter Kropotkin
You obviously don't understand the argument. Let me sum it up once more: the same amount of money is less valuable to a rich person than to a poor one. This makes higher taxation on the rich a reasonable supposition.
You've crafted an argument so vague, with terms like "excessive" and "waste" that ultimately it makes no point at all. What you call "waste," someone else will call "critical spending."There are only two reasons to tax the rich excessively. One is because they can get away with it, because people lack sympathy for the rich,and two, because the government wastes more than 700k a day, and doesn't want to have to actually be responsible with their money.
I'm sure that even you know this argument is beyond silly. Raise the costs of goods and services beyond what the traffic will allow, and NO ONE will buy them.Taxing the rich is also ultimately only hurting the poor. The rich, having lots more money, generally tend to own, or having controlling interests in businesses, thus allowing them to set the price of goods and services. This means that any tax hike against them is useless, because they will simply figure the extra tax into the costs of goods and services, meaning that we pay the tax, not them.
Same as above: what do you call "wasteful?"Originally Posted by Solar
Not to mention the ridiculous amount of money owed to China. The poor and middle class can't pay for that: they're broke already. So if the money doesn't come from the rich, where else is it going to come from, hm?
All conservatives are such from personal defects. They have been effeminated by position or nature, born halt and blind, through luxury of their parents, and can only, like invalids, act on the defensive.
-Ralph Waldo Emerson
The history of human thought recalls the swinging of a pendulum which takes centuries to swing. After a long period of slumber comes a moment of awakening. -Peter Kropotkin
If the freedom of speech is taken away
then dumb and silent we may be led,
like sheep to the slaughter.
George Washington (1732-1799) First President of the USA.
Regardless of how the money is to be spent, it can be spent without wasting any of it. You just want people to think being wealthy is a horrible thing and it's not, really. Wealthy people keep others gainfully employed, buy and use products (that they pay taxes on), keeping people gainfully employed.
I could puchase the home that is for sale next door, refurbish it and put it up for sale .... spent my money wisely and am now getting a profit on it. Not a bad move at all.
How about you give the $700k back and I'll made it grow in a short period of time with very little effort becuase you want to complain about how hard it will be to spend it all....so, back away and let real people show you how it's done!
If the freedom of speech is taken away
then dumb and silent we may be led,
like sheep to the slaughter.
George Washington (1732-1799) First President of the USA.
I'm not spinning anything - your claims and your cited stats blow. It's your mess - clean it up with real data.
because your arbitrary number is YOUR issue.So, if you think my figure is unreasonable, why don't you suggest another one?
Does it count OTHER cars owned? So - if I have two ford, and 15 other cars of different makes, the ford is my "Most Popular"? I own a Ford, a Subaru, and a Mazda. My ford is my least favourite; least used. But if polled - assuming I was 'well-off' - I'd answer I own a Ford. What if I was rich and had a $150,000 Fort GT. World-class car. Doesn't add ANYTHING to your argument. You'd take that data and use it for some non-related use...such as your implied claim "more rich folk own/prefer Fords than any other brand". Just doesn't pass Common Sense tests...Common sense. You might be able to pick some up on Ebay.Usually when any statistical study uses the term "most popular," they're talking about the best selling or the largest number owned, yes.
Your data sucks big ol' donkey wang.
“… the greatest detractor from high performance is fear: fear that you are not prepared, fear that you are in over your head, fear that you are not worthy, and ultimately, fear of failure. If you can eliminate that fear—not through arrogance or just wishing difficulties away, but through hard work and preparation—you will put yourself in an incredibly powerful position to take on the challenges you face" - Pete Carroll.
Sure, just not on 1-4 people's personal stuff, and not without lots of planning and effort.
Where's the paranoia coming from, sweetie? Do you consider me a "traitor to my class" like they did with FDR?You just want people to think being wealthy is a horrible thing and it's not, really.
So does everyone else who buys and sells products.Wealthy people keep others gainfully employed, buy and use products (that they pay taxes on), keeping people gainfully employed.
You're just proving my point, hon. You can jack up tax rates in the highest brackets and we'll STILL figure out how to make plenty more.How about you give the $700k back and I'll made it grow in a short period of time with very little effort becuase you want to complain about how hard it will be to spend it all....so, back away and let real people show you how it's done!
Now just pour yourself a nice glass of your wine, sit back, relax, and let the real people discuss the issues.
And you're the one complaining about it without showing what the problems are OR supplying any other data.
Forget it. You lose that one.
Tell you what. Feel free to forget I said anything about cars: they have practically nothing to do with the argument, anyway.Does it count OTHER cars owned? So - if I have two ford, and 15 other cars of different makes, the ford is my "Most Popular"? I own a Ford, a Subaru, and a Mazda. My ford is my least favourite; least used. But if polled - assuming I was 'well-off' - I'd answer I own a Ford. What if I was rich and had a $150,000 Fort GT. World-class car. Doesn't add ANYTHING to your argument. You'd take that data and use it for some non-related use...such as your implied claim "more rich folk own/prefer Fords than any other brand". Just doesn't pass Common Sense tests...Common sense. You might be able to pick some up on Ebay.
Your data sucks big ol' donkey wang.
Happy now?
All conservatives are such from personal defects. They have been effeminated by position or nature, born halt and blind, through luxury of their parents, and can only, like invalids, act on the defensive.
-Ralph Waldo Emerson
You going to pull an Obama and refuse to admit your data sucks; therefore your entire position is invalid?
“… the greatest detractor from high performance is fear: fear that you are not prepared, fear that you are in over your head, fear that you are not worthy, and ultimately, fear of failure. If you can eliminate that fear—not through arrogance or just wishing difficulties away, but through hard work and preparation—you will put yourself in an incredibly powerful position to take on the challenges you face" - Pete Carroll.
All conservatives are such from personal defects. They have been effeminated by position or nature, born halt and blind, through luxury of their parents, and can only, like invalids, act on the defensive.
-Ralph Waldo Emerson
Your data sucks because:
You dont place $700,000 in ANY appreciable context. You haven't demonstrated what 'most popular' means, and to what extent owning a Ford brand vehicle has to do with anything. This study says Porsche is the most popular, albeit 3 years ago: http://www.motorauthority.com/blog/1...th-the-wealthy. This points towards a rise in exotic car purchases (assuming those who buy those cars are "rich") http://www.denverpost.com/business/ci_16001131
You haven't provided any data - actually...you claim 'sources'. (shrug).
It's false moral ground - where you're standing. You're assuming what "right" looks like for people you don't know.
“… the greatest detractor from high performance is fear: fear that you are not prepared, fear that you are in over your head, fear that you are not worthy, and ultimately, fear of failure. If you can eliminate that fear—not through arrogance or just wishing difficulties away, but through hard work and preparation—you will put yourself in an incredibly powerful position to take on the challenges you face" - Pete Carroll.