Page 3 of 24 FirstFirst 1234513 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 346
  1. #31
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Vincible
    Posts
    1,089
    Thanks (Given)
    0
    Thanks (Received)
    0
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    1
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    0
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dmp View Post
    Your data sucks because:

    You dont place $700,000 in ANY appreciable context.
    Okay, here's the context (again):

    Consider an adult individual in the US, optionally with a spouse and a kid or two. Suppose this individual has an income, from some unspecified source, of $700K per year. Suppose further this individual is allowed to spend this income only on personal and family expenses.

    Now, supposing that this individual spends this money "reasonably," by which I mean it's not used to purchase, for example, 30 tons of peaches (which the family could not possibly eat before they spoil).

    That context should make the yearly income of $700K more than enough for just about anybody, correct?


    You haven't demonstrated what 'most popular' means, and to what extent owning a Ford brand vehicle has to do with anything.

    You haven't provided any data - actually...you claim 'sources'. (shrug).
    Why are you still talking about the car statistics after I withdrew that point?

    It's false moral ground - where you're standing. You're assuming what "right" looks like for people you don't know.
    Are you saying that everybody is entitled to whatever arbitrary system of morality that they think is "right?" Scary idea...
    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

  2. #32
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    18,759
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    0
    Mentioned
    139 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    21475240

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Palin Rider View Post
    Okay, here's the context (again):

    Consider an adult individual in the US, optionally with a spouse and a kid or two. Suppose this individual has an income, from some unspecified source, of $700K per year. Suppose further this individual is allowed to spend this income only on personal and family expenses.

    Now, supposing that this individual spends this money "reasonably," by which I mean it's not used to purchase, for example, 30 tons of peaches (which the family could not possibly eat before they spoil).

    That context should make the yearly income of $700K more than enough for just about anybody, correct?
    No. It's not enough because 'just about anybody' is a very simple way of categorizing people. In your mamby-pamby land, sure...but in the real world, where houses cost MILLIONS, in some of our larger cities, $700,000 may NOT be enough. That figure may not account for savings, investments, education, etc.

    Are you saying that everybody is entitled to whatever arbitrary system of morality that they think is "right?" Scary idea...
    Sure. People are FREE to make whatever value or assessment of morality they choose. If you think that's scary you might be a fascist.
    “… 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.

  3. #33
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Vincible
    Posts
    1,089
    Thanks (Given)
    0
    Thanks (Received)
    0
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    1
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    0
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dmp View Post
    No. It's not enough because 'just about anybody' is a very simple way of categorizing people. In your mamby-pamby land, sure...but in the real world, where houses cost MILLIONS, in some of our larger cities, $700,000 may NOT be enough. That figure may not account for savings, investments, education, etc.
    Yes, houses cost millions even (and especially) where I live, which is exactly why people carry mortgages. And take out student loans for their kids' educations. Savings and investments, of course, are not expenses by definition.

    But I'll continue to humor you: if $700K/year isn't enough, as you claim, how much do you believe IS enough?


    Sure. People are FREE to make whatever value or assessment of morality they choose. If you think that's scary you might be a fascist.
    I strongly doubt you actually believe the above. According to you, it's a perfectly valid assessment of morality to decide that, for example, anyone with Thai heritage should be killed.
    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

  4. #34
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    18,759
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    0
    Mentioned
    139 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    21475240

    Default

    There is no set-value-judgment on what is 'enough' money. To think so is anti-freedom...which is what I am NOT about.

    I absolutely believe that. If somebody makes the value-judgment all non-muslims should die, they are welcome to that belief. If they threaten me or harm me or my family, they'd learn my value-judgment of THEIR actions.

    FREEDOM....man...FREEDOM.
    “… 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.

  5. #35
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Vincible
    Posts
    1,089
    Thanks (Given)
    0
    Thanks (Received)
    0
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    1
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    0
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dmp View Post
    There is no set-value-judgment on what is 'enough' money. To think so is anti-freedom...which is what I am NOT about.

    I absolutely believe that. If somebody makes the value-judgment all non-muslims should die, they are welcome to that belief. If they threaten me or harm me or my family, they'd learn my value-judgment of THEIR actions.

    FREEDOM....man...FREEDOM.
    The type of freedom you're talking about applies to hermits on islands. We, OTOH, live in a society. By agreeing to remain there, we surrender at least a tiny bit of that freedom.
    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

  6. #36
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    5,799
    Thanks (Given)
    34
    Thanks (Received)
    59
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    2
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    0
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    835974

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Palin Rider View Post
    The type of freedom you're talking about applies to hermits on islands. We, OTOH, live in a society. By agreeing to remain there, we surrender at least a tiny bit of that freedom.
    Why draw the line at 700,000...why not draw it at 70,000 and confiscate every cent over that line for everyone in the US? Then we can send all that cash to DC and let fucktards like Pelosi and Reid figure out how best to spend it. In your case, let's make it everything over 7,000, because I think that's all you need to spend.

  7. #37
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Vincible
    Posts
    1,089
    Thanks (Given)
    0
    Thanks (Received)
    0
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    1
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    0
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Missileman View Post
    Why draw the line at 700,000...why not draw it at 70,000 and confiscate every cent over that line for everyone in the US? Then we can send all that cash to DC and let fucktards like Pelosi and Reid figure out how best to spend it. In your case, let's make it everything over 7,000, because I think that's all you need to spend.
    You're probably aware that there are disadvantages to a 100% tax bracket. So am I, and of course I don't advocate one.

    As for my own finances, I know I could figure out how to get by on 7K somehow, but I'd honestly rather not.
    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

  8. #38
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    over here
    Posts
    13,760
    Thanks (Given)
    5669
    Thanks (Received)
    6731
    Likes (Given)
    5711
    Likes (Received)
    4154
    Piss Off (Given)
    36
    Piss Off (Received)
    2
    Mentioned
    88 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    17558182

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Palin Rider View Post
    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?


    So does everyone else who buys and sells products.


    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.

    Now just pour yourself a nice glass of your wine, sit back, relax, and let the real people discuss the issues.

    Wow....must have put a bug up your nose didn't I.....you can stow the patronizing attitude and grow up a little and perhaps we'll let you sit at the kitchen table and discuss the issues with the rest of us adults....but I don't drink wine so you'll have to settle for water or tea.

    PS....I don't think you are a traitor, just inexperienced.

    Quote Originally Posted by Missileman View Post
    Why draw the line at 700,000...why not draw it at 70,000 and confiscate every cent over that line for everyone in the US? Then we can send all that cash to DC and let fucktards like Pelosi and Reid figure out how best to spend it. In your case, let's make it everything over 7,000, because I think that's all you need to spend.
    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.

  9. #39
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Vincible
    Posts
    1,089
    Thanks (Given)
    0
    Thanks (Received)
    0
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    1
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    0
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mrskurtsprincess View Post
    Wow....must have put a bug up your nose didn't I.....you can stow the patronizing attitude and grow up a little and perhaps we'll let you sit at the kitchen table and discuss the issues with the rest of us adults....but I don't drink wine so you'll have to settle for water or tea.
    You claim that you're a real person, accuse me of not being one, and then expect me not to object?

    Why, how dare I? Who does this uppity PR think he is?

    Quote Originally Posted by EgoPrincess
    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!
    PS....I don't think you are a traitor, just inexperienced.
    Care to tell me what you think I'm inexperienced with? Without specifics, it's hard to say whether you're correct.
    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

  10. #40
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    over here
    Posts
    13,760
    Thanks (Given)
    5669
    Thanks (Received)
    6731
    Likes (Given)
    5711
    Likes (Received)
    4154
    Piss Off (Given)
    36
    Piss Off (Received)
    2
    Mentioned
    88 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    17558182

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Palin Rider View Post
    You claim that you're a real person, accuse me of not being one, and then expect me not to object?

    Why, how dare I? Who does this uppity PR think he is?




    Care to tell me what you think I'm inexperienced with? Without specifics, it's hard to say whether you're correct.
    PR - I've never said anything about being a "real" person....how is that relevant to the discussion?

    Oh....and that's real cutesy .... changing my name to "EgoPrincess".....and you want me to point out where you are inexperienced? Try staying on point without resorting to juvenile innuendos like changing someone's screen name and then I might think you are mature enough to have some life experience.
    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.

  11. #41
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Where I want
    Posts
    15
    Thanks (Given)
    0
    Thanks (Received)
    0
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    0
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    0
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    1071

    Default

    UOTE=Palin Rider;440330]When people invented currency, it was to create something that everyone agreed would have a standard value (eliminating the frustration of a barter system). A dollar is supposed to be worth the same to me as it’s worth to Noir or to Warren Buffet.
    I don't think everyone agreed to a "standard" value. Value is intrinsic and cannot be agreed upon by 'everyone'. A dollar is worth the same to you or Warran Buffet. That is a fact.

    That’s how the system is supposed to work. Unfortunately, there are some things it fails to take into account. The most significant thing is: the worth of a dollar depends on the number of dollars you already have. Let’s consider a few examples.
    Not true. When you take you dollar and purchase an item, the value of your dollar is the same value as Warren's dollar.

    Suppose you’re broke and homeless (through no fault of your own; let’s ignore the politics for the moment), and you haven’t eaten in a few days. A stranger walking by gives you ten bucks. That ten bucks is going to be extremely valuable to you. It will help you survive one more day and give you enough energy to try to improve your situation.
    that has nothing to do with 'value'. You might appreciate that dollar more, but the dollar's inherent value is unchanged.


    People have understood this psychological effect for well over a century now, and as a result, governments began instituting progressive tax systems to account for it. As long as these systems know where the “point of diminishing returns” is for the value of money, they make perfect sense.
    Again, not true. Progressive tax has nothing to do with the value of money. It has everything to do with who controls the money. Most governments have determined that it is unwise for a small percentage of a nation to control 99% of the nation's wealth. Progressive tax seeks to redistribute that wealth and give the 'control' back to the goverment, instead of a few rich people. The ultimate goal is to give power to more people, however, it has also given governments great powers.

    Let’s look at the modern U.S. as an example. Can anyone in this country spend more than $700,000 per year without intentionally wasting money? Almost certainly not. It takes a tremendous amount of time, effort, and planning to spend $700,000. If your portfolio rakes in an additional $5 million, how valuable to you is it, really?
    This is nonsense. And again, goes back to your misunderstanding of value vs. appreciation. Most 10 year old's are happy with a few bucks for their weekly allowance, say even those orange county snobby 10 year old's who get a hundred bucks a week. That would make any 10 year old very happy. Why? Because their needs and desires are less.

    $700K a year is nothing and is not a waste. You are putting your value on the worth of the dollar. That $700K probably employs many people who are not complaining they have a job.

    This scenario shows us something else about the world’s wealthiest people that most of the rest of the world has no clue about. The truly wealthy don’t pursue money. To them, money is nothing beyond a way of keeping score when they want to compete with one another. They certainly don’t use it to shop. In fact, most of them aren’t very interested in acquiring more things to own. They prefer to find more things (and people) to control, instead. This viewpoint actually makes a great deal of sense, by the way. When you own things, someone else can destroy them, steal them, or use them against you. On the other hand, when you control things, you get all the benefits with far fewer headaches.
    Stupid. Seriously stupid. Do you get an allowance from your mommy?

    So when we talk about cutting taxes for households making $100,000 or $200,000, I’m fine with that. It’s when people start talking about cutting taxes for those making $1,000,000 a year that I start objecting. There’s no need for it: as I’ve just shown you, this money is rarely put back into the economy. The richest Americans will still be able to play the same games, just with lower scores.
    You haven't shown anything. The wealthy do in fact put money back into the economy. By purchasing and employing. Think about some rich person who buys a yacht. How many people are employed to build that yacht?

    Answer me this:

    What would the government do with the same money that the rich person spent to have that yacht built?

  12. #42
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Vincible
    Posts
    1,089
    Thanks (Given)
    0
    Thanks (Received)
    0
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    1
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    0
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mrskurtsprincess View Post
    PR - I've never said anything about being a "real" person....how is that relevant to the discussion?
    I showed you your quote. Don't try to deny it.

    Try staying on point without resorting to juvenile innuendos like changing someone's screen name and then I might think you are mature enough to have some life experience.
    Sure, as long as you agree that people who either (a) aren't as successful, or (b) don't agree with your world view are nontheless REAL.

    Quote Originally Posted by Partisan View Post
    I don't think everyone agreed to a "standard" value. Value is intrinsic and cannot be agreed upon by 'everyone'. A dollar is worth the same to you or Warran Buffet. That is a fact.
    Are you aware that the third sentence is a direct contradiction of the previous two?

    that has nothing to do with 'value'. You might appreciate that dollar more, but the dollar's inherent value is unchanged.
    Then you need to explain how you're defining "inherent value."

    Again, not true. Progressive tax has nothing to do with the value of money. It has everything to do with who controls the money. Most governments have determined that it is unwise for a small percentage of a nation to control 99% of the nation's wealth. Progressive tax seeks to redistribute that wealth and give the 'control' back to the goverment, instead of a few rich people. The ultimate goal is to give power to more people, however, it has also given governments great powers.
    So are you for or against a system of progressive taxation?


    Stupid. Seriously stupid. Do you get an allowance from your mommy?
    Are you a troll? I don't deal with trolls.

    You haven't shown anything. The wealthy do in fact put money back into the economy. By purchasing and employing.
    I never claimed otherwise.

    What would the government do with the same money that the rich person spent to have that yacht built?
    Meaningless question. The "same money" never gets tracked as it goes through the treasury - it's all lumped together.

    I'll give you a pass for now, but learn some manners before we talk more.
    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

  13. #43
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    over here
    Posts
    13,760
    Thanks (Given)
    5669
    Thanks (Received)
    6731
    Likes (Given)
    5711
    Likes (Received)
    4154
    Piss Off (Given)
    36
    Piss Off (Received)
    2
    Mentioned
    88 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    17558182

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Palin Rider View Post
    I showed you your quote. Don't try to deny it.


    Sure, as long as you agree that people who either (a) aren't as successful, or (b) don't agree with your world view are nontheless REAL.
    I stand corrected .... I did say that if you couldn't figure out how to spend the money to step back and let "real" people show you how. I apologize if I offended you by implying you were not a real person. {{{{{{hugs PR}}}}}}

    Must have been the fleeting feeling of power that I felt when I thought about how I could spend that $700K!!!
    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.

  14. #44
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Vincible
    Posts
    1,089
    Thanks (Given)
    0
    Thanks (Received)
    0
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    1
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    0
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mrskurtsprincess View Post
    I stand corrected .... I did say that if you couldn't figure out how to spend the money to step back and let "real" people show you how. I apologize if I offended you by implying you were not a real person. {{{{{{hugs PR}}}}}}

    Must have been the fleeting feeling of power that I felt when I thought about how I could spend that $700K!!!
    Apology accepted.
    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

  15. #45
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    over here
    Posts
    13,760
    Thanks (Given)
    5669
    Thanks (Received)
    6731
    Likes (Given)
    5711
    Likes (Received)
    4154
    Piss Off (Given)
    36
    Piss Off (Received)
    2
    Mentioned
    88 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    17558182

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Palin Rider View Post
    Apology accepted.
    OK....now back to the main story ... I still disagree with placing the majority of the tax burden on the wealthy....just because they are wealthy.
    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.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Debate Policy - Political Forums