President Obama is now quoting Jesus to justify taxing the rich

[Bob Riebe]

At the same time the Obama floats this pathetic dogma, some of the talking heads have checked to see how much the Democrats, that cry so loudly certain people should give more to the under privileged, have given to charity compared to the rich they say give so little

"Obama only gave 1% of his income to charity last year.
FOX Nation reported:

Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama and his wife Michelle gave $10,772 of the $1.2 million they earned from 2000 through 2004 to charities, or less than 1 percent, according to tax returns for those years released today by his campaign.

The Obamas increased the amount they gave to charity when their income rose in 2005 and 2006 after the Illinois senator published a bestselling book. The $137,622 they gave over those two years amounted to more than 5 percent of their $2.6 million income.

Romney charitable contributions---
Tax year Taxable income Charitable donations Donations as % of income
2010 $21.7 million $2.98 million 13.73%
2011 (est) $20.9 million $4 million 19.14% "


Of course they are cheap hypocrites as that is their money not taxpayer's money, which they spend freely.

[ArrowsFA1]

Gordon B. Hinckley, prior President of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, said: “Our major source of revenue is the ancient law of the tithe. Our people are expected to pay 10 percent of their income to move forward the work of the Church.
Tithing - Why are Mormons asked to donate 10% of their income to their Church? | Mormon.org (http://mormon.org/faq/church-tithing/)

[Bob Riebe]

Tithing - Why are Mormons asked to donate 10% of their income to their Church? | Mormon.org (http://mormon.org/faq/church-tithing/)That applies to Christian churches and members also.
It is voluntary, there are no tithe police.

[ArrowsFA1]

That applies to Christian churches and members also.
Really? Are members of other churches "expected" to pay 10 percent of their income to their church?

While "expected" doesn't mean compulsory it does suggest more than voluntary.

[Eki]

At the same time the Obama floats this pathetic dogma, some of the talking heads have checked to see how much the Democrats, that cry so loudly certain people should give more to the under privileged, have given to charity compared to the rich they say give so little

"Obama only gave 1% of his income to charity last year.
FOX Nation reported:

Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama and his wife Michelle gave $10,772 of the $1.2 million they earned from 2000 through 2004 to charities, or less than 1 percent, according to tax returns for those years released today by his campaign.

The Obamas increased the amount they gave to charity when their income rose in 2005 and 2006 after the Illinois senator published a bestselling book. The $137,622 they gave over those two years amounted to more than 5 percent of their $2.6 million income.

Romney charitable contributions---
Tax year Taxable income Charitable donations Donations as % of income
2010 $21.7 million $2.98 million 13.73%
2011 (est) $20.9 million $4 million 19.14% "


Of course they are cheap hypocrites as that is their money not taxpayer's money, which they spend freely.
Charity and taxes are two different things. Charity is what you choose to give somebody you want to give, taxes are what you are required by the law to give to the whole society.

BTW, with that kind of income, Romney would in Finland have to pay at least from 50% to 60% taxes.

Only if Romney would volunteer to pay 50% of his income to government funds, I'd be impressed.

[ShiftingGears]

BTW, with that kind of income, Romney would in Finland have to pay at least from 50% to 60% taxes.


Are you proud of that?

[Eki]

Are you proud of that?
I don't know if I'm proud, but certainly I'm not ashamed either.

If somebody with 20 million euro income pays 50% taxes, he still has 10 million left. That's plenty for one person. If someone with 10000 euros pays 13% taxes, he only gets to keep 8700 euros.

I'd be glad paying 50 to 60% taxes, if it came with matching income.

[ShiftingGears]

I don't know if I'm proud, but certainly I'm not ashamed either.

If somebody with 20 million euro income pays 50% taxes, he still has 10 million left. That's plenty for one person. If someone with 10000 euros pays 13% taxes, he only gets to keep 8700 euros.

I know where you are coming from but I think people are just as entitled to their own money no matter what their income.

[Jag_Warrior]

Upon learning that Romney's effective tax rate was lower than mine (and yet he earned substantially more), this all falls on deaf ears.

[Eki]

I know where you are coming from but I think people are just as entitled to their own money no matter what their income.
It's debatable if it always is morally their "own money" or money achieved by legalized robbery. For example, Goldman Sachs gave their CEO $7.2 million bonus after their worst year since 2008. At the same time they had laid off more than 1000 employees:

Goldman's Blankfein Receives $7.2 Million Stock Award For 2011 -Filing | Fox Business (http://www.foxbusiness.com/news/2012/02/03/goldmans-blankfein-receives-72-million-stock-award-for-2011-filing/)

[ioan]

Really? Are members of other churches "expected" to pay 10 percent of their income to their church?

While "expected" doesn't mean compulsory it does suggest more than voluntary.

In Germany and Austria these taxes are enforced by law! Not 10%, only 3% or so but still disgusting, IMO.

[ShiftingGears]

It's debatable if it always is morally their "own money" or money achieved by legalized robbery. For example, Goldman Sachs gave their CEO $7.2 million bonus after their worst year since 2008. At the same time they had laid off more than 1000 employees:

Goldman's Blankfein Receives $7.2 Million Stock Award For 2011 -Filing | Fox Business (http://www.foxbusiness.com/news/2012/02/03/goldmans-blankfein-receives-72-million-stock-award-for-2011-filing/)

A company can do what's in its own best interests, you don't have to give them your money. Therefore it isn't robbery, and they are entitled to it, whether you like it or not.

[Eki]

A company can do what's in its own best interests, you don't have to give them your money. Therefore it isn't robbery, and they are entitled to it, whether you like it or not.
But is it really in the best interests of the company or just some fat cats scratching each others back?

[ShiftingGears]

But is it really in the best interests of the company or just some fat cats scratching each others back?

If I'm not mistaken the shareholders vote for that. So if it isn't in their best interests, they lose money. Which is their loss.

[Eki]

If I'm not mistaken the shareholders vote for that. So if it isn't in their best interests, they lose money. Which is their loss.
If I'm not mistaken,it's not like one man one vote but rather like one share one vote. So it's possible for the big shareholders to push through decisions that are profitable for them, but not for all shareholders, especially for the small shareholders. For example, if one man owns 51% of the shares and 1 million people own 49%, it's in theory possible for that one to decide he gets all the money and the 1 million others get nothing.

[ShiftingGears]

If I'm not mistaken,it's not like one man one vote but rather like one share one vote. So it's possible for the big shareholders to push through decisions that are profitable for them, but not for all shareholders, especially for the small shareholders. For example, if one man owns 51% of the shares and 1 million people own 49%, it's in theory possible for that one to decide he gets all the money and the 1 million others get nothing.

If they don't like it, they can sell their shares and the company will suffer. This is off-topic and you deviated from my original point because you had nothing to refute it with.

[Rollo]

[quote="Bob Riebe"]At the same time the Obama floats this pathetic dogma, some of the talking heads have checked to see how much the Democrats, that cry so loudly certain people should give more to the under privileged, have given to charity compared to the rich they say give so little/QUOTE]

Just A few questions:
How much did you declare in income last year?
How much did you give to charity last year?

Do not judge, or you too will be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.
- Matthew 7:1-2

Since you are so obviously keen to cast judgement with such zeal, do you measure up to even your own yardstick?

[Rollo]

If they don't like it, they can sell their shares and the company will suffer. This is off-topic and you deviated from my original point because you had nothing to refute it with.

I note that you live in Australia (or at least have an Australian flag as an avatar). Presumably your employer follows the law and puts away 9% in superannuation for you. Also presumably, that money is placed into a largish superannuation fund (unless you have an SMSF).
If this is the case, then your superannuation is the pot of money used to buy shares with and because you don't directly own them, you don't have a single vote at the AGMs despite the fact that that's where your money is vicariously invested. So in your case it's one man, no votes, which is even worse than what Eki suggested.

[Bob Riebe]

At the same time the Obama floats this pathetic dogma, some of the talking heads have checked to see how much the Democrats, that cry so loudly certain people should give more to the under privileged, have given to charity compared to the rich they say give so little/QUOTE]

Just A few questions:
How much did you declare in income last year?
How much did you give to charity last year?

Do not judge, or you too will be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.
- Matthew 7:1-2

Since you are so obviously keen to cast judgement with such zeal, do you measure up to even your own yardstick?
I am not trying to take force money from others Obama is. Yes I gave at least ten percent to charity. Mostly the Salvation Army

So if your government comes along and decides to crap on you by taking from you what it thinks you should not have, for its reasons alone, you just say "Please sir, crap on me again. I am not worthy>"
Damn, the U.S. Democrats love people like you.

[Rollo]

So if your government comes along and decides to crap on you by taking from you what it thinks you should not have, for its reasons alone, you just say "Please sir, crap on me again. I am not worthy>"Damn, the U.S. Democrats love people like you.

You choose to live in the country. You are bound to follow the rules of that country, that includes the taxation law of that country. There's parallel passages in Matthew 22 and Mark 12 to further illustrate the point.

This however is a broad overview:
Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves.
- Romans 13:1-2

[Bob Riebe]

You choose to live in the country. You are bound to follow the rules of that country, that includes the taxation law of that country. There's parallel passages in Matthew 22 and Mark 12 to further illustrate the point.

This however is a broad overview:
Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves.
- Romans 13:1-2
He is addressing the Jews in the Roman Empire, not the U.S. in the twenty first Century.
They had no vote, we do.

If you are going to go down that road, then the way Washington has ignored the U.S. Constitution makes actions taken to stop actions contrary to the Constitution legal.
I.e. the U.S. and the Constitution is an act of God. Any means to defend it is legal in the eyes of God.

Obama's using Jesus words is asinine in taking the words out of context to float his personal dogma.
He also uses Buffet's bogus remarks about his secretary as an excuse to tax the rich but ignore the fact that Buffet uses every tax loophole in existence to keep his taxes low.
The Democrats are a pack of hypocrite hyenas yipping at the moon.

[Rollo]

He is addressing the Jews in the Roman Empire, not the U.S. in the twenty first Century.
They had no vote, we do.

If you are going to go down that road, then the way Washington has ignored the U.S. Constitution makes actions taken to stop actions contrary to the Constitution legal.
I.e. the U.S. and the Constitution is an act of God. Any means to defend it is legal in the eyes of God.

Obama's using Jesus words is asinine in taking the words out of context to float his personal dogma.
He also uses Buffet's bogus remarks about his secretary as an excuse to tax the rich but ignore the fact that Buffet uses every tax loophole in existence to keep his taxes low.
The Democrats are a pack of hypocrite hyenas yipping at the moon.

If Christ was only addressing the Jews in the Roman Empire, not the U.S. in the twenty first Century, then you're complaining about it is complete worthless. The logical conclusion based on what you've just said is that scripture has an expiry date.
In which case, you holding Obama to a standard which you yourself don't believe in is worthless. The again given your open rebellion against the law in the past and bragging about the fact, it does rather bring into question what authority you have when discussing any matter of scripture at all.

You who boast in the law, do you dishonor God by breaking the law? As it is written: “God’s name is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of you.”
- Romans 2:23-24

Certainly if you hold yourself out to be a witness to the things you profess, then it's a very very poor witness.

[Bob Riebe]

If Christ was only addressing the Jews in the Roman Empire, not the U.S. in the twenty first Century, then you're complaining about it is complete worthless. The logical conclusion based on what you've just said is that scripture has an expiry date.
In which case, you holding Obama to a standard which you yourself don't believe in is worthless. The again given your open rebellion against the law in the past and bragging about the fact, it does rather bring into question what authority you have when discussing any matter of scripture at all.

You who boast in the law, do you dishonor God by breaking the law? As it is written: “God’s name is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of you.”
- Romans 2:23-24

Certainly if you hold yourself out to be a witness to the things you profess, then it's a very very poor witness.
Jesus was a Jew and was held on earth to the standards of Jewish law and Roman law period.
Jesus was sent for the Jews, Paul was the official God appointed apostle to the gentiles.
Jesus said he was not sent to change the law but to fulfil it.
So what is your point?

Don't try to sell me your version of supposed Christian dogma here, I heard enough of that crap on Christian forums, where they try to make the Bible fit their personal god.

I am holding Obama to the standard of being a cheap Chicago politics lying hypocrite and he is filling it well.

[Eki]

If you are going to go down that road, then the way Washington has ignored the U.S. Constitution makes actions taken to stop actions contrary to the Constitution legal.
I.e. the U.S. and the Constitution is an act of God. Any means to defend it is legal in the eyes of God.


The writers of the Constitution were addressing the Americans in the 18th century, not in the 21st Century. The times and the audience have changed.

[DexDexter]

Are you proud of that?

I'm very proud. And our society works, tripple A-rating, one of the strongest economies in the Eurozone, infant mortality among the lowest in the world. People who make a lot of money should pay a lot of taxes, that is beneficial to most people in this and your country.

[Rudy Tamasz]

I'm very proud. And our society works, tripple A-rating, one of the strongest economies in the Eurozone, infant mortality among the lowest in the world. People who make a lot of money should pay a lot of taxes, that is beneficial to most people in this and your country.

That's something to be proud of, indeed. Yet Europe and America live by different philosophies. Europe is a land of welfare, American is a land of opportunity. Americans are used to taking risks, keeping whatever they have gained and absorbing the consequences if they have failed. No one can force them change their ways, not their own small group of hypocrite limo liberals, nor us Europeans, who would be much better off minding our own business.

[BDunnell]

That's something to be proud of, indeed. Yet Europe and America live by different philosophies. Europe is a land of welfare, American is a land of opportunity. Americans are used to taking risks, keeping whatever they have gained and absorbing the consequences if they have failed. No one can force them change their ways, not their own small group of hypocrite limo liberals, nor us Europeans, who would be much better off minding our own business.

In much the same way as the US would, on occasion, have been better off minding its own business.

[monadvspec]

At the same time the Obama floats this pathetic dogma, some of the talking heads have checked to see how much the Democrats, that cry so loudly certain people should give more to the under privileged, have given to charity compared to the rich they say give so little

"Obama only gave 1% of his income to charity last year.
FOX Nation reported:

Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama and his wife Michelle gave $10,772 of the $1.2 million they earned from 2000 through 2004 to charities, or less than 1 percent, according to tax returns for those years released today by his campaign.

The Obamas increased the amount they gave to charity when their income rose in 2005 and 2006 after the Illinois senator published a bestselling book. The $137,622 they gave over those two years amounted to more than 5 percent of their $2.6 million income.

Romney charitable contributions---
Tax year Taxable income Charitable donations Donations as % of income
2010 $21.7 million $2.98 million 13.73%
2011 (est) $20.9 million $4 million 19.14% "


Of course they are cheap hypocrites as that is their money not taxpayer's money, which they spend freely.

It is wonderful to see the compassionate conservative in full unadulterated display (sic).

[F1boat]

The merging of religion and politics always made me cringe. Still, Barack is nowhere near the madness of some GOP politicians like Rick Perry for example.

[Bob Riebe]

The writers of the Constitution were addressing the Americans in the 18th century, not in the 21st Century. The times and the audience have changed.

That remark is moronic at face value but then that must be why socialist governments change constitutions as often as possible. If it does not fit their personal dogma, screw the people and force them to live the way the dictatorial socialists want.
I imagine then that socialist governments write official governing documents on toilet paper, as they flush it down the toilet when ever they please.

BRILLIANT!

I guess that is why the writers of our Constitution gave people rights that are supposed to be forever, although liberal Rinos and Democrats are trying hard to find a way to get around that.

[Eki]

That remark is moronic at face value but then that must be why socialist governments change constitutions as often as possible. If it does not fit their personal dogma, screw the people and force them to live the way the dictatorial socialists want.
I imagine then that socialist governments write official governing documents on toilet paper, as they flush it down the toilet when ever they please.

BRILLIANT!

I guess that is why the writers of our Constitution gave people rights that are supposed to be forever, although liberal Rinos and Democrats are trying hard to find a way to get around that.

Which "dictatorial socialists" do you mean? Or could it be that you once again don't know what you're talking about?

[Bob Riebe]

Which "dictatorial socialists" do you mean? Or could it be that you once again don't know what you're talking about?
Any and all, if you want specifics, pick your favorite but there is one in Venezuela right now that you would probably smooze well with.

[Eki]

Any and all, if you want specifics, pick your favorite but there is one in Venezuela right now that you would probably smooze well with.
As far as I know, Venezuela is not a dictatorship. Chavez and his government were democratically elected fair and square.

[Bob Riebe]

As far as I know, Venezuela is not a dictatorship. Chavez and his government were democratically elected fair and square.LOL- most socialist stink hole "legally" elect their new socialist dictators. Once they are in to hell with the Constitution and the peoples will.

This nut job reminds me of you.
Recounting the experiences and achievements of the Bolivarian Revolution over the last eight years, including the Constituent Assembly and referendum of 1999, which founded the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, the opposition military coup on April 11th, 2002 and its “victorious defeat” on April 13th and the oil industry lockout which nearly crippled the Venezuelan economy in early 2003, Chavez confessed, “I am emotional today, because I believe this proposal will open doors to a new era.
The 1999 constitution was “ambiguous” he said “a product of that moment. The world is very different today than 1999.” The new constitutional reforms are “essential for continuing the process of revolutionary transition,” he assured.

History of Constitutional Reform

It has been said that before Chávez became president it was not all that clear which way he intended to take the country. He seemed to be promising different things, depending on his audience. However, on one issue he was clear from the beginning, and that was his intention to write a new constitution for Venezuela. Following the 1989 Caracas riots, the “Caracazo,” in which anywhere between 300 and over 1,000 people died, Chávez’ military movement, the MBR-200 (Movimiento Bolivariano Revolucionario), began a discussion of how it should go about completely reforming Venezuelan society. By the time his movement was ready to launch the 1992 coup, it had decided to focus on the convocation of a constitutional assembly.

[F1boat]

Chavez is not yet a dictator, but has built a left-wing authoritarian regime. So has Victor Orban in Hungary, but he is a right-wing politician. Also, the argument about changes in the Constitution is an absurd. Why then some people want to change it (about the matter of what marriage constitutes, for example) or have changed it (to allow women to vote, for example)?

[Eki]

LOL- most socialist stink hole "legally" elect their new socialist dictators.
Name one.

[donKey jote]

he means the US and Obama :laugh:

[monadvspec]

A poll by Farleigh Dickinson University in New Jersey showed that of all the news channels out there, Fox News viewers are the least informed.

In one major example, New Jersey poll participants were questioned about the outcome of the so-called Arab Spring uprisings in North Africa earlier in the year. A total of 53% of respondents
know that Egyptians were successful in overthrowing dictator Hosni Mubarak. Also, 48% know that the Syrian uprising has thus far been unsuccessful in ousting Assad. But on balance, Fox News viewers were 18-points less likely to know that Egyptians overthrew their government than those who were not TV news viewers. Fox News viewers were also 6-points less likely to know that Syrians have not yet overthrown their government than those who watch no news, suggesting a daily dose of sound bytes from CNN at the gym, and headlines from Google (http://www.forbes.com/companies/google/) News were enough to surpass what average Fox viewers polled knew about current events. This is where Bob Riebe becomes so mis-informed.

With Bob Riebe and his venomous dislike for anything remotely close to helping his fellow man and his pulpit pontification like those in London on their soap boxes screaming bloody hell as and not a soul listening.
This man , Riebe will argue just for the sake of arguing. Truth be told I wonder why he dislike President Obama so much? (rhetorical question). Is there any post or thread initiated by Bob Riebe that decried the Bush bailout of AIG? Is his dislike reserved for the liberal democrats?

[Bob Riebe]

he means the US and Obama :laugh: No, but it seems you do.http://foolstown.com/sm/ura1.gif

[Bob Riebe]

Chavez is not yet a dictator, but has built a left-wing authoritarian regime. So has Victor Orban in Hungary, but he is a right-wing politician. Also, the argument about changes in the Constitution is an absurd. Why then some people want to change it (about the matter of what marriage constitutes, for example) or have changed it (to allow women to vote, for example)?
Old chubby Chavez seems to want to have his cake and eat it too.

Chavez (http://venezuelanalysis.com/analysis/6743)

[Bob Riebe]

Name one.I did and don't try to say he is not a dictator but authoritarian.
When Chavez is voted out of office, I will say I was wrong.

[Bob Riebe]

A poll by Farleigh Dickinson University A pol. My, my, my.
That is where they choose what questions to ask, who to ask, and how to ask them.

I bet one could go to a liberal college, while asking questions about the 2nd Amendment and court cases about it and by your scheme prove they are complete idiots about matters involving basic U.S. rights.

Try again bunky, I actually believe someone floated that particular poll boat once before and it sank that time also.
I am sure when you hero Ed Shulz come on you jump up and shout "Yeh, my man!"http://foolstown.com/sm/bud.gif

[monadvspec]

A pol. My, my, my.
That is where they choose what questions to ask, who to ask, and how to ask them.

I bet one could go to a liberal college, while asking questions about the 2nd Amendment and court cases about it and by your scheme prove they are complete idiots about matters involving basic U.S. rights.

Try again bunky, I actually believe someone floated that particular poll boat once before and it sank that time also.
I am sure when you hero Ed Shulz come on you jump up and shout "Yeh, my man!"http://foolstown.com/sm/bud.gif

My name is not Ed Schultz whomever that gentleman is. You are aware of Farleigh Dickinson University? No , don't respond. You'll have to Google it.

You have in every post I have ever seen tried to retort to a poster or respond to fact given to him by just saying like my child "no".

[monadvspec]

The writers of the Constitution were addressing the Americans in the 18th century, not in the 21st Century. The times and the audience have changed.

I wonder at what level of narcissism Riebe has fallen to. Nietziche once said that it became extremely frightening when starig into the Abyss that eventually you realize that the Abyss is staring back at you. Upper case for emphasis. I wonder where Bob is with the Abysss since I have read his comment regarding this post of yours and he once again dismisses it without one iota of evidence to back up his dismissal.

[BDunnell]

A pol. My, my, my.
That is where they choose what questions to ask, who to ask, and how to ask them.

Here is the question I choose to ask, Bob. Why can't you spell 'poll' correctly? Just four tiny little letters!

[Bob Riebe]

Here is the question I choose to ask, Bob. Why can't you spell 'poll' correctly? Just four tiny little letters!Fat fingers.
You forgot I did not hit the r your.

[Bob Riebe]

I wonder at what level of narcissism Riebe has fallen to. Nietziche once said that it became extremely frightening when starig into the Abyss that eventually you realize that the Abyss is staring back at you. Upper case for emphasis. I wonder where Bob is with the Abysss since I have read his comment regarding this post of yours and he once again dismisses it without one iota of evidence to back up his dismissal.I normally do not worry about typos, but to save space so Herr Dunnell does not have to do it-- Nietzsche-staring- and there is only on s in abyss plus you do not capitalize it.
Otherwise, troll-on Mona..

[BDunnell]

You forgot I did not hit the r your.

Pardon?

Anyway, polling may be an imperfect science, but cannot simply be dismissed out of hand.

[Bob Riebe]

I normally do not worry about typos, but to save space so Herr Dunnell does not have to do it-- Nietzsche-staring- and there is only on s in abyss plus you do not capitalize it.
Otherwise, troll-on Mona..Come on guys there are two esses in abyss.
Some one is not paying attention.

[Eki]

I did and don't try to say he is not a dictator but authoritarian.
When Chavez is voted out of office, I will say I was wrong.
George W Bush was not voted out of office. Was he a dictator or an authoritarian?

[Bob Riebe]

George W Bush was not voted out of office. Was he a dictator or an authoritarian?You , probably, do not realize how stupid that sounds.

[F1boat]

Old chubby Chavez seems to want to have his cake and eat it too.

Chavez (http://venezuelanalysis.com/analysis/6743)

He is very ill and desperate. I don't think that he will worry you for too much longer, although, as a human being, I wish him good health. But you really should check about Hungary, Bob. Orban is right-wing nationalist and is very scary. The EU is the only thing which is stopping him from becoming an all-powerful dictator.

[Eki]

You , probably, do not realize how stupid that sounds.
If people want to keep a popular president longer than 8 years, they aren't allowed to do so. Do you think that's democratic?

[monadvspec]

I normally do not worry about typos, but to save space so Herr Dunnell does not have to do it-- Nietzsche-staring- and there is only on s in abyss plus you do not capitalize it.
Otherwise, troll-on Mona..
So you now criticize the fact that I accidentally typed a third 's' in abyss. You also missed on the significance of capitalizing the word.It was meant for emphasis but once again I am left with sad conclusion that you pick words from posts and ignore what is written. Do you even understand what was so scary when Nietzsche made the remark. Or, do you understand Nietzsche or know who the man was.
I do not point out simple errors and in fact I must type in your *******ization of the English language which you must admit is idiotic since there are now two different spellings for so many words to accommodate the 50 states.
You keep using Troll(emphasis). I do not know what that is. Oh, and by the way, just for your information and others that bash me about liking or disliking the US I suggest that A/ you see I am conversing on a single part of your social identity, conservatism and your beliefs. B/ I see more hatred by Americans directed at people with a liberal point of view. Do you hate your fellow Americans?
Bob Riebe, for once, address the posts to you, not just me. Stop your silly games and address my posts as I'm sure there is more to them to address other than having three s' in abyss.

I almost forgot, your response to the comment by the great philosopher was actually an error on your part. I did err. I have a dodgy keypad and the 'n' did not type. Then you go along and type it correctly and leave everyone else at a loss.

Riebe, I see through you. You want people banned. I see your 3,065 posts and wonder when I get a message from many that have been banned by using *** to cover up letters so as not often anyone. Then a person that starts a thread on the Koran is banned and I see your spewing hatred regarding some other people's beliefs and your happiness at urinating on the dead bodies of fighters whether you believe in their cause or not.
Seems that the majority of people here flying the symbol of the US are of the conservative variety and ban those with whom they disagree.

[Gregor-y]

He is very ill and desperate. I don't think that he will worry you for too much longer, although, as a human being, I wish him good health. But you really should check about Hungary, Bob. Orban is right-wing nationalist and is very scary. The EU is the only thing which is stopping him from becoming an all-powerful dictator.
Oh dear, he's not planning to Mygarize Croatia again, is he? I don't know if I could stand having any more of my extended family moving over here.

[monadvspec]

Oh dear, he's not planning to Mygarize Croatia again, is he? I don't know if I could stand having any more of my extended family moving over here.

Gregory, I am only asking this and not being critical. What influence would Hungary have on Croatia?

[Bob Riebe]

If people want to keep a popular president longer than 8 years, they aren't allowed to do so. Do you think that's democratic?Not when the president continiually changes the Constitutuin to make it happen.

[ArrowsFA1]

Anyway, polling may be an imperfect science, but cannot simply be dismissed out of hand.
It is, after all, what democracies are based on.

[Bob Riebe]

He is very ill and desperate. I don't think that he will worry you for too much longer, although, as a human being, I wish him good health. But you really should check about Hungary, Bob. Orban is right-wing nationalist and is very scary. The EU is the only thing which is stopping him from becoming an all-powerful dictator.

There is nothing "right-wing" about Hungaries government, so do not try to use that excuse for what ever he does. They created their own socialist misery.

the 1990 election was won by the centre-right Hungarian Democratic Forum (MDF), which advocated a gradual transition towards capitalism. The liberal Alliance of Free Democrats (SZDSZ), which had called for much faster change, came second and the Socialist Party trailed far behind. As Gorbachev looked on, Hungary changed political systems with scarcely a murmur and the last Soviet troops left Hungary in June 1991. In coalition with two smaller parties, the MDF provided Hungary with sound government during its hard transition to a full market economy.This made life difficult for many Hungarians, and in the May 1994 elections the Hungarian Socialist Party led by former Communists won an absolute majority in parliament.

Whereas in Venezuela one of the first things Chavez did was take more power from the people by going from a bicameral system to a unicameral system and giving the military powers over the lives of people it did not have before he was elected.and that was just his start.
Actually I hope he dies quickly and if it is in misery, just rewards.

The difference is Hungary always has been a socialist system of one form or another; whereas Venezuela was not.

[Bob Riebe]

So you now criticize the fact that I accidentally typed a third 's' in abyss. You also missed on the significance of capitalizing the word.It was meant for emphasis but once again I am left with sad conclusion that you pick words from posts and ignore what is written. Do you even understand what was so scary when Nietzsche made the remark. Or, do you understand Nietzsche or know who the man was.
I do not point out simple errors and in fact I must type in your *******ization of the English language which you must admit is idiotic since there are now two different spellings for so many words to accommodate the 50 states. ---Now WHERE {tbat is the common way emphsis is done) did you get such a bizarre idea? Mr. Dunnell will find it interesting to now know that there is not only British English and standard U.S. English but all sorts of regional spelling. MAYBE you are thnking of Ebonics?

You keep using Troll(emphasis). I do not know what that is. Well, then that item would join many other items you do not know.]/b\

Oh, and by the way, just for your information and others that bash me about liking or disliking the US I suggest that A/ you see I am conversing on a single part of your social identity, conservatism and your beliefs. B/ I see more hatred by Americans directed at people with a liberal point of view. Do you hate your fellow Americans?
Bob Riebe, for once, address the posts to you, not just me. Stop your silly games and address my posts as I'm sure there is more to them to address other than having three s' in abyss.

I almost forgot, your response to the comment by the great philosopher was actually an error on your part. I did err. I have a dodgy keypad and the 'n' did not type. Then you go along and type it correctly and leave everyone else at a loss.

Riebe, I see through you. You want people banned. [b]Hot damn Myrtle, I do this as a entertaining time killer. Why would I get one of my most entertaining items banned?

I see your 3,065 posts and wonder when I get a message from many that have been banned by using *** to cover up letters so as not often anyone. Then a person that starts a thread on the Koran is banned and I see your spewing hatred regarding some other people's beliefs and your happiness at urinating on the dead bodies of fighters whether you believe in their cause or not.
Seems that the majority of people here flying the symbol of the US are of the conservative variety and ban those with whom they disagree.
OK Mister or Madame or Cousin It Monadvspec:
My days of middle of the road, can't we all just get along, wishful thinking died decades ago.
At one point in life I subscribed to Mother Jones and Conservative Digest magazines simultaneously.
I found out that the Mother Jones people wrote like a bunch of old maids with their panties in a bunch, while the Conservative Digest people, between political views that at least tried to fix a problem rather than condemn others, continually asked for money so they could keep their easy chair in Washington occupied.
Bob
PS- the only reason I corrected your typos was I was returning the favor plus Herr Dunnell inspired me.
I was not impressed by either.
So what ever you think I am, do or might be go for Mona! Boogity, boogity, boogity.

PPS-I sometimes wonder if you are not just a moderator with a fake name doing this when the board gets dull.

[Eki]

There is nothing "right-wing" about Hungaries government, so do not try to use that excuse for what ever he does. They created their own socialist misery.

the 1990 election was won by the centre-right Hungarian Democratic Forum (MDF), which advocated a gradual transition towards capitalism. The liberal Alliance of Free Democrats (SZDSZ), which had called for much faster change, came second and the Socialist Party trailed far behind. As Gorbachev looked on, Hungary changed political systems with scarcely a murmur and the last Soviet troops left Hungary in June 1991. In coalition with two smaller parties, the MDF provided Hungary with sound government during its hard transition to a full market economy.This made life difficult for many Hungarians, and in the May 1994 elections the Hungarian Socialist Party led by former Communists won an absolute majority in parliament.

Whereas in Venezuela one of the first things Chavez did was take more power from the people by going from a bicameral system to a unicameral system and giving the military powers over the lives of people it did not have before he was elected.and that was just his start.
Actually I hope he dies quickly and if it is in misery, just rewards.

The difference is Hungary always has been a socialist system of one form or another; whereas Venezuela was not.
Your clock is 18 years behind. This is not 1994, this is 2012. The Prime Minister of Hungary has since 2010 been Viktor Orbán:

Viktor Orbán - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viktor_Orb%C3%A1n)


Viktor Orbán (Orbán Viktor, Hungarian pronunciation: [orbaːn viktor]; born 31 May 1963) is a Hungarian conservative politician and current Prime Minister of Hungary. He was also Prime Minister from 1998 to 2002 and is currently the leader of Fidesz, which in alliance with the Christian Democratic People's Party in the 2010 elections won 52.73% of the votes and a two thirds majority (supermajority) of seats in the parliament of Hungary.

Fidesz - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fidesz_%E2%80%93_Hungarian_Civic_Union)


The Fidesz – Hungarian Civic Union (Hungarian pronunciation: [ˈfidɛs]; in full, Hungarian: Fidesz – Magyar Polgári Szövetség) is a major conservative party in Hungary. At the 2010 election in Hungary, Fidesz-KDNP[12] won a two-thirds majority of seats by gaining 52% of the votes, with Fidesz winning 227 seats and KDNP winning 36. Fidesz is a member of the European People's Party (EPP).

[F1boat]

What Eki said. Orban is definitely a hard conservative. Possibly the only European politician from the right with idiocy with matches the stupidity of the GOP...

[Gregor-y]

What influence would Hungary have on Croatia?
Quite a bit 120 years ago when one of my great grandparents emigrated to avoid serving in the army. It wasn't too serious as I don't think anyone's been trying to restore the lands of the crown of St. Stephen since 1940 or so.

[Garry Walker]

I don't know if I'm proud, but certainly I'm not ashamed either.

If somebody with 20 million euro income pays 50% taxes, he still has 10 million left. That's plenty for one person. If someone with 10000 euros pays 13% taxes, he only gets to keep 8700 euros.

I'd be glad paying 50 to 60% taxes, if it came with matching income.
Then I ask, why is this person earning 10000 euros so stupid and lazy that he has not gotten himself a better paying job?


If I'm not mistaken,it's not like one man one vote but rather like one share one vote. So it's possible for the big shareholders to push through decisions that are profitable for them, but not for all shareholders, especially for the small shareholders. For example, if one man owns 51% of the shares and 1 million people own 49%, it's in theory possible for that one to decide he gets all the money and the 1 million others get nothing.
Great knowledge, good one. That is exactly how it works LOL.


I'm very proud. And our society works, tripple A-rating, one of the strongest economies in the Eurozone, infant mortality among the lowest in the world. People who make a lot of money should pay a lot of taxes, that is beneficial to most people in this and your country.
People who make a lot of money pay a lot of taxes anyway. Why should they pay a higher % of tax just because they were smart enough and ready to work enough to reach somewhere in life. Why should they pay for other people's lazyness and incompetence?


As far as I know, Venezuela is not a dictatorship. Chavez and his government were democratically elected fair and square.
Actually, so was the government in USSR.


He is very ill and desperate. I don't think that he will worry you for too much longer, although, as a human being, I wish him good health. But you really should check about Hungary, Bob. Orban is right-wing nationalist and is very scary. The EU is the only thing which is stopping him from becoming an all-powerful dictator. Better a right wing nationalist than a liberal.

[Eki]

Then I ask, why is this person earning 10000 euros so stupid and lazy that he has not gotten himself a better paying job?
Maybe the person is a full time student. Or disabled.

[Eki]

Actually, so was the government in USSR.

Haven't you ever heard the Russian revolution?

Russian Revolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Revolution)

That gave birth to the USSR and there was just one party allowed. Not very democratic. Even less democratic than the two party system in the US.

[Garry Walker]

Haven't you ever heard the Russian revolution?

Russian Revolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Revolution)

That gave birth to the USSR and there was just one party allowed. Not very democratic. Even less democratic than the two party system in the US. My point was that there were elections in USSR too. That there are elections means nothing.

But thanks for your concern, I really needed a lecture in history by someone as obviously intelligent, well-educated and successful as yourself LOL.


Maybe the person is a full time student. Or disabled.

Well, students have the chance to actually reach somewhere after they graduate. So a little less drinking and they can manage fine.
Disabled? A lot of disabilities will not stop you from starting your own business, they will present obstacles, but through hard work you can overcome many of those. I don't see a reason why being disabled will stop you from being successful.

[Bob Riebe]

Your clock is 18 years behind. This is not 1994, this is 2012. The Prime Minister of Hungary has since 2010 been Viktor Orbán:

]
You are trying to tell me Hungary is no longer a socialist country?
That is all I said.

I do not believe you, prove it.

[Rollo]

People who make a lot of money pay a lot of taxes anyway. Why should they pay a higher % of tax just because they were smart enough and ready to work enough to reach somewhere in life. Why should they pay for other people's lazyness and incompetence?


Because they derive a higher benefit from the operation of the economy and have a higher insurable interest in the economy.

User pays.

[BDunnell]

But thanks for your concern, I really needed a lecture in history by someone as obviously intelligent, well-educated and successful as yourself LOL.

Using the phrase 'LOL' hardly marks one out as intelligent and well-educated either, I must say. You won't find it in many academic works.



I don't see a reason why being disabled will stop you from being successful.

A disability might leave one completely incapacitated. Not all disabled people are lazy benefit scroungers, you know.

[BDunnell]

People who make a lot of money pay a lot of taxes anyway. Why should they pay a higher % of tax just because they were smart enough and ready to work enough to reach somewhere in life. Why should they pay for other people's lazyness and incompetence?

One cannot pick and choose. There are lots of streets I never use, for example. By your argument, why should I pay anything towards lighting said streets if it's of no benefit to me? Were you to live in a country in which I also reside, I might resent any penny from my tax revenue going towards anything that benefits you, yet you won't find me going on about it.

[Garry Walker]

Using the phrase 'LOL' hardly marks one out as intelligent and well-educated either, I must say. You won't find it in many academic works.
Don't worry your head, I have written enough academic works, but I was not aware that we are supposed to follow academic standards here. Better start reporting every post that has a link to wikipedia then.


A disability might leave one completely incapacitated. Not all disabled people are lazy benefit scroungers, you know.
Where have I stated that everyone disabled is a lazy benefit scrounger? Find me a quote or admit that your post was not up to the academic standards you so anally desire.


One cannot pick and choose. There are lots of streets I never use, for example. By your argument, why should I pay anything towards lighting said streets if it's of no benefit to me?Really, your "logic" makes no sense whatsoever, really, you make no sense at all. Absolute nonsense. Pick and choose? I am saying the just thing is for everyone to pay the same % of tax. Rich will obviously pay a much higher tax then and that is just. It is unjust to tax someone a higher % just because he has gotten somewhere in his/her life.

Improve your posting standard or I am afraid we will have to say that your posts are not up to the academic standards.


Were you to live in a country in which I also reside, I might resent any penny from my tax revenue going towards anything that benefits you, yet you won't find me going on about it. Classic dunnell, trying to insult others.


Because they derive a higher benefit from the operation of the economy and have a higher insurable interest in the economy.

User pays.

They derive a higher benefit, but they pay considerably more anyway. Why should they be robbed of a higher % of their income than low-paid losers?

[anthonyvop]

Your clock is 18 years behind. This is not 1994, this is 2012. The Prime Minister of Hungary has since 2010 been Viktor Orbán:

Viktor Orbán - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viktor_Orb%C3%A1n)


Well if Wikipedia says he is a Conservative then it must be true.

Lets use the source for the laziest people on the internet to investigate that claim.

Some actual entries:


Among its first measures the new government abolished university tuition fees and reintroduced universal maternity benefits

.....creating a super-ministry for the economy

.....passed a new media bill, setting up a new media council.

....nationalization of the country's compulsory private pension

....will not cut the preferential pensions of women, miners, chemists and artists

....In January 2007 The Economist criticised his "cynical populism and mystifyingly authoritarian socialist-style policies"




Yea....Right....He is a Conservative. At least for those who live in the land of Rainbows and Unicorns of the ultra left and wikipedia

[anthonyvop]

One cannot pick and choose. There are lots of streets I never use, for example. By your argument, why should I pay anything towards lighting said streets if it's of no benefit to me? Were you to live in a country in which I also reside, I might resent any penny from my tax revenue going towards anything that benefits you, yet you won't find me going on about it.

Then why should people who choose not to pay into the system benefit from it at all?

It doesn't matter what excuse you can come up with. The FACT is that the progressive Tax is based totally on jealousy.

[Brown, Jon Brow]

The FACT is that the progressive Tax is based totally on jealousy.

Then if that is true, one can say that flat tax is based on greed.

The fact is that money has more value if you have less of it. Taxing a low earner is taking away money they need to survive, to eat and to provide housing for themselves. A high earner paying a little bit more tax is having money taken away from them that they would spend on luxuries that they don't need, but still leaves them better off than a low earner.

In the capitalist system not everyone can be a high earner.

[N4D13]

Then why should people who choose not to pay into the system benefit from it at all?

It doesn't matter what excuse you can come up with. The FACT is that the progressive Tax is based totally on jealousy.
Is it? I'd rather say that it's quite reasonable to expect those who have more to pay more. Now, whether the tax percentage for rich people should be higher or lower than poor (or not-as-rich) people, I don't know. I don't think it's unreasonable to ask a person who earns €20 million to pay €10 million on taxes. He'd still be keeping quite a lot of money and €10 million could be put to good use and improve people's lives.

While losing half of your income due to taxes looks like an exaggeration to me, I can understand those who claim that it should be that way. In the above example, how many poor people would you be able to help with €10 million? That's quite a lot of money, possibly more than any of us is going to earn in his entire life, and the person who would have paid €10 million would still have quite a lot of money. Well, perhaps he wouldn't be able to buy a diamond-studded swimming pool and he'd have to go with a gold-plated one instead, but I don't think that he (or she) would starve because of this.

You might think that it's unfair to make someone pay half of his salary in taxes, but, personally, I don't think that there's anyone who deserves to win €20 million a year, which is more than mere mortals would earn in their lives. And when you have social and economic problems such as the ones we have in Spain, where there's massive unemployment and many difficulties to rent or buy a house because of their high prices, I think that it can't be argued that taking half of a millionaire's salary to help hundreds or thousands of people could be considered morally wrong. If there's something that I think is seriously wrong is the fact that a minority could earn hundreds of millions of dollars apiece while many people around the world don't have jobs or a proper place to live.

[Bob Riebe]

Is it? I'd rather say that it's quite reasonable to expect those who have more to pay more. Now, whether the tax percentage for rich people should be higher or lower than poor (or not-as-rich) people, I don't know. I don't think it's unreasonable to ask a person who earns €20 million to pay €10 million on taxes. He'd still be keeping quite a lot of money and €10 million could be put to good use and improve people's lives.

While losing half of your income due to taxes looks like an exaggeration to me, I can understand those who claim that it should be that way. In the above example, how many poor people would you be able to help with €10 million? That's quite a lot of money, possibly more than any of us is going to earn in his entire life, and the person who would have paid €10 million would still have quite a lot of money. Well, perhaps he wouldn't be able to buy a diamond-studded swimming pool and he'd have to go with a gold-plated one instead, but I don't think that he (or she) would starve because of this.

You might think that it's unfair to make someone pay half of his salary in taxes, but, personally, I don't think that there's anyone who deserves to win €20 million a year, which is more than mere mortals would earn in their lives. And when you have social and economic problems such as the ones we have in Spain, where there's massive unemployment and many difficulties to rent or buy a house because of their high prices, I think that it can't be argued that taking half of a millionaire's salary to help hundreds or thousands of people could be considered morally wrong. If there's something that I think is seriously wrong is the fact that a minority could earn hundreds of millions of dollars apiece while many people around the world don't have jobs or a proper place to live.
OK that is your opinion.
What is your opinion if people who work for the government (they are all paid with tax payer income) would be forced to give one half of their income back to the government, regardless of amount?
By your standard I feel that is more than justified as they are then merely giving it back to the people it was taken from. (I also think then it would be equally justified that if they have outside income the amount of government income paid back would be by percentage greater up to a point of one hundred percent)

[Bob Riebe]

Then if that is true, one can say that flat tax is based on greed.

The fact is that money has more value if you have less of it. Taxing a low earner is taking away money they need to survive, to eat and to provide housing for themselves. A high earner paying a little bit more tax is having money taken away from them that they would spend on luxuries that they don't need, but still leaves them better off than a low earner.

In the capitalist system not everyone can be a high earner.
No that is a false premise you are trying to pass.
Under a flat tax those who make more-pay more. That is the pathetic desired cry of liberals on taxes.

Ah the luxury tax, wonderful liberal idea that shut down so-called luxury businesses putting people out of work-BRILLIANT.

That is one point that does make the so-call "fair tax" or federal sales tax a farce as to being fair, as then those who make less would be taxed on things they absolutely need every day of every year unless they spend no money; whereas those with more money could buy in bulk which reduces price per item and tax paid.

[Brown, Jon Brow]

If I earn £12,000 the amount of tax I pay on the first £12,000 of my salary is the same as someone who earns £40,000 pays on the first £12,000 of their salary. What is unfair about that?

[Rollo]

They derive a higher benefit, but they pay considerably more anyway. Why should they be robbed of a higher % of their income than low-paid losers?

Low-paid losers, eh?

Let's assume for a second that a married couple decides to have children. Usually it will be the mother who will take time off during the early part of the child's life. That women will on average take a permanentcut in income because they decided to be responsible and raise the child properly; yet you choose to call such people "low paid losers"? Does that make sense?

[BDunnell]

Ah the luxury tax, wonderful liberal idea that shut down so-called luxury businesses putting people out of work-BRILLIANT.

No matter what — no matter how deep the financial crisis — people always find the money for extravagant luxuries.

[anthonyvop]

Then if that is true, one can say that flat tax is based on greed.


No...A flat tax is based on respect of the rights of the individual and property rights.

BTW Greed isn't a bad thing. In fact the only reason we le live as long as we do. Eat so well and actually communicate with each other here is because of Greed.



The fact is that money has more value if you have less of it. Taxing a low earner is taking away money they need to survive, to eat and to provide housing for themselves.


For the sake of the debate Lets say what you state is true. Then you are advocating rewarding failure.

The idea that lower income people would be hurt more isn't a problem as far as I am concerned. Especially when you consider that they are the same people who use up more of our tax dollars. Let them pay for their stuff.


A high earner paying a little bit more tax is having money taken away from them that they would spend on luxuries that they don't need, but still leaves them better off than a low earner.

So you decide what "Luxuries" people need or don't need? So a Productive person cannot enjoy the fruits of their success because you want to feel good about yourself and help other people.

So we come back to the fact that you want to Tax the successful more because you are jealous of what they have.

[race aficionado]

BTW Greed isn't a bad thing. In fact the only reason we le live as long as we do. Eat so well and actually communicate with each other here is because of Greed.


Whoa! Don't include me in that group !!! :ninja:

Really? Greed? Okay.

:s mokin:

[Rollo]

So we come back to the fact that you want to Tax the successful more because you are jealous of what they have.

Jealousy doesn't enter into it. It's more or less purely about the distribution of income and the ability to pay.

In the United States:
- The top 20% earn 49.98% of all income
- The top 8% earn 28.50% of all income
- The top 3% earn 17.50% of all income

(There is an overlap here)

Also:
- The bottom 80% earn 50.02% of all income

How would you then design a taxation system so that the payment of income tax more closely follows the actual distribution of income?
Why do you think that say the the top 3% who earn 17.50% of all income should not pay 17.50% of all taxation? Currently they pay less than 1%.

[Bob Riebe]

No matter what — no matter how deep the financial crisis — people always find the money for extravagant luxuries.If you are trying to prove your intellect is lesser than your grammar skills, you are succeeding .

Shipwrecked In New Jersey | The Freeman | Ideas On Liberty (http://www.thefreemanonline.org/columns/shipwrecked-in-new-jersey/)

With so many benefits “trickling down” to middle-class and poor Americans, it’s hard to understand why Congress would seek to destroy the boat-making industry. Yet that’s exactly what it did in 1990 when, according to a Wall Street Journal report, “Congressional Democrats [were] eager to show they were being tough on the rich.” A ten percent tax was added to the cost of luxury yachts. Since a yacht today costs anywhere from $100,000 to $200,000, this means that at least $10,000 had to be paid to the government before a potential buyer could get his first whiff of salt air. With the economy already heading for trouble, this was the proverbial straw that broke the camel’s back. Ocean Yachts in Weekstown trimmed its workforce from 350 to 50. Egg Harbor Yachts entered Chapter Eleven bankruptcy, going from 200 employees to five. Viking Yachts dropped from 1,400 to 300 employees. According to a Congressional Joint Economic Committee Study, the boat industry nationwide lost 7,600 employees within one year. As Bob Healy, president of Viking Yachts explained on NBC News, “Every six or seven years, you have a down cycle. You might be off 20 percent, 30 percent, or 40 percent at maximum. Our industry is off 90 percent nationally.”

Despite all the talk about stimulating the economy, and the clear evidence that both the luxury taxes and higher taxes in general have pretty much destroyed the yacht-making industry, the tax did not generate any significant revenue, and has only cost taxpayers money by forcing workers onto the government dole. Congress originally estimated that the luxury tax on boats, aircraft, and jewelry would raise $5 million in taxes a year. Instead, the Treasury has lost $24 million through lost income-tax revenues and higher unemployment and welfare payments.

[Brown, Jon Brow]

For the sake of the debate Lets say what you state is true. Then you are advocating rewarding failure.

The idea that lower income people would be hurt more isn't a problem as far as I am concerned. Especially when you consider that they are the same people who use up more of our tax dollars. Let them pay for their stuff.


So who are you going to get to collect your rubbish? Or sweep the streets? Or do the cheap labour in your factory?

Capitalism relies on low paid jobs. Not everyone can be a high earner.

[Eki]

Capitalism relies on low paid jobs. Not everyone can be a high earner.
According to Garry Walker everyone can. It kind of proves the claim that conservatives have low IQ.

[monadvspec]

OK Mister or Madame or Cousin It Monadvspec:
My days of middle of the road, can't we all just get along, wishful thinking died decades ago.
At one point in life I subscribed to Mother Jones and Conservative Digest magazines simultaneously.
I found out that the Mother Jones people wrote like a bunch of old maids with their panties in a bunch, while the Conservative Digest people, between political views that at least tried to fix a problem rather than condemn others, continually asked for money so they could keep their easy chair in Washington occupied.
Bob
PS- the only reason I corrected your typos was I was returning the favor plus Herr Dunnell inspired me.
I was not impressed by either.
So what ever you think I am, do or might be go for Mona! Boogity, boogity, boogity.

PPS-I sometimes wonder if you are not just a moderator with a fake name doing this when the board gets dull.
Riebe, you have got to be the most obnoxious individual here with a personal relationship with the moderators or you would have been banned long agao. Your posts are childish and most of the time off topic. You made the "profound statement" declaring that along with Chavez there were so many more like him. Yet you did not answerwhen asked to name some. One is all you got? He is the bogeyman you are all afraid of. The same man that has through his influence rejuvenated the economies of many South American countries. And, Riebe, I can actually name them.


In addition you stated that you pointed out an error with Nietzsche. Where is the error.

Then you have the audacity to lecture me on how to emphasise a word. Riebe, upper case for a lower case word is creating significance to the word that is being used.

The laughable part of your post is where you show the forum how to emphasize by using upper case letters for the whole word.

Farther down , actually, you use Troll and indicate that that was an emphasis. Upper case T. Just as I used the 'A' in abyss. Riebe you are scatter brained.

I also see some paranoia too. You think I am a moderator here and in another thread you think I am bdunnell. Scary.

Oh, and the English question.

Riebe, have you ever been out of the US? You should also be ashamed to use the word Ebonics. I am going to presume you know little about it. Back to the point. Tyre,colour,realise,emphasise,programme and many more,lastly, the word practise and practice. Know the difference, Bob. Oh go on Google!! As I stated. Two different versions in spelling for the same word.

[BDunnell]

BTW Greed isn't a bad thing. In fact the only reason we le live as long as we do. Eat so well and actually communicate with each other here is because of Greed.

In what sense do you 'communicate' with us here because of greed?



So we come back to the fact that you want to Tax the successful more because you are jealous of what they have.

Ah, yes. Great argument, Tony. As stated before, there are other reasons. I can say full well that I advocate higher taxes for the rich out of no sense of jealousy whatsoever. Do you think I am lying? Do you claim to know me better than I know myself?

[Eki]

So we come back to the fact that you want to Tax the successful more because you are jealous of what they have.
No, just because the more successful have more to tax than the less successful. Makes sense, doesn't it?

[Bob Riebe]

Riebe, you have got to be the most obnoxious individual here with a personal relationship with the moderators or you would have been banned long agao. Your posts are childish and most of the time off topic. You made the "profound statement" declaring that along with Chavez there were so many more like him. Yet you did not answerwhen asked to name some. One is all you got? He is the bogeyman you are all afraid of. The same man that has through his influence rejuvenated the economies of many South American countries. And, Riebe, I can actually name them.

In addition you stated that you pointed out an error with Nietzsche. Where is the error.
Then you have the audacity to lecture me on how to emphasise a word. Riebe, upper case for a lower case word is creating significance to the word that is being used.

The laughable part of your post is where you show the forum how to emphasize by using upper case letters for the whole word.

Farther down , actually, you use Troll and indicate that that was an emphasis. Upper case T. Just as I used the 'A' in abyss. Riebe you are scatter brained.

I also see some paranoia too. You think I am a moderator here and in another thread you think I am bdunnell. Scary.
Oh, and the English question.
Riebe, have you ever been out of the US? You should also be ashamed to use the word Ebonics. I am going to presume you know little about it. Back to the point. Tyre,colour,realise,emphasise,programme and many more,lastly, the word practise and practice. Know the difference, Bob. Oh go on Google!! As I stated. Two different versions in spelling for the same word.Mona. as far as emphasi, to be closer to grammatically correct, depending on subject on should use Italics, bold face or "quotation marks".
On the net I prefer all caps. Not really proper but your capitalizing the first letter is um, let's say different.
I capped Troll just to emphasize it for you, in your style.

Beyond that to such to a person as yourself whose rhetoric waxes poetic in my heart, I have but one thing to say;

Did you ever see the hearse go by
and think that you were going to die
they wrap you in a big white sheet
and then they bury you six feet deep
The worms go in the worms go out
the ants play pinochle on your snout
the puss comes out like whipping cream
and I forgot my spoon!

[monadvspec]

Mona. as far as emphasi, to be closer to grammatically correct, depending on subject on should use Italics, bold face or "quotation marks".
On the net I prefer all caps. Not really proper but your capitalizing the first letter is um, let's say different.
I capped Troll just to emphasize it for you, in your style.

Beyond that to such to a person as yourself whose rhetoric waxes poetic in my heart, I have but one thing to say;

Did you ever see the hearse go by
and think that you were going to die
they wrap you in a big white sheet
and then they bury you six feet deep
The worms go in the worms go out
the ants play pinochle on your snout
the puss comes out like whipping cream
and I forgot my spoon!

Yeah Riebe, I really believe you. I even believe the grammatical errors were actually deliberate just to see if any of us noticed. And, yo borrow a worg from Jag-Warrior, you're Thick (emphasis). By the way, what is emphasi? Animal,plant or mineral

[chuck34]

Jealousy doesn't enter into it. It's more or less purely about the distribution of income and the ability to pay.

In the United States:
- The top 20% earn 49.98% of all income
- The top 8% earn 28.50% of all income
- The top 3% earn 17.50% of all income

(There is an overlap here)

Also:
- The bottom 80% earn 50.02% of all income

How would you then design a taxation system so that the payment of income tax more closely follows the actual distribution of income?
Why do you think that say the the top 3% who earn 17.50% of all income should not pay 17.50% of all taxation? Currently they pay less than 1%.

Ummmm .... Looks to me that the top brackets deserve a cut by your logic. And the bottom probably should get an increase, or at least pay something.

National Taxpayers Union - Who Pays Income Taxes? (http://ntu.org/tax-basics/who-pays-income-taxes.html)

Percentiles Ranked by AGI: Top 1%
AGI Threshold on Percentiles: $343,927
Percentage of Federal Personal Income Tax Paid: 36.73

Top 5%
$154,643
58.66

Top 10%
$112,124
70.47

Top 25%
$66,193
87.30

Top 50%
$32,396
97.75

Bottom 50%
<$32,396
2.25


**** Note: I am not in any way, shape, or form advocating some sort of tax scheme based on percentage of wealth or anything like that. I'm simply pointing out the error in Rollo's logic.

[Rollo]

National Taxpayers Union - Who Pays Income Taxes? (http://ntu.org/tax-basics/who-pays-income-taxes.html)

Percentiles Ranked by AGI: Top 1%
AGI Threshold on Percentiles: $343,927
Percentage of Federal Personal Income Tax Paid: 36.73

Top 5%
$154,643
58.66

Top 10%
$112,124
70.47

Top 25%
$66,193
87.30

Top 50%
$32,396
97.75

Bottom 50%
<$32,396
2.25


**** Note: I am not in any way, shape, or form advocating some sort of tax scheme based on percentage of wealth or anything like that. I'm simply pointing out the error in Rollo's logic.

Those statistics show how much tax people paid, but neglects entirely to show what they earned. No mention whatsoever as to what the top 1% or 5% of returns actually earned in income.

You haven't pointing out the error in logic because you haven't actually addressed the question.

[ArrowsFA1]

Would the National Taxpayers Union (http://www.ntu.org/) be the US equivalent of the Taxpayers Alliance (http://www.taxpayersalliance.com/) here in the UK by any chance? Both claim to be independent and non-partisan.

:dozey:

[chuck34]

Those statistics show how much tax people paid, but neglects entirely to show what they earned. No mention whatsoever as to what the top 1% or 5% of returns actually earned in income.

I didn't address what those people earned because you did in the post I quoted. I took your numbers at face value, perhaps I shouldn't have. But here you go, more numbers.

How Much Money Do The Top Income Earners Make By Percentage? | Financial Samurai (http://www.financialsamurai.com/2011/04/12/how-much-money-do-the-top-income-earners-make-percent/)
Top 1% share of total AGI: 20%
Top 1% share of total income taxes: 38%

Top 5% share of total AGI: 34.73%
Top 5% share of total income taxes: 58.72%

......

Top 50% share of total AGI: 87.25%
Top 50% share of total income taxes: 97.30%

Bottom 50% share of total AGI: 12.75%
Bottom 50% share of total income taxes: 2.70%


You haven't pointing out the error in logic because you haven't actually addressed the question.

Want to try again? How exactly is anyone in the top 50% of earners not "paying their fair share"?

[chuck34]

Would the National Taxpayers Union (http://www.ntu.org/) be the US equivalent of the Taxpayers Alliance (http://www.taxpayersalliance.com/) here in the UK by any chance? Both claim to be independent and non-partisan.

:dozey:

Their data was taken straight from the IRS website. Want to debunk the data, not the source?

[ArrowsFA1]

Their data was taken straight from the IRS website. Want to debunk the data, not the source?
No thanks :) Just interested having been subject to the Taxpayers Alliance being quoted extensively here recently in a UK context.

:cool:

[monadvspec]

Seems as though my time on this forum is limited. Getting warnings whilst others fail to them. Why? Because I responded to an insult and this guy never stops. Not just with me but many others.

Post #85 he insults BDunnell with respect to grammar. Where was the grammar error,Riebe?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I have noticed something while doing a little research on politics and how it can differ in various countries.

What I find really strange is that US Conservatives are actually fighting against a tax raise on those earning 250,000 dollars and more. Doing so would allow the government to get extra funds as well as decreasing the tax rate for the middle class.
Why would people argue against this taxation when in fact they would benefit.

Goes against all logic and falls in line with a post initiated by Eki.

[chuck34]

I have noticed something while doing a little research on politics and how it can differ in various countries.

What I find really strange is that US Conservatives are actually fighting against a tax raise on those earning 250,000 dollars and more. Doing so would allow the government to get extra funds as well as decreasing the tax rate for the middle class.
Why would people argue against this taxation when in fact they would benefit.

Goes against all logic and falls in line with a post initiated by Eki.

You have to look at it from an American viewpoint (I assume you aren't from the US). Traditionally Americans have been individualists. We traditionally have done things for ourselves and taken pride in that. We traditionally don't want or need government help. In fact we have seen government "help" as more of a hinderance. We also traditionally have respected property rights, what someone has earned is their's, others have no right to it.

So looking at things from that stand-point ... Why would I want to increase the funds to the government? They will only "help" me out more (aka put more and more restrictions upon what I can and can't do). And besides that money isn't mine, someone else earned it, I have no right to it, if I want more, I will go out and earn it on my own.

Of course that is all the traditional thinking. Over the last century the general mindset in the US has slowly drifted away from that, and into the midset of: "I can't make it on my own. Somebody (aka the Federal Government) needs to help me out. That rich person has more than me, they can "afford" to give me some, so let's get the Federal Government to take it at the point of a gun and give it to me"

Our Founders thought about preserving the greatest possible Liberty for the people. That includes the liberty to succeed and fail. Today's politicians seem more focused on gaining votes by promising more of someone else's money to more and more people. And that means trampling upon more and more people's liberties, wether they understand that or not.

[Eki]

You have to look at it from an American viewpoint (I assume you aren't from the US). Traditionally Americans have been individualists. We traditionally have done things for ourselves and taken pride in that. We traditionally don't want or need government help. In fact we have seen government "help" as more of a hinderance. We also traditionally have respected property rights, what someone has earned is their's, others have no right to it.

So looking at things from that stand-point ... Why would I want to increase the funds to the government? They will only "help" me out more (aka put more and more restrictions upon what I can and can't do). And besides that money isn't mine, someone else earned it, I have no right to it, if I want more, I will go out and earn it on my own.

Look at it this way: If you know your tax percentage, let's say 30% and your income is $100,000. Only 70% ($70,000) of that is your money, the rest is tax money. If you want $100,000, you go and earn $140,000 on your own. The tax money is kind of rent or membership fee that allows you to live in that society.

[chuck34]

Look at it this way: If you know your tax percentage, let's say 30% and your income is $100,000. Only 70% ($70,000) of that is your money, the rest is tax money. If you want $100,000, you go and earn $140,000 on your own. The tax money is kind of rent or membership fee that allows you to live in that society.

What gives the government a right to that money? Especially when you consider that in order to run the legitimate functions of government (ie those powers appointed to the federal government by the US Constitution) comes up to only, let's say, 15%?

[Eki]

What gives the government a right to that money?
What would give you the right to mooch in the US without paying taxes? You could always move to some other country, like Monaco, if they take you.

[chuck34]

What would give you the right to mooch in the US without paying taxes? You could always move to some other country, like Monaco, if they take you.

Mooch? Who said anything about mooching? I'm more than willing to pay for the things specifically laid out in the US Constitution, my state's constitution, and local ordinances. That is WELL below the level of taxation I am paying today. So what gives the government the right to take my money at the point of a gun and fritter it away in any way they see fit?

[BDunnell]

Mooch? Who said anything about mooching? I'm more than willing to pay for the things specifically laid out in the US Constitution, my state's constitution, and local ordinances. That is WELL below the level of taxation I am paying today. So what gives the government the right to take my money at the point of a gun and fritter it away in any way they see fit?

Is it just me, or are you becoming ever more stereotypically right-wing, with all this crass 'at the point of a gun' nonsense?

[BDunnell]

You have to look at it from an American viewpoint (I assume you aren't from the US). Traditionally Americans have been individualists. We traditionally have done things for ourselves and taken pride in that. We traditionally don't want or need government help. In fact we have seen government "help" as more of a hinderance. We also traditionally have respected property rights, what someone has earned is their's, others have no right to it.

So looking at things from that stand-point ... Why would I want to increase the funds to the government? They will only "help" me out more (aka put more and more restrictions upon what I can and can't do). And besides that money isn't mine, someone else earned it, I have no right to it, if I want more, I will go out and earn it on my own.

Of course that is all the traditional thinking. Over the last century the general mindset in the US has slowly drifted away from that, and into the midset of: "I can't make it on my own. Somebody (aka the Federal Government) needs to help me out. That rich person has more than me, they can "afford" to give me some, so let's get the Federal Government to take it at the point of a gun and give it to me"

Our Founders thought about preserving the greatest possible Liberty for the people. That includes the liberty to succeed and fail. Today's politicians seem more focused on gaining votes by promising more of someone else's money to more and more people. And that means trampling upon more and more people's liberties, wether they understand that or not.

My response to all this saccharine rent-a-quote claptrap is to ask where you have got the idea that any of these attributes in any way render the USA and its citizens exceptional or special.

[chuck34]

Is it just me, or are you becoming ever more stereotypically right-wing, with all this crass 'at the point of a gun' nonsense?

I know it's not fashionable to speak that way, and that you wouldn't describe it that way, but it is the truth. The government collects taxes at the point of a gun.

And what about the actual point of my post? That the US government has taken on more, MUCH more power than was ever granted to it by the US Constitution. What gives them the right to do this, and forcably take my money to pay for it?

[chuck34]

My response to all this saccharine rent-a-quote claptrap is to ask where you have got the idea that any of these attributes in any way render the USA and its citizens exceptional or special.

Did I say that this mindset makes Americans "exceptional" or "special"?

How about actually addressing points brought up by posts, rather than fighting boogy men you make up and feel more comfortable fighting?

[Eki]

So what gives the government the right to take my money at the point of a gun and fritter it away in any way they see fit?
Democratically elected representatives people have given a mandate to do so?

[Eki]

I know it's not fashionable to speak that way, and that you wouldn't describe it that way, but it is the truth. The government collects taxes at the point of a gun.

And what about the actual point of my post? That the US government has taken on more, MUCH more power than was ever granted to it by the US Constitution. What gives them the right to do this, and forcably take my money to pay for it?
If you look at the infrastructure and the military in the US now and in 1776, I'm sure you can understand that expenses and what people expect and think they need have gone up. If the US infrastructure and the military would be reduced to the level of 1776, I'm sure your tax money would go down too. Is that what you want?

[BDunnell]

I know it's not fashionable to speak that way, and that you wouldn't describe it that way, but it is the truth. The government collects taxes at the point of a gun.

It is not 'the truth' in any sense. Give me one example of your taxes being collected as a result of a gun being pointed at you.



And what about the actual point of my post? That the US government has taken on more, MUCH more power than was ever granted to it by the US Constitution. What gives them the right to do this, and forcably take my money to pay for it?

Your obedience to the Constitution strikes me as blindly slavish. I don't think this attitude renders you or anyone else a better person.

[BDunnell]

Did I say that this mindset makes Americans "exceptional" or "special"?

Why else did you bother posting it, if not to highlight what you perceive as differences between America/Americans and others?

[chuck34]

Democratically elected representatives people have given a mandate to do so?

So if democratically elected representatives all got together and voted to confiscate 100% of Eki's income, that would be ok?

There is a difference between a Democracy and a Republic. In a Democracy the mob can decide to do whatever it chooses. In a Republic a citizen's right to private property is supposed to be protected. That is why the US was founded as a Republic, not a Democracy. Are we still a Republic, or have we decended into mob rule? I think that is a good question.

[chuck34]

If you look at the infrastructure and the military in the US now and in 1776, I'm sure you can understand that expenses and what people expect and think they need have gone up. If the US infrastructure and the military would be reduced to the level of 1776, I'm sure your tax money would go down too. Is that what you want?

If we only had to pay for infrastructure and military spending, I would be fine with that. But somewhere in the neighborhood of 40% of the current budget is spent on social programs.

[chuck34]

It is not 'the truth' in any sense. Give me one example of your taxes being collected as a result of a gun being pointed at you.

In this country if you do not pay your taxes you go to jail. How are people kept in jails other than at the point of a gun?


Your obedience to the Constitution strikes me as blindly slavish. I don't think this attitude renders you or anyone else a better person.

I am sorry that believing in the rule of law upsets you.

[chuck34]

Why else did you bother posting it, if not to highlight what you perceive as differences between America/Americans and others?

Because it is a difference. I never made a claim that it was "exceptional" or "special". Just different.

Once again, why not address the points. How much of one's income can the Federal Government take and still be considered fair? Rollo put forth a proposal that it should be the same as the percentage of income. I showed him that if that were the case then the top 50% are paying too much and the bottom 50% are paying too little. Do you have an opinion on that?

[Eki]

If we only had to pay for infrastructure and military spending, I would be fine with that. But somewhere in the neighborhood of 40% of the current budget is spent on social programs.
Building walls around your house and hiring body guards isn't that cheap either, and being constantly afraid of an armed revolution or becoming a crime victim isn't fun. Or do you prefer that people support themselves by crimes instead of social programs trying to improve their lives? It's hard for me to forget what my grandfather's father had replied in the interrogation documents after the Finnish Civil War in 1918 when he was asked why he joined the Red Guard: "Work at the factory ended. Lacked food and money. The Red Guard promised a wage and aid for the family". If the government had given aid to the families and provided work, there most likely wouldn't have been any revolution/civil war.

[BDunnell]

In this country if you do not pay your taxes you go to jail. How are people kept in jails other than at the point of a gun?

By virtue of the doors being locked?



I am sorry that believing in the rule of law upsets you.

I believe very much in the rule of law, thank you very much. However, unlike you I believe that laws should adapt over time rather than being preserved in aspic for ever more.

[BDunnell]

Because it is a difference. I never made a claim that it was "exceptional" or "special". Just different.

Much the same thing. The point is meaningless.



Once again, why not address the points. How much of one's income can the Federal Government take and still be considered fair? Rollo put forth a proposal that it should be the same as the percentage of income. I showed him that if that were the case then the top 50% are paying too much and the bottom 50% are paying too little. Do you have an opinion on that?

I agree with the point of view made by Rollo. That is my opinion. But I think you knew that I would already, making your attempt to appear investigatively questioning a tad shallow. I'm not sure you are much of a questioning person, as evidenced by your attitude towards the Bible and your almost religious belief in a Constitution that permits someone like anthonyvop, a person I would not wish to wield cutlery in my vicinity, to possess firearms.

[chuck34]

Building walls around your house, hiring body guards isn't that cheap either, and being constantly afraid of an armed revolution or becoming a crime victim isn't fun. Or do you prefer that people support themselves by crimes instead of social programs trying to improve their lives? It's hard for me to forget what my grandfather's father had replied in the interrogation documents after the Finnish Civil War in 1918 when he was asked why he joined the Red Guard: "The work at the factory ended. Lacked food and money. The Red Guard promised a wage and aid for the family".

What are you on about? In the US, the States have police powers, not the Federal Government. The State governments also have the powers dedicated to "safety net" programs. And I would suggest that most "safety net" programs in this country are well beyond helping people out who are either between jobs, or honestly can not work due to some handicap.

Point me to the enumerated power in the US Constitution that garuntees the right to welfare, unemployment, etc.

[chuck34]

By virtue of the doors being locked?

So if I'm in jail and I pick the lock, or scale the fence, I'm off scott free?


I believe very much in the rule of law, thank you very much. However, unlike you I believe that laws should adapt over time rather than being preserved in aspic for ever more.

Well that is an honest disagreement then. I happen to believe that the Founders of this country were much wiser men than me, or most of today's politicians. And the more I read about them, their lives, their philosophies, and the debates surrounding the writing and ratifying of the US Constitution the more I become set in that opinion.

[Rollo]

If we only had to pay for infrastructure and military spending, I would be fine with that. But somewhere in the neighborhood of 40% of the current budget is spent on social programs.

Is the Old Age Pension (OASDI) a social program? Presumably both Medicare and Medicaid fall into that category, so you can eliminate those.
Considering that the funding for those programs has never come from net savings, that suggests to me that the US has never been able to afford them in the first place; with an aging population, those expenses are only going to get larger as well.


Rollo put forth a proposal that it should be the same as the percentage of income. I showed him that if that were the case then the top 50% are paying too much and the bottom 50% are paying too little.

The figures you provided don't suggest that at all. They make no mention as to the percentage of income that people actually made. You didn't show anything relevant. It would be like asking what percentage of a packet of M&Ms are red and then providing the answer that there are red, brown, yellow and green ones.

[Eki]

What are you on about? In the US, the States have police powers, not the Federal Government.
So? Don't you have state taxes, or how are those police powers funded? Most of my tax money goes to the city I live in, not to the Finnish Government.

[chuck34]

I agree with the point of view made by Rollo.

If you agree with Rollo then how do you square that with the actual numbers? The top 1% earns 20% of all income, but pays 38% of all taxes. And the bottom 50% earns 12.75 of all income, but pays 2.7%. The numbers you put forth as "fair" simply do not add up.

I'll ignore the rest of your post as wildly off topic.

[chuck34]

Is the Old Age Pension (OASDI) a social program? Presumably both Medicare and Medicaid fall into that category, so you can eliminate those.
Considering that the funding for those programs has never come from net savings, that suggests to me that the US has never been able to afford them in the first place; with an aging population, those expenses are only going to get larger as well.

In the US we call the OASDI Social Security. That was originally supposed to be your money that the government would take out of your paycheck, hold on to it until you retire, then give it back to you. But over the decades politicians have constantly raided the "trust fund" to pay for pet projects. So no we have not been able to aford that one for quite some time. And beyond that I do not even agree with premise of the program from the begining. My retirement is my responsibility, simple as that. I don't need a "nanny state" to take care of me.

Medicare and Medicaid are well meaning programs. But they should be administered (and are on some levels) by the States not the national government. Plus they have been widely expanded to laughable levels of coverage, and laughable qualifications. And no we can not afford those programs either.

For a politician to continue to make promises about money and programs they know full well are unsustainable is almost criminal in my book.


The figures you provided don't suggest that at all. They make no mention as to the percentage of income that people actually made. You didn't show anything relevant. It would be like asking what percentage of a packet of M&Ms are red and then providing the answer that there are red, brown, yellow and green ones.

What are you talking about? This link: How Much Money Do The Top Income Earners Make By Percentage? | Financial Samurai (http://www.financialsamurai.com/2011/04/12/how-much-money-do-the-top-income-earners-make-percent/) that I posted in post #96 does just that. It spells out each group's share of total AGI (Adjusted Gross Income) as percentage of the total.

[chuck34]

So? Don't you have state taxes, or how are those police powers funded? Most of my tax money goes to the city I live in, not to the Finnish Government.

Yes we have State taxes as well. But the numbers we have been discussing are Federal taxes only. State taxes are not figured into any of the numbers that I am talking about, or have linked to.

[Brown, Jon Brow]

If you agree with Rollo then how do you square that with the actual numbers? The top 1% earns 20% of all income, but pays 38% of all taxes. And the bottom 50% earns 12.75 of all income, but pays 2.7%. The numbers you put forth as "fair" simply do not add up.

.

Do you always think that logically?

Ever heard of diminishing marginal utility? It amazes me how the supporters of flat tax always ignore one of the most basic things in economics.

[chuck34]

Do you always think that logically?

Ever heard of diminishing marginal utility? It amazes me how the supporters of flat tax always ignore one of the most basic things in economics.

I'm not ignoring that at all. Rollo was the one who suggested that taxes should reflect the distribution of income. To which I say, fine, let's start cutting the taxes of the rich and raising the taxes of the poor. Afterall we'll still end up with a progressive tax rate by doing that, not a flat tax at all. So why not do that?

Just because a rich person has a dollar that is marginally less useful to them than the same dollar is to a poor person, how does that give you the right (moral and legal) to take that from the rich person?

[Brown, Jon Brow]

Just because a rich person has a dollar that is marginally less useful to them than the same dollar is to a poor person, how does that give you the right (moral and legal) to take that from the rich person?

Are you seriously asking that question?

[Alexamateo]

In the US we call the OASDI Social Security. That was originally supposed to be your money that the government would take out of your paycheck, hold on to it until you retire, then give it back to you.....

Chuck, I don't believe that was ever true. Today's workers pay for today's benefits, and when you retire, worker's actively working will pay your benefits. Now what you are eligible to earn is based on what you put in, but it has nothing to do with what you actually put in. The first person to ever draw social security famously exceeded the total amount she had put in be by the second check she received. (She contributed $24.75 over 3 years and her first check was for $22.54. She ended up living to 100 and drew out almost $23,000 in benefits. :D . Social security paid out death benefits the first year it was enacted. No it was never you draw out your money, it was active workers taking care of people who were too old to work.

[chuck34]

Are you seriously asking that question?

Yes. What moral and legal basis do you have for confiscating someone's wealth simply because the marginal utility of that dollar is low?

[chuck34]

Chuck, I don't believe that was ever true. Today's workers pay for today's benefits, and when you retire, worker's actively working will pay your benefits. Now what you are eligible to earn is based on what you put in, but it has nothing to do with what you actually put in. The first person to ever draw social security famously exceeded the total amount she had put in be by the second check she received. (She contributed $24.75 over 3 years and her first check was for $22.54. She ended up living to 100 and drew out almost $23,000 in benefits. :D . Social security paid out death benefits the first year it was enacted. No it was never you draw out your money, it was active workers taking care of people who were too old to work.

If that is the case then I have mis-understood how it was supposed to work. But this makes the scheme all that much worse in my opinion.

[Eki]

how does that give you the right (moral and legal) to take that from the rich person?
Moral right is a matter of opinion, legal right is simple and straightforward, if it's written in the law, you have the legal right.

[chuck34]

Moral right is a matter of opinion, legal right is simple and straightforward, if it's written in the law, you have the legal right.

Again, if Finnish legislators write a law saying that they can confiscate 100% of Eki's wealth, would that be ok with you?

[Rollo]

Yes. What moral and legal basis do you have for confiscating someone's wealth simply because the marginal utility of that dollar is low?

Why does there need to be a moral basis? The insurable interest of a functioning economy which allowed people to earn that income in the first place increases with increasing income. That's a perfectly amoral justification for it.

The Legal Basis for income tax rests in the 16th Amendment. That means that the power to impose income tax was granted to the government by the people.

[Bob Riebe]

[quote="monadvspec"]Yeah Riebe, I really believe you. I even believe the grammatical errors were actually deliberate just to see if any of us noticed. And, yo borrow a word from Jag-Warrior, you're THICK (emphasis). By the way, what is emphasi? Animal,plant or mineral[/QUOTE ]Emphasi-- would you believe me if I said it was the Ebonics form of emphases?

No I did not borrow a word from Jag, I believe yo did.

This is the end of our little chat, it was fun while it lasted.

Have a nice day.

[ArrowsFA1]

...I do not even agree with premise of the program from the begining. My retirement is my responsibility, simple as that. I don't need a "nanny state" to take care of me...
So you'd be happy to opt out because you can afford to?

Every man for himself? Survival of the fittest? Damn the rest of you? Isn't that a rather narrow and selfish philosophy of life and the society in which you live? I don't imagine the founders, with their religious beliefs that helped shape the constitution, would have seen US society developing in that way.

[Eki]

Again, if Finnish legislators write a law saying that they can confiscate 100% of Eki's wealth, would that be ok with you?
Not in my opinion. And that's probably why they haven't done so. If they did, it would be legal.

[chuck34]

Why does there need to be a moral basis?

Because without a moral basis, societies fail


The insurable interest of a functioning economy which allowed people to earn that income in the first place increases with increasing income. That's a perfectly amoral justification for it.

And how many programs are out there that the "rich" are paying for that they are not allowed to use? Sure the "rich" use infrastructure to help earn an income, but they pay for it. The "poor" do not pay for infrastructure, but they use it. The "poor" do not pay for social programs, but they use them. Etc.

Please do not twist this into somehow me wanting the poor to starve, or some other such nonsense as I'm sure you will want to. Look at the words that I actually wrote, not what you think I said.


The Legal Basis for income tax rests in the 16th Amendment. That means that the power to impose income tax was granted to the government by the people.

So why not just confiscate 100% of someone's wealth? Is there, or should there be, a limit to how much money government can take from you? What is that limit? Why?

[chuck34]

So you'd be happy to opt out because you can afford to?

Yes and no. I don't believe that the program should exist at all, especially at the Federal level.


Every man for himself? Survival of the fittest? Damn the rest of you? Isn't that a rather narrow and selfish philosophy of life and the society in which you live?

No!!!! This does not mean that I want people to die in the streets or starve. I just happen to think that the Federal Government is the WORST entity to ensure that does not happen. I happen to believe that people should take care of themselves, their neighbors, and their local community. I have seen many studies that show that local governments and local charities do a MUCH better job distributing funds to those that actually need the help than the Federal Government does.

So if local governments and local charities can help people more effectively, why is it that you want people to get less help than is possible by forcing me to give more money to entities that squander it away in beaurocracies?


I don't imagine the founders, with their religious beliefs that helped shape the constitution, would have seen US society developing in that way.

Bwahaaahaaa!!!! That was funny ... I thought there for a second you were serious .... wait, what? .... you are serious.. Oh my.

The Founders did have religious beliefs. And those beliefs would have told them to take care of their family/friends/neighbors, not to outsource the care to certainly inefficient and possibly corrupt federal government agencies.

The Founders did not want a Federal income tax, as can be seen by the fact that they did not write one into the Constitution. And they sure as hell wouldn't have wanted it to be a progressive tax, as can be seen in the taxes they do have needing to be "uniform throughout the United States".

[ArrowsFA1]

I happen to believe that people should take care of themselves, their neighbors, and their local community. I have seen many studies that show that local governments and local charities do a MUCH better job distributing funds to those that actually need the help than the Federal Government does.

So if local governments and local charities can help people more effectively, why is it that you want people to get less help than is possible by forcing me to give more money to entities that squander it away in beaurocracies?
Charities do a fantastic job. They are focussed on a particular cause and make every effort to raise money to fund their work. However, donations to charities fluctuate and often depend on the profile of the charity concerned. Those donations are also optional meaning that the work they can do, and the number of people they can help, are dependent on the generosity of individuals.

That's a great model when money flows in. It's not so great when, as now, there is little spare money to be given to charity, however worthy. Charities are struggling to meet increasing demands. They are cutting back the services they offer because they simply cannot help the increasing numbers of people in need.

In an ideal world people would take care of themselves, their neighbors, and their local community, but in reality they don't in sufficient numbers.

According to reports (http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2012/jan/11/poverty-america-likely-worse-report) there are 46 million Americans living below the poverty line – up 27% since start of recession - and the numbers will increase. That level of povery simply cannot be dealt with by hoping that people will donate generously to charity.


The Founders did not want a Federal income tax, as can be seen by the fact that they did not write one into the Constitution.
The constitution was written in 1776. The US and the world has changed in 236 years.

[chuck34]

Charities do a fantastic job. They are focussed on a particular cause and make every effort to raise money to fund their work. However, donations to charities fluctuate and often depend on the profile of the charity concerned. Those donations are also optional meaning that the work they can do, and the number of people they can help, are dependent on the generosity of individuals.

That's a great model when money flows in. It's not so great when, as now, there is little spare money to be given to charity, however worthy. Charities are struggling to meet increasing demands. They are cutting back the services they offer because they simply cannot help the increasing numbers of people in need.

Perhaps if the govenment would stop confiscating so much wealth, there would be more to give to charities?


In an ideal world people would take care of themselves, their neighbors, and their local community, but in reality they don't in sufficient numbers.

Perhaps that is because the government confiscates people's wealth with hollow promises of taking care of people. Those that could be donating now either do not have sufficient "extra" money to donate, or simply feel they do not have to as the government has promised to do it for them.

Or perhaps our society has fallen so far away from it's moral grounding that there is no longer a moral need to support charities.


According to reports (http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2012/jan/11/poverty-america-likely-worse-report) there are 46 million Americans living below the poverty line – up 27% since start of recession - and the numbers will increase. That level of povery simply cannot be dealt with by hoping that people will donate generously to charity.

How exactly does taxation create sustainable, well paying jobs for those people, especially as the numbers of those in poverty keeps increasing?



The constitution was written in 1776. The US and the world has changed in 236 years.

So in 1776 it wasn't ok to take 100% of someone's wealth, but 236 years later that would be just fine?

[monadvspec]

isn't it amazing how the republicans can get their message out and half the sheeple follow them. They will defend the guy with the mansion, the one that almost broke the country and is still receiving multi-million dollar bonuses and then they have the audacity to blame it on the one man who is trying to do something about it and the papers I read, even the conservative ones from the UK and Ireland point out the obstructionism he faces in the Senate and Congress. It is obvious to us that Conservatives in power do not respect their president. How shameful.
Do all these people Like Bob Riebe consider themselves Christians. If so, they should know that Jesus stated,"it's easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than a rich man" or to that effect.

[janvanvurpa]

isn't it amazing
Do all these people Like Bob Riebe consider themselves Christians. If so, they should know that Jesus stated,"it's easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than a rich man" or to that effect.


It reads "It is easier to pass a camel through the eye of a needle than it is for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of Heaven...."

But you must remember, Everything that those "Conservatives" preach aand rant about is really because they do truly belive---from their own experience---are needed.
They say "we need more police and harsher sentancing" because they are criminals
They say "We need to protect the sanctity of marriage" because they are serial cheaters. adulturers, busy whoring and picking up men in airport restrooms

They say these things because they need these harsh laws to keep their own impulses and behaviour in line, and presume everybody must be as weak and corrupt as they are...

[Eki]

So in 1776 it wasn't ok to take 100% of someone's wealth, but 236 years later that would be just fine?
Nobody is taking 100% of someone's wealth. Even in Finland the highest income tax percentage is about 60%.

BTW, the Founders didn't write into the Constitution that the US should have 50 states. Are the current 50 states unconstitutional?

[Bob Riebe]

Nobody is taking 100% of someone's wealth. Even in Finland the highest income tax percentage is about 60%.

BTW, the Founders didn't write into the Constitution that the US should have 50 states. Are the current 50 states unconstitutional?
The Constitution gave States many rights, which Washington is doing its best to eliminate.

The people of a State determine whether or not they become a State.
Why do you continue to ask such brain dead questions?

As of now Puerto Rico is a Territory that repeatedly makes decisions as to what status it wants to maintain.

[Garry Walker]

Then if that is true, one can say that flat tax is based on greed.

The fact is that money has more value if you have less of it. Taxing a low earner is taking away money they need to survive, to eat and to provide housing for themselves. A high earner paying a little bit more tax is having money taken away from them that they would spend on luxuries that they don't need, but still leaves them better off than a low earner. Which is their right - they have most likely done more in their life to earn that success. If the low-earner wants to afford things that the high earner can, well, guess what he needs to do to get that?


Is it? I'd rather say that it's quite reasonable to expect those who have more to pay more. Now, whether the tax percentage for rich people should be higher or lower than poor (or not-as-rich) people, I don't know. I don't think it's unreasonable to ask a person who earns €20 million to pay €10 million on taxes. He'd still be keeping quite a lot of money and €10 million could be put to good use and improve people's lives.The lives of those who are too lazy and stupid to do anything to help themselves? The ones who were too lazy to study in school, too lazy to attend university (or actually study there instead of being drunk 24/7) or learn a trade? Yeah, the successful ones must help those people so bad.



While losing half of your income due to taxes looks like an exaggeration to me, I can understand those who claim that it should be that way. In the above example, how many poor people would you be able to help with €10 million? That's quite a lot of money, possibly more than any of us is going to earn in his entire life, and the person who would have paid €10 million would still have quite a lot of money. Well, perhaps he wouldn't be able to buy a diamond-studded swimming pool and he'd have to go with a gold-plated one instead, but I don't think that he (or she) would starve because of this.Well, why don't the poor people help themselves? Improve their skills, work harder, attempt to get a better job - those all are possibilities in modern times. But no, those of us who work hard and have done so for most of their lives, we must help the lazy ones.
Next time I get home from work at 12 in the night after 15 hour work day, I will remember to think how I should pay more taxes to help those hard working welfare recipients.

Low-paid losers, eh?

Let's assume for a second that a married couple decides to have children. Usually it will be the mother who will take time off during the early part of the child's life. That women will on average take a permanentcut in income because they decided to be responsible and raise the child properly; yet you choose to call such people "low paid losers"? Does that make sense? I am sure you will find a quote of me saying that mothers who take time away from their job to raise a child are losers. Find it and post it here.


For the sake of the debate Lets say what you state is true. Then you are advocating rewarding failure.The liberal way of thinking is exactly that - rewarding failure and lazyness and punishing success.


The idea that lower income people would be hurt more isn't a problem as far as I am concerned. Especially when you consider that they are the same people who use up more of our tax dollars. Let them pay for their stuff. 100% right.


According to Garry Walker everyone can. It kind of proves the claim that conservatives have low IQ.
Yes, everyone of us can be a high earner if they make the right choices in life and are ready to work that extra bit harder.
But of course, not everyone will be that because most people have little willpower. Those are the people who abuse social security and cry about not having enough money. So you will end up with successful people and losers.

Of course you, being a welfare abuser, would not know anything about working hard to achieve something.

[ArrowsFA1]

It's so simple isn't it. All of the rich have worked hard and deserve their wealth. All of those in poverty can't be arsed.

Make government smaller and cut taxes for the wealthy. That will solve all the problems.

:laugh:

[Rollo]

And how many programs are out there that the "rich" are paying for that they are not allowed to use? Sure the "rich" use infrastructure to help earn an income, but they pay for it. The "poor" do not pay for infrastructure, but they use it. The "poor" do not pay for social programs, but they use them. Etc.


If we were to use the military as an example, who actually derives the biggest advantage from its continued function? Someone whose property is valued at $60000 or many many millions? In the case of the Federal Interstate System, who actually derives the biggest advantage from its continued function? A single person who drives one car, a trucking company, or someone like Nordstrom's who then is able to bring product to sale because of the many miles travelled by those products?
This has almost nothing to do with "wanting the poor to starve" but rather asking you to actually consider who has the biggest insurable interest and therefore actually has an actual monetary concern for the continued functioning of the economy.

[Brown, Jon Brow]

Yes, everyone of us can be a high earner if they make the right choices in life and are ready to work that extra bit harder.
But of course, not everyone will be that because most people have little willpower. Those are the people who abuse social security and cry about not having enough money. So you will end up with successful people and losers.
.

How?

You really believe that that everyone can be a high earner? :laugh:

[Brown, Jon Brow]

So you'd be happy to opt out because you can afford to?

Every man for himself? Survival of the fittest? Damn the rest of you? Isn't that a rather narrow and selfish philosophy of life and the society in which you live? I don't imagine the founders, with their religious beliefs that helped shape the constitution, would have seen US society developing in that way.


http://listverse.files.wordpress.com/2012/01/sayings-antisocial-clip.jpg?w=400&h=400

[chuck34]

Nobody is taking 100% of someone's wealth. Even in Finland the highest income tax percentage is about 60%.

But leagally there is nothing stopping that from happening, right? So what is the difference between 60% and 100%?

And in the US at one point in time the top marginal rate was 90%.


BTW, the Founders didn't write into the Constitution that the US should have 50 states. Are the current 50 states unconstitutional?

The Founders did not stipulate the number of states, but did allow for adding as many as wanted.

U.S. Constitution - Article 4 Section 3 - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net (http://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_A4Sec3.html)
[quote="Article 4 Section 3"]New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union]

[Brown, Jon Brow]

The Founders did have religious beliefs.



Unrelated point, but what about Thomas Jefferson?

[Brown, Jon Brow]

But leagally there is nothing stopping that from happening, right? So what is the difference between 60% and 100%?



In a democracy I don't think that a 100% income tax policy is going to be a vote winner.

[chuck34]

If we were to use the military as an example, who actually derives the biggest advantage from its continued function? Someone whose property is valued at $60000 or many many millions? In the case of the Federal Interstate System, who actually derives the biggest advantage from its continued function? A single person who drives one car, a trucking company, or someone like Nordstrom's who then is able to bring product to sale because of the many miles travelled by those products?

Obviously you want me to say the "rich" benifit the most. And in many ways they do. But the "poor" also benifit. Think of a country without the interstate system, how much do you think goods would cost without safe, and cheap means of transportation? And as liberals like to point out, higher costs disproportionally effect the poor, right? So without the interstate system the costs of food and other goods would go up, causing the "poor" to loose buying power.


This has almost nothing to do with "wanting the poor to starve" but rather asking you to actually consider who has the biggest insurable interest and therefore actually has an actual monetary concern for the continued functioning of the economy.

And you continue to ignore the fact that the "rich" already pay more than any other group. How much more do you want them to pay? How much more is their "fair share"? Remember: the top 1% control 20% of the wealth and pay 38% of the taxes. Is that "fair" by your standards?

[chuck34]

Unrelated point, but what about Thomas Jefferson?

Jefferson was a very complex man. While he might not fit into a strict Christian orthodox section, it is fairly clear that he did believe in some form of God.

[chuck34]

In a democracy I don't think that a 100% income tax policy is going to be a vote winner.

Point #1: The US is not a democracy. At least not in our founding documents, in current practice we might be sliding closer and closer to a mass representative democracy. That would be very bad in my opinion.

Point #2: Why wouldn't taxing a certain small segment of the population not be a vote winner. If someone were to promise to tax the "rich", or "millionairs and billionairs", or "the top 1%" at 100% to offset massive tax decreases on everyone else, why wouldn't that be a huge vote winner? Afterall that policy would only effect a small portion of the population, right?

[Brown, Jon Brow]

Point #2: Why wouldn't taxing a certain small segment of the population not be a vote winner. If someone were to promise to tax the "rich", or "millionairs and billionairs", or "the top 1%" at 100% to offset massive tax decreases on everyone else, why wouldn't that be a huge vote winner? Afterall that policy would only effect a small portion of the population, right?

Because in the capitalist system the wealthy have greater influence on the government than public opinion. Governments/political parties will listen to the big businesses because that's where they get their funding from.

[Rollo]

Obviously you want me to say the "rich" benifit the most. And in many ways they do. But the "poor" also benifit. Think of a country without the interstate system, how much do you think goods would cost without safe, and cheap means of transportation? And as liberals like to point out, higher costs disproportionally effect the poor, right? So without the interstate system the costs of food and other goods would go up, causing the "poor" to loose buying power.




And you continue to ignore the fact that the "rich" already pay more than any other group. How much more do you want them to pay? How much more is their "fair share"? Remember: the top 1% control 20% of the wealth and pay 38% of the taxes. Is that "fair" by your standards?

"1% control 20% of the wealth" - Show your workings.

Occupy Wall Street And The Rhetoric of Equality - Forbes (http://www.forbes.com/sites/deborahljacobs/2011/11/01/occupy-wall-street-and-the-rhetoric-of-equality/)
the top one percent of the country owns 34.6% of the wealth in total net worth; the next 19% owns 50.5%; the bottom 80% owns 15%.
In financial wealth, the figures are even more startling: 42.7%, 50.3%, and 7.0% respectively.

[Rollo]

And you continue to ignore the fact that the "rich" already pay more than any other group. How much more do you want them to pay? How much more is their "fair share"? Remember: the top 1% control 20% of the wealth and pay 38% of the taxes. Is that "fair" by your standards?

"1% control 20% of the wealth" - Show your workings.

Occupy Wall Street And The Rhetoric of Equality - Forbes (http://www.forbes.com/sites/deborahljacobs/2011/11/01/occupy-wall-street-and-the-rhetoric-of-equality/)
the top one percent of the country owns 34.6% of the wealth in total net worth; the next 19% owns 50.5%; the bottom 80% owns 15%.
In financial wealth, the figures are even more startling: 42.7%, 50.3%, and 7.0% respectively.


Point #1: The US is not a democracy. At least not in our founding documents, in current practice we might be sliding closer and closer to a mass representative democracy. That would be very bad in my opinion.

Point #2: Why wouldn't taxing a certain small segment of the population not be a vote winner. If someone were to promise to tax the "rich", or "millionairs and billionairs", or "the top 1%" at 100% to offset massive tax decreases on everyone else, why wouldn't that be a huge vote winner? Afterall that policy would only effect a small portion of the population, right?

How much of economic policy is determined in board rooms? Governance isn't purely limited to the legislature. In that respect, a vast majority of people who do not directly own shares have ZERO voting rights. That's not even a democracy but a plutocracy.

[Garry Walker]

It's so simple isn't it. All of the rich have worked hard and deserve their wealth. All of those in poverty can't be arsed.Not always, but I don't know anyone who has not worked extremely hard to get rich and I know plenty of rich people. The poor ones, well, they have been lazy in school and everywhere else. So no surprise there.
Of course there are always exceptions.


Make government smaller and cut taxes for the wealthy. That will solve all the problems.

You could easily cut 1/3 of public sector workers and nothing bad would happen. The rest would just have to stop taking 3 hour lunch breaks.
Cutting taxes for wealthy? I am in favour of everyone paying the same % tax rate.


How?

You really believe that that everyone can be a high earner? :laugh:
Not everyone at the same time, but each and everyone of us has a chance to be financially successful if we are ready to take chances, if we are ready to work hard.

For example, you are pretty young, aren't you? Why don't you start your own business, what is stopping you?

[ArrowsFA1]

You could easily cut 1/3 of public sector workers and nothing bad would happen.
Nothing? So unemployment is a good thing? I suppose it is. The private sector can have their pick of all those "lazy" people to fill the few of jobs they are creating and as for the rest just chuck 'em on the scrap heap. They're a waste of space anyway. Oh, and cut their benefits. That'll teach 'em for being unemployed wastrels.

The rest would just have to stop taking 3 hour lunch breaks.
:laugh: :rolleyes:

[chuck34]

"1% control 20% of the wealth" - Show your workings.

Apparently you and I are looking at two different threads because I have "shown my workings" TWICE now. Here it is a third time.
How Much Money Do The Top Income Earners Make By Percentage? | Financial Samurai (http://www.financialsamurai.com/2011/04/12/how-much-money-do-the-top-income-earners-make-percent/)
The data was taken straight from the IRS. If you really wanted to look it up on the IRS's website, you can. But it is very complicated and a lot of data to sift through. This link, and others, all appear to show basically the same thing.


Occupy Wall Street And The Rhetoric of Equality - Forbes (http://www.forbes.com/sites/deborahljacobs/2011/11/01/occupy-wall-street-and-the-rhetoric-of-equality/)
the top one percent of the country owns 34.6% of the wealth in total net worth; the next 19% owns 50.5%; the bottom 80% owns 15%.
In financial wealth, the figures are even more startling: 42.7%, 50.3%, and 7.0% respectively.

Your link is reporting numbers that aren't too far off what I'm linking to. Although I did not go through your link in great detail, I would suspect the slight difference in numbers is related to what number is reported. Your link is about Occupy Wall Street, and therefore they will want to spin the numbers as bad as they can, so I suspect they are reporting total income. Where-as my link is admitadly probably trying to spin it the other way, and therefore reports adjusted gross income (AGI), that is income after deductions, or what you actually pay taxes on. Now if you want to talk about deductions, then I'm probably with you, get rid of ALL deductions for everyone.

At any rate our numbers aren't really that far apart. And my point remains even using your numbers. The top 1% makes 34.6% of the income, but payes 38%. Is that "fair" in your book?

And exactly what is this "financial wealth"? In skimming over your link I never saw it spelled out, I could have missed it, please help me. I'm taking a guess that they are trying to include investments. If so they have already been taxed on that income once, how many times do you want them to be taxed?


How much of economic policy is determined in board rooms? Governance isn't purely limited to the legislature. In that respect, a vast majority of people who do not directly own shares have ZERO voting rights. That's not even a democracy but a plutocracy.

Since when did corporations become government? Since when do corporations have the ability to FORCE you to buy something? Since when do corporations have the ability to pass laws affecting how you live your life?

[ArrowsFA1]

Since when do corporations have the ability to pass laws affecting how you live your life?
Simple:
Corporations maintain a constant presence inside government. Current, former and future directors of multinational corporations work for HM Civil Service, in government procurement roles and on obscure advisory committees as part of the civil service or appointed directly by ministers. These committees often play an advisory, rather than policy making role, but are an important channel to communicate corporate needs directly to the requisite parts of government.
Corporate influence on government: An introduction | Corporate Rule (http://corporate-rule.co.uk/drupal/node/44)

[BDunnell]

Since when do corporations have the ability to pass laws affecting how you live your life?

Your notion that corporations are forces of no influence in government is fanciful in the extreme. Leaving aside all sorts of other lobbying activities, one only has to see the presence that big companies have at party conferences in the UK to see that. They wouldn't be there were it not to curry favour and influence, because, contrary to your naive view, these are not altruistic organisations we're talking about.

[BDunnell]

I'll ignore the rest of your post as wildly off topic.

You ignore the rest of my post because, deep down, you know it to be accurate.

[chuck34]

Your notion that corporations are forces of no influence in government is fanciful in the extreme. Leaving aside all sorts of other lobbying activities, one only has to see the presence that big companies have at party conferences in the UK to see that. They wouldn't be there were it not to curry favour and influence, because, contrary to your naive view, these are not altruistic organisations we're talking about.

I never said corporations are altruistic. I never said they had no influence. What I did say was that corporations don't FORCE anyone to do anything. If you think that a corporation has too much influence over a particular politician, then expose that, run against him/her, support their opponent etc.

[chuck34]

You ignore the rest of my post because, deep down, you know it to be accurate.

So you think that my personal beliefs on religion/the Bible, and anthonyvop's ability/right to carry a knife or gun somehow has something to do with tax policy???? Seriously???

If you want to discuss those topics, then by all means start a new thread, and I'll discuss those issues there.

[Alexamateo]

.......


Since when did corporations become government? Since when do corporations have the ability to FORCE you to buy something? Since when do corporations have the ability to pass laws affecting how you live your life?

Since forever really:

[quote="Adam Smith"]People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices. It is impossible indeed to prevent such meetings, by any law which either could be executed, or would be consistent with liberty and justice. But though the law cannot hinder people of the same trade from sometimes assembling together, it ought to do nothing to facilitate such assemblies]

I've mentioned this before, but I broker trees and shrubs to landscape contractors. The old joke about landscaping is that anyone with a pickup truck and a shovel can call themselves a landscaper, in other words, there are low barriers of entry. IMO, that's a good thing. Yet, I kid you not, I have sat in on trade association meetings where they say, we need to get the state government to pass some licensing requirements and get rid of these jacklegs, all in the name of consumer protection, of course.

Far-fetched? Try cutting hair or doing nails without getting a blessing from the state cosmetology board.

If it happens on this small potatoes level, just imagine on a federal level. Of course it happens and it happens because it's human nature. We want it easy until we get in and get connected, but then slam the door shut on those coming behind in order to protect your turf.

Of course, the same thing happens on the government end of the spectrum, too, as officials consolidate power and influence in order for others to be beholden to them in order for anything to get done. It's just human nature and government officials are people too.

[BDunnell]

So you think that my personal beliefs on religion/the Bible, and anthonyvop's ability/right to carry a knife or gun somehow has something to do with tax policy???? Seriously???

They have much to do with my perspectives as to the validity of your opinions on tax policy.

[chuck34]

They have much to do with my perspectives as to the validity of your opinions on tax policy.

So somehow my personal religious beliefs (which you know next to nothing about) makes my opinions on tax policy invalid? Really????? I thought you were more open minded than that.

And if my belief in God invalidates my thoughts on taxes, what do Obama's religious beliefs do for his tax policy? Afterall he is attempting to use the teachings of Jesus/the Bible to justify his tax policy. By your logic shouldn't that invalidate his policy?

[chuck34]

Since forever really:



I've mentioned this before, but I broker trees and shrubs to landscape contractors. The old joke about landscaping is that anyone with a pickup truck and a shovel can call themselves a landscaper, in other words, there are low barriers of entry. IMO, that's a good thing. Yet, I kid you not, I have sat in on trade association meetings where they say, we need to get the state government to pass some licensing requirements and get rid of these jacklegs, all in the name of consumer protection, of course.

Far-fetched? Try cutting hair or doing nails without getting a blessing from the state cosmetology board.

If it happens on this small potatoes level, just imagine on a federal level. Of course it happens and it happens because it's human nature. We want it easy until we get in and get connected, but then slam the door shut on those coming behind in order to protect your turf.

Of course, the same thing happens on the government end of the spectrum, too, as officials consolidate power and influence in order for others to be beholden to them in order for anything to get done. It's just human nature and government officials are people too.

Once again, I have never said that business has no influence over politicians. Clearly they do. But they are not the ones actually voting on legislation. Ultimately that is the responsibility of the legislator. And it is up to the voting public to either vote those legislators in or out of office.

[ArrowsFA1]

Once again, I have never said that business has no influence over politicians. Clearly they do. But they are not the ones actually voting on legislation.
They don't need to be the ones voting. They simply "help" shape the legislation.

Here's how it works:
NHS health reforms: Extent of McKinsey & Company's role in Andrew Lansley's proposals | Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2099940/NHS-health-reforms-Extent-McKinsey--Companys-role-Andrew-Lansleys-proposals.html)

[Alexamateo]

Once again, I have never said that business has no influence over politicians. Clearly they do. But they are not the ones actually voting on legislation. Ultimately that is the responsibility of the legislator. And it is up to the voting public to either vote those legislators in or out of office.


They don't need to be the ones voting. They simply "help" shape the legislation.

Here's how it works:
NHS health reforms: Extent of McKinsey & Company's role in Andrew Lansley's proposals | Mail Online

Chuck, I am on your side as I lean conservative, but what can you do? I live in Steve Cohen's(D-Tennessee) district. He's not going to get voted out, not here. The NHS article reminds me of my opinion on Obama's Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. It seems to me that the private insurance companies wrote it. I wrote to Steve Cohen that how could he support the bill how it was written. I don't want single payer, but I'd rather have single payer than the monstrosity of a bill that got passed.

[Garry Walker]

Nothing? So unemployment is a good thing? So it is better to keep a huge workforce of public sector workers out of whom 1/3 are easily not needed and waste money on them? So government should basically be a charity?



I suppose it is. The private sector can have their pick of all those "lazy" people to fill the few of jobs they are creating and as for the rest just chuck 'em on the scrap heap. They're a waste of space anyway. Oh, and cut their benefits. That'll teach 'em for being unemployed wastrels.

:laugh: :rolleyes:
You, I am sure, work in public sector. Have you ever worked in private sector? From everyone I know, they all state that compared to private sector, the amount of work you do in public sector is just nothing compared to it. You go for to work in public sector if you want a safe workplace and not work too much.
Not that there are no hard working people in public sector, there are a few.

[ArrowsFA1]

So it is better to keep a huge workforce of public sector workers out of whom 1/3 are easily not needed and waste money on them? So government should basically be a charity?
Not what I'm saying Garry. You claim that the effect of putting millions of people out of work is that "nothing bad would happen". That's patently untrue for the individuals concerned and for the economy as a whole. In the UK only a small percentage of the planned cuts have taken effect and yet we are already seeing the effects, economic and social, of increasing unemployment. Those effects will worsen as the cuts continue.

There is no doubt that savings/efficiencies can be, and are being, made in the public sector; and no, government is not a charity.


Have you ever worked in private sector?
Yes.


You go for to work in public sector if you want a safe workplace and not work too much.
:laugh:

[Eki]

You could easily cut 1/3 of public sector workers and nothing bad would happen.
Do you believe the private sector would need or take them? No? What else is there? Starvation? Crime?




For example, you are pretty young, aren't you? Why don't you start your own business, what is stopping you?
Lack of a good business idea? Lack of demand and clients? Lack of starting capital? Personality?

BTW, what does young got to do with it? I thought you believed everybody can get rich. The young, the old, the healthy, the disabled, etc.

[Garry Walker]

Not what I'm saying Garry. You claim that the effect of putting millions of people out of work is that "nothing bad would happen". That's patently untrue for the individuals concerned and for the economy as a whole. In the UK only a small percentage of the planned cuts have taken effect and yet we are already seeing the effects, economic and social, of increasing unemployment. Those effects will worsen as the cuts continue.In UK and in many other countries you keep complaining you need immigration, because there is not enough workforce available.


There is no doubt that savings/efficiencies can be, and are being, made in the public sector; and no, government is not a charity.
Huge savings can be made.



:laugh: Okay, laugh all you want, but answer me this - Do you think the average worker in private sector has to put more effort in than in public sector.
If you answer with that with no, I will gladly tell you some of the tales I have heard from public sector.


Lack of a good business idea?Whose problem is that?

Lack of demand and clients? Lack of starting capital? Personality? All problems that are solveable.


BTW, what does young got to do with it? I thought you believed everybody can get rich. The young, the old, the healthy, the disabled, etc. LOL. Eki being true to himself.
It is easier when you are young, simply because you have much more energy and motivation.
But it is possible even when you are old. I know a guy who is around 55 and started his own business couple of years ago. He won't get to forbes 400, but he is doing quite well for himself.

[BDunnell]

You, I am sure, work in public sector. Have you ever worked in private sector? From everyone I know, they all state that compared to private sector, the amount of work you do in public sector is just nothing compared to it. You go for to work in public sector if you want a safe workplace and not work too much.

This is utter, utter nonsense — and I speak from personal experience, rather than blind prejudice.

Where does your figure of a third of public sector employees being unnecessary come from? An economic/scientific calculation and detailed analysis, or 'what you reckon'?

[airshifter]

This is utter, utter nonsense — and I speak from personal experience, rather than blind prejudice.

Where does your figure of a third of public sector employees being unnecessary come from? An economic/scientific calculation and detailed analysis, or 'what you reckon'?

I'm sure it depends on the specifics of where people are working, how motivated they are, and other such factors but......

Where I work the average private sector worker probably performs the work of three public sector employees. Those working for the government are paid a great deal more than their counterparts on the outside of the system, and are much less accountable. The position I have exists due to the fact that those highly paid government workers can't seem to get it done, and there are a great many others in the same or similar positions for the same reasons.

I have seen some public sector employees earn their pay, but far more that don't. If you are claiming the statement made by Garry is utter nonsense, what analysis do you have other than personal opinion?

[ArrowsFA1]

Do you think the average worker in private sector has to put more effort in than in public sector.


Last year the average public sector worker laboured for 35 hours a week… 2 hours less than the typical private sector worker.”
Is this really down to laziness, and better working conditions? No. Again, this is simply due to the greater number of part time jobs in the public sector – 31% vs 23% – which is a longstanding phenomenon.
If you want to be trusted more: claim less – Bad Science (http://www.badscience.net/2010/01/if-you-want-to-be-trusted-more-claim-less/)


There is a very important point to make about comparing average earnings in the public sector with the private sector. You are not comparing like with like. Neither the private sector nor the public sector are homogenous wholes with similar skills composition and earnings distribution.
The use and abuse of earnings data | ToUChstone blog: A public policy blog from the TUC (http://touchstoneblog.org.uk/2010/02/the-use-and-abuse-of-earnings-data/)

[BDunnell]

I have seen some public sector employees earn their pay, but far more that don't. If you are claiming the statement made by Garry is utter nonsense, what analysis do you have other than personal opinion?

Several years of personal experience, knowing many other public sector employees, seeing them doing their jobs... What more do you want? In my area of public sector work, hours were necessarily long and the workload intense. I deeply resent the notion that I or anyone else I knew/know in the public sector was or is automatically less likely to work hard on the basis simply of their job being funded by the taxpayer. Now I work in the private sector and in no way has my work ethic altered. It would be a strange individual indeed of whom the reverse could be said.

Unfortunately, I fear that your view too is tainted by your attitudes to taxation and the like. Mine is formed on the basis of genuine experience. Unfashionable on the internet, I know, but there you go.

[ArrowsFA1]

I deeply resent the notion that I or anyone else I knew/know in the public sector was or is automatically less likely to work hard on the basis simply of their job being funded by the taxpayer. Now I work in the private sector and in no way has my work ethic altered. It would be a strange individual indeed of whom the reverse could be said.
There is a clear trait among those of a certain political persuasion to follow the divide and rule route. We've seen it in the UK particularly as the public sector, and public sector workers, are painted as somehow being at fault for our economic woes. The unemployed, not the conditions that cause unemployment, are portrayed as being at fault for their situation and we're told (http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2012/feb/16/disabled-unpaid-work-benefit-cuts) by ministers that "sanctions are an incentive for people to comply with their responsibility".

It's a shame there's no comparible sanctions for those who are actually responsible, and for those pursuing deeply divisive and damaging policies.

[airshifter]

Several years of personal experience, knowing many other public sector employees, seeing them doing their jobs... What more do you want? In my area of public sector work, hours were necessarily long and the workload intense. I deeply resent the notion that I or anyone else I knew/know in the public sector was or is automatically less likely to work hard on the basis simply of their job being funded by the taxpayer. Now I work in the private sector and in no way has my work ethic altered. It would be a strange individual indeed of whom the reverse could be said.

Unfortunately, I fear that your view too is tainted by your attitudes to taxation and the like. Mine is formed on the basis of genuine experience. Unfashionable on the internet, I know, but there you go.

I've worked on both sides of the fence myself, and also have years of experience. So in your eyes the fact that I expect a person paid by tax money to perform their job properly in some way taints my view? I worked in the military and earned every cent I made. I earn my pay now working on the outside. I feel everyone should do the same, and in the case of someone paid by tax money should be accountable to more people, since those "more people" in fact provide the means for them to be paid.

I've seen several areas of government work here in the US where there is a complete lack of accountability. As an example in the places I work the government employees below management level are paid based on hourly wage plus their benefits package. None of the locations has a time clock, nor to any use any type of accountability of time worked.

[BDunnell]

I've worked on both sides of the fence myself, and also have years of experience. So in your eyes the fact that I expect a person paid by tax money to perform their job properly in some way taints my view?

I too expect everyone to do their job properly. What makes you think I don't, in spite of the fact that my perspective is very different from yours? I find the insinuation rather insulting, I must say.


I worked in the military and earned every cent I made. I earn my pay now working on the outside. I feel everyone should do the same, and in the case of someone paid by tax money should be accountable to more people, since those "more people" in fact provide the means for them to be paid.

What do you mean by 'everyone should do the same' — that everyone should work in the private sector?



I've seen several areas of government work here in the US where there is a complete lack of accountability. As an example in the places I work the government employees below management level are paid based on hourly wage plus their benefits package. None of the locations has a time clock, nor to any use any type of accountability of time worked.

When I worked in the public sector there was no time clock. In no way did this detract from my productivity.

[Garry Walker]

This is utter, utter nonsense — and I speak from personal experience, rather than blind prejudice. Don't get your panties in a twist.



Where does your figure of a third of public sector employees being unnecessary come from? An economic/scientific calculation and detailed analysis, or 'what you reckon'?I know quite a lot of people from many areas of work. Many of them work in public sector. The common thing between them? They all speak about how much easier it is in public sector, the workload is less and there is far more time for chatting. Let's face it, in private sector (at least in my experience) you don't have time for 2 hour long chats. In public sector, from what I hear from people actually working there, that is apparently not that uncommon. Another thing they usually state is that even if you don't perform your tasks to the level you should, in public sector you can usually be quite safe in knowing it won't get you fired. In fact, many people since before finishing uni state that they 100% want to get a job in public sector sector, because it will make life just so much easier. I had a friend work in one pretty important public sector establishment after uni who quite after around 4 months of work saying he didn't think he ever did more than 2 hours of work a day (and he wasn't alone in that in that department). Why did he quit? He felt he needed a challenge or he would just "dumb down" or however the expression is in english.
For your info, I have never worked in public sector, so you may dismiss my views, but I have no reason to think that many people (no, not 5, but much more and many of those good friends of mine) lied to me. Why would they?
That said I actually know a very hard working public servant.


If you want to be trusted more: claim less – Bad Science (http://www.badscience.net/2010/01/if-you-want-to-be-trusted-more-claim-less/)
The use and abuse of earnings data | ToUChstone blog: A public policy blog from the TUC (http://touchstoneblog.org.uk/2010/02/the-use-and-abuse-of-earnings-data/) I have no desire to read those links, but as far as your claim for working hours, well, doh, how much work did they actually do in those hours? That is what should be compared. Of course most public sector workers spend around the same time at the office (if you discount arriving 10 minutes late and finishing 15 before before the work day starts). How much of the hours they spent at work were actually productive?


There is a clear trait among those of a certain political persuasion to follow the divide and rule route.There is a clear trait among those of a certain political persuasion to be incredibly dumb (left-wingers).


We've seen it in the UK particularly as the public sector, and public sector workers, are painted as somehow being at fault for our economic woes.They do share a good part of the blame, but of course the are not the only one. Who has said that it is only the fault of public sector?


The unemployed, not the conditions that cause unemployment, are portrayed as being at fault for their situationYeah, and those people have no blame in that whatsoever? Who told them to have no aspirations in their life and earn a useless arts degree, if even that? Most people who can contribute well at their tasks have no problems finding jobs (of course, not always, but mostly that is the case). If you have no skills, no degree, of course no one will want you.
Let me tell you, in my line of business, people who have specific skills and are great at it, are in great demand and they will never ever go hungry, but I find it pretty hard to actually find such people.


and we're told (http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2012/feb/16/disabled-unpaid-work-benefit-cuts) by ministers that "sanctions are an incentive for people to comply with their responsibility".
A link from guardian. I can just feel the puke coming.

An idea that isn't that bad actually. If the society takes care of you, you should at least pay back something somehow.
In my country those who are slightly retarded are often found doing some menial and easy jobs (which is the most they are unfortunately capable of) and I think that is great for both them especially.

[Eki]

Let's face it, in private sector (at least in my experience) you don't have time for 2 hour long chats.
In private sector, I have had 6 hour long chats with customers.They are called meetings.

[donKey jote]

nah, meetings are under 2 hours... you mean workshops :p

[Eki]

nah, meetings are under 2 hours... you mean workshops :p
Whatever. But nothing is more frustrating than chatting 6 hours with idiots without having the option to tell them they are idiots, just because they are customers (or management) .

[Garry Walker]

In private sector, I have had 6 hour long chats with customers.They are called meetings.

1) That would mean you have sometimes in your life worked and not claimed welfare - I don't believe that for a second
2) Well, that is part of one's job. I too have had meetings that long and hell, even longer. I have spent over 10 hours a day on some meetings. The chats I was talking about was a little bit different of a case and even an intellectual lilliputian such as yourself should have understood that.

[Garry Walker]

Come on Lord Sugar the reason you find it hard to find (or your company find it hard to find) such people is because society doesn't reward people who leave school at 16 with no desire for further education who want to work hard for peanuts. In my sector, no.


Depending on what 'line of business' you choose, a company expects experience to come with any qualification. Often in cases (certainly Product Design and Graphic Design) where graduates are fresh on the employment market, companies expect you to work on average 6 months (FT) with no pay to gain such experience. Thats not very realistic unless you live in free accomodation and many of my friends found they had no job at the end of it. They gained experience but fell into yet more debt. Its not always as easy as just knuckling down with a bit of old fashioned hard work as society has become a little more complex than that.
1) Yes, it is true that companies expect experience. I have always thought one should try to find work during uni time already and gain experience then. For example, if you are in your 2nd year of uni, why not start applying for places or use the help of uni to possibly get a place somewhere. For free? So what. No one will want a uni graduate with ZERO work experience. In real world, uni education without experience means nothing. If some girl came to my door tomorrow with an accouting degree but no experience and offered to work for free I would kindly tell her no way, I just cannot take such a risk. That's the reality these days and considering how many unis are just a place to get an easy diploma, whilst having a drink most days, well, it is no wonder.
Altogether, that's why most people I know, myself included, started working already during uni times. It is not easy, but then who said it should be?

2) In my line of business, I really don't expect uni education from my workers (I deal in construction mainly) :D .

[Eki]

For free? So what. No one will want a uni graduate with ZERO work experience. .
Why would anyone want to work for you for free, even without zero work experience? Do you work for free for your customers?

[Rollo]

If some girl came to my door tomorrow with an accouting degree but no experience and offered to work for free I would kindly tell her no way, I just cannot take such a risk.

In the line of the above with respect to the following:


In my line of business, I really don't expect uni education from my workers (I deal in construction mainly) :D .

Would you be willing to take on an apprentice?

Education need not have anything to do with academia at all.
Apprenticeships and Traineeships are just as valid at producing a skilled labour force. The fact that you've indicated that you "cannot take such a risk" merely shows that as a businessman, there are some expenses which aren't worth paying; to be fair that's entirely reasonable.
What if however, there was a government subsidy for you to take on an Apprentice or Trainee? Such a move would be entirely sunbect to market forces and the extra taxation collected from those people would easily pay for their initial subsidy over the course of their working life.

[Garry Walker]

Why would anyone want to work for you for free, even without zero work experience? Do you work for free for your customers?
I know this will go right over your head, but here is how it works. You are young, you have no experience, but you are studying something. You apply for a postion, there are plenty of such where you don't get paid in money, you get paid in experience. In some you even get paid a little. So you are there for 3-4 months. In respectable companies, if you show your worth, there is a chance they might offer you a real job, where you will get paid.
Law students and many other do that all the time. Even if you won't get the offer, you can have something to show for future, which means that after uni when you apply for places, people will actually take you seriously. I don't know about other countries, but generally in here people who leave uni and have no work experience at all are very rare to find and are generally not taken seriously in the job market.

As for your question why I don't work for free

http://www.motifake.com/image/demotivational-poster/small/0810/facepalm-face-palm-facepalm-demotivational-poster-1223672935.jpg




Would you be willing to take on an apprentice? Well, I have had young guys come and start from the very basic and go on from there, getting helped by older guys with experience. So yes, I would be and have. Of course, I am not going to teach them myself.


What if however, there was a government subsidy for you to take on an Apprentice or Trainee? Such a move would be entirely sunbect to market forces and the extra taxation collected from those people would easily pay for their initial subsidy over the course of their working life. I wouldn't mind that all.

[Rollo]

I wouldn't mind that all.

In evil "socialist" Australia, Traineeship and Apprenticeship schemes are commonplace across a wide range of industries. Vocational education and on-the-job training is a rather efficient way of attracting potential workers to the trades as well.
I don't really understand why the United States which should have a strong emphasis on individual enterprise doesn't actively seek to engage in policies which encourage the improvement of the labour force via more schemes like this. I suspect that it's because like the UK, both political machines have been white anted by the financial sector.

[BDunnell]

I have always thought one should try to find work during uni time already and gain experience then. For example, if you are in your 2nd year of uni, why not start applying for places or use the help of uni to possibly get a place somewhere. For free? So what. No one will want a uni graduate with ZERO work experience. In real world, uni education without experience means nothing.

I got my first job out of uni with zero work experience (although I had been a freelance journalist for some years already, I had no workplace experience). I don't think this is necessarily a problem.


If some girl came to my door tomorrow with an accouting degree but no experience and offered to work for free I would kindly tell her no way, I just cannot take such a risk.

Do such people exist?



2) In my line of business, I really don't expect uni education from my workers (I deal in construction mainly) :D .

In that case, I'm not sure you're properly qualified (pardon the pun) to offer a view on the matter of whether a university education is of importance in the workplace.

[BDunnell]

I don't really understand why the United States which should have a strong emphasis on individual enterprise doesn't actively seek to engage in policies which encourage the improvement of the labour force via more schemes like this. I suspect that it's because like the UK, both political machines have been white anted by the financial sector.

And, in the UK, politicians of all parties seem to have developed this weird view of the private sector in which they have allowed themselves to believe that it's somehow altruistic — that the big supermarkets taking on 'apprentices' (these are not apprentices at all in my book) are doing so to help said individuals. No, Mr Cameron and Mr Clegg — they do so purely because there's something in it for them.

[Eki]

I know this will go right over your head, but here is how it works. You are young, you have no experience, but you are studying something. You apply for a postion, there are plenty of such where you don't get paid in money, you get paid in experience. In some you even get paid a little. So you are there for 3-4 months. In respectable companies, if you show your worth, there is a chance they might offer you a real job, where you will get paid.
Maybe in respectable companies, but I asked why would anyone want to work specifically for you for free. You seem like a sociopath who has no problems exploiting other people.

[Garry Walker]

I got my first job out of uni with zero work experience (although I had been a freelance journalist for some years already, I had no workplace experience). I don't think this is necessarily a problem. So you in fact had work experience already, if you had written articles for papers or magazines. Work experience is a must these days for young people.


Do such people exist?Yes.



In that case, I'm not sure you're properly qualified (pardon the pun) to offer a view on the matter of whether a university education is of importance in the workplace.
Really, you shouldn't worry about my education or knowledge on workplace affairs, I am pretty sure both of them lack nothing compared to yours.


Maybe in respectable companies, but I asked why would anyone want to work specifically for you for free. You seem like a sociopath who has no problems exploiting other people.
LOL!!!!!!
Considering you are a welfare abuser, then it is pretty funny for you to accuse anyone of exploiting others.
Sociopath? Good one, welfare boy :D


In other news, another crazy in the head socialist scum has hit the news with a typically brilliant idea.

Hollande proposes 75% top tax rate - FT.com (http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/30177568-61fa-11e1-807f-00144feabdc0.html#axzz1nhgwgzCF)

[Garry Walker]

French election 2012: Francois Hollande announces 75 per cent tax plan - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/francois-hollande/9111267/French-election-2012-Francois-Hollande-announces-75-per-cent-tax-plan.html)

This link works better.

[BDunnell]

So you in fact had work experience already, if you had written articles for papers or magazines. Work experience is a must these days for young people.

But I had no workplace experience — a very different thing indeed.



Really, you shouldn't worry about my education or knowledge on workplace affairs, I am pretty sure both of them lack nothing compared to yours.

I'm unsure as to whether that is the case, but never mind.



LOL!!!!!!
Considering you are a welfare abuser, then it is pretty funny for you to accuse anyone of exploiting others.
Sociopath? Good one, welfare boy :D

Typically eloquent banter, Garry. Do you have evidence that Eki has abused the welfare system? You are accusing him of committing a criminal offence here.

By the way, you are yet to inform us, I think, as to which your first language is if not English.

[Garry Walker]

But I had no workplace experience — a very different thing indeed.But you still had some experience, you didn't start from zero. Obviously I don't know how much experience you had.



I'm unsure as to whether that is the case, but never mind. Whether you believe me or not is obviously quite irrelevant to me.



Typically eloquent banter, Garry. Do you have evidence that Eki has abused the welfare system? You are accusing him of committing a criminal offence here.Funny, he accused me of being a sociopath and a someone who exploits other people, you have NOTHING to comment on that, yet on me you go on a full scale attack. Hypocrite?



By the way, you are yet to inform us, I think, as to which your first language is if not English.
It isn't nor do I intend to inform you of my first language.

[Brown, Jon Brow]

It isn't nor do I intend to inform you of my first language.

How convenient.

[janvanvurpa]

B

It isn't nor do I intend to inform you of my first language.

What are you afraid of ? Obviously you are terrified of revealing any specific information about yourself, and that generates , logically, curiosity.
Same goes for a real name. Only people who won't reveal a real name are those either paranoid, or hiding something. Are you a criminal in hiding?

[BDunnell]

Funny, he accused me of being a sociopath and a someone who exploits other people, you have NOTHING to comment on that, yet on me you go on a full scale attack. Hypocrite?

No. I merely believe him to be right, that's all.



It isn't nor do I intend to inform you of my first language.

So secret, is it?

I believe your first language is English.

[BDunnell]

Only people who won't reveal a real name are those either paranoid, or hiding something.

That's a bit of a ridiculous statement to make, if I may say so.

[janvanvurpa]

That's a bit of a ridiculous statement to make, if I may say so.

Thank you.

Let me explain something again.
When dealing with ridiculous people the only logical response is a ridiculous one. When dealing with those who spew hate and advocate violence, it is only logical to return them the favor so as to help them to understand their folly.

You just said something to the effecrt that he---whatever alias he hides behind---seems like a sociopath I believe you said.. lemme run and check,
check clomp clomp clomp clomp clomp clomp clomp clomp clomp clomp clomp clomp clomp clomp clomp clomp clomp clomp Hmmmmm lessee (rummage rustle)
Ah yes, it was a sociopath clomp clomp clomp clomp clomp clomp clomp clomp clomp clomp clomp clomp clomp clomp clomp clomp clomp clomp clomp clomp clomp clomp clomp clomp

OK I'm back, these clogs are noisy on wood, eh?
Yes you said "'e seems like a sociopath" Now I'm in full agreement with you. Tell me, why should I attempt to speak rationally with a sociopath---and 'ow do you know e's NOT a paranoiac , eh?

I'm mainly curious where such a degree of hate and contempt for humanity was developed and so I can make sure I avoid it.

[Bob Riebe]

No. I merely believe him to be right, that's all.



So secret, is it?

I believe your first language is English.Dunnell this is a political thread I started about Obama and the current election.
Why don't you try to address the thread topic and stop attacking posters because you cannot otherwise contribute to the thread.
If you want to attack posters start your own thread about how you always attack posters because you are not competent to address the thread.
You can attack them at will there I would imagine.

[janvanvurpa]

Dunnell this is a political thread I started about Obama and the current election.
Why don't you try to address the thread topic and stop attacking posters because you cannot otherwise contribute to the thread.
If you want to attack posters start your own thread about how you always attack posters because you are not competent to address the thread.
You can attack them at will there I would imagine.

Oh the irony... I think I'll have to save that post to paste it on about 9 out of 10 of your replies...

Say Riebe, you one of them Christians?

[Bob Riebe]

Oh the irony... I think I'll have to save that post to paste it on about 9 out of 10 of your replies...

Say Riebe, you one of them Christians?Go right ahead.
You must have Dunnell envy.

[janvanvurpa]

Go right ahead.
You must have Dunnell envy.


Say Riebe, you one of them Christians?