Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr

Forum Post: millionaires and billionaires are paying all of the taxes - Rand Paul

Posted 12 years ago on Nov. 20, 2011, 4:57 p.m. EST by stephenadler (118)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

I just read a piece in the NYTimes about how the super committee is about to give up with the in pass on raising taxes on the 1%. Rand Paul states "The vast majority of millionaires and billionaires are paying all of the taxes, That’s who pays the income tax.”

How is it that Senator Paul can come off with such statements. I don't have the actual figure in front of me, but my interpretation is that dollar wise, the 1% pay more in taxes, but percent wise, they pay less. If the 1% hoards over 50% (or what ever the figure is) of the county's wealth, they should be paying 50% (or what ever the figure is ) of the taxes of the country.

Basically, Senator Paul is blind to the rise in the near poor, which shot up at an unprecedented rate as discovered from the last census data. And I'm sure his solution is to give more tax breaks to the 1% to create jobs for these people who are just barely making by, living paycheck to paycheck. When in fact, all the 1% are doing is cutting jobs as aggressively as they can in order to maximize their profits. Thus they hire sweat shop labor in China, India, South America etc.

Who in the media is going to call Rand Paul on his disingenuous statements about the 1% paying all the taxes?




Read the Rules
[-] 3 points by barb (835) 12 years ago

The 1% are hoarding their profits and it is evident when MSN states that banks of the 1% are putting so much cash in their banks that they are going to have to charge them for their deposits.

Boy I would love to have a problem like this one.

[-] 3 points by SparkyJP (1646) from Westminster, MD 12 years ago

REVEALED: The 30 American Companies That Paid Less Than $0 In Income Tax Over The Last 3 Years

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/these-are-the-30-american-companies-that-paid-less-than-zero-income-tax-from-2008-2010-2011-11?op=1#ixzz1eRid18yn

[-] 2 points by bensdad (8977) 12 years ago

My favorite Rand story-
Libertarian Rand Paul, the "eye doctor" turned Republican Senator in Kentucky, may not be a "board-certified" ophthalmologist, as he claims. Paul's certification comes from a board HE CREATED and heads, but he hasn't been certified by an organization recognized by the American Board of Medical Specialties for over five years.

Of course Rachel Maddow's lunch counter dialog is legend.

Rand would make lee atwater smile

[-] 2 points by KnaveDave (357) 12 years ago

"Rand Paul states 'The vast majority of millionaires and billionaires are paying all of the taxes, That’s who pays the income tax.'”

That's an argument that Republican have made a lot of hay with, and the statement is true; yet, it is oh-so-false. It is one of the biggest half-truths I've ever heard. Expounding on some of the same broader fact you have alluded to, I just did an article that exposes why this is a huge lie wrapped up in a half-truth:


So true, what you've said.

--Knave Dave http://thegreatrecession.info/blog/2011/11/bushwhacked-by-the-bush-tax-cuts-for-the-rich/

[-] 1 points by CentristFiasco (60) 12 years ago

Your logic is beyond flawed. Being taxed 50% of anything from the Federal Government based off income for dozens of social programs that really aren't helping the country nor its people is illogical. We shouldn't be forced to be taxed more as we succeed for some pity programs to help out people who refuse to help themselves.

[-] 1 points by Builder (4202) 12 years ago

It's simply not enough to pay taxes.

Off with their heads, and raid their coffers.

It's only fair, after all they've done to "us".

How dare the conniving sods conspire to make lots of money and keep it to themselves?

The rotters. Locke 'em all up for conspiracy to succeed.

[-] 1 points by EndTheFed214 (113) 12 years ago

its true and false at the same time

[-] 1 points by saltybones55 (0) 12 years ago

this is why he needs to be removed from office

[-] 1 points by saltybones55 (0) 12 years ago

this is why he needs to be removed from office

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 12 years ago

they own all the property



[-] 0 points by Infowar (295) 12 years ago

If we end American imperialism today we wont need a tax raise and there will be a huge surplus of cash. Also we must tell the bankers to pay off their own debt.


[-] 0 points by KeepingItReal (0) 12 years ago

Rand Paul is right. Actually, the US has the most progressive income tax system in the world. The rich pay far more than their fair share. And yet, people like you keep bashing them. Even if they paid twice as much in taxes as they currently do (and they're already, in many cases, paying close to 50% of their income in taxes, after you combine federal, state and local taxes), people like you would still complain that they're not taxed enough.

[-] 3 points by Cicero (407) 12 years ago

No the problem is that they are fighting tooth and nail to make the Bush Tax cuts permanent. They were never meant to be permanent and were set to expire in 2012. Instead of being thankful that their taxes were cut in a time of plenty and now they need to be raised again to keep America from bankrupting itself. They fight it every way they can. Even suggesting cutting Medicare, Social Security and Veterans health benefits come on.

[-] 0 points by KeepingItReal (0) 12 years ago

You don't understand. Our entitlement system, as it's now configured, is completely unsustainable. Ending the portion of the Bush tax cuts that benefited the top 2% of income-earners would only raise about $500 billion over 10 years. Meanwhile, we're on pace to rack up about $10 trillion in debt over the next 10 years, largely due to the strain that the baby boomers are putting on our unsustainable entitlement system. Democrats haven't put forward any Medicare or Social Security reforms, but at some point they'll have to. There's no other way to balance the budget, aside from doubling the tax burden on the middle class, which won't happen. At least Republicans are keeping it real by admitting that our entitlement system needs to be re-engineered.

[-] 0 points by Daennera (765) from Griffith, IN 12 years ago

For tax year 2009 (per the National Taxpayers Union):

Top 1% 36.73% of all income taxes

Top 5% 58.66% of all income taxes

Top 10% 70.47% of all income taxes

Top 25% 87.30% of all income taxes

Top 50% 97.75% of all income taxes

Bottom 50% 2.25% of all income taxes

[-] 1 points by flip (7101) 12 years ago

you are correct when it comes to income taxes but not all taxes - payroll, sales, real estate and all sorts of fees are taxes that the gov't uses to fund what it does - mostly military - $.54 of each tax dollar goes to the military - ouch. i still maintain that the country was much better off in the 1960's when the rich and corporations paid a much higher percentage of the revenue

[-] 0 points by Daennera (765) from Griffith, IN 12 years ago

So, we have half the country paying ALL the income taxes. Do we see a problem here?

We need a flat tax so badly in this country.

[-] 2 points by powertothepeople (1264) 12 years ago

No, I don't see anything wrong with it. Since we have a progressive income tax and everyone pays a % of their income, the ones who earn more pay more in actual dollars.

How is a flat tax going to help this country as a whole?

[-] 0 points by Daennera (765) from Griffith, IN 12 years ago

Removes all the time, money, and other resources spent complying or lobbying for tax law. Make things more predictable. I've got a pretty basic life, and it's still hard to predict what my taxes will be at the end of the year. I would be perfectly wiling to pay more if I knew exactly what that figure would be in the end.

Also, you reduce the whole "so and so's not paying their share" nonsense. Everyone pays 25% on the dollar. No other taxes or fees. No property taxes, no car tag fees, no cell phone taxes, nothing. One flat rate for federal, one flat rate for state. This would make tax increases more transparent and give people a clearer choice on where to live. States would have to compete for residents and for businesses to come in. A true free market at work.

[-] 1 points by HarryCrew07 (433) 12 years ago

I personally don't have a problem with a flat tax, as long as it doesn't allow for loop-holes, it seems like it would work better than the bickering that goes on now. But in this income tax, what would be considered income? For example, would corporations be charged 25% of their revenue?

[-] 1 points by Daennera (765) from Griffith, IN 12 years ago

Corporations would have to be charged a very competitive rate in order to keep them here. I think 10% would be a better number for them. But personal income is all the same across the board. Whether you earned in wages, capital gains, rents, etc; it's all income.

As for income earned overseas, they would have to pay either the difference between the foreign tax and what they would pay here, or 5%, whichever is greater. So if they made money in Zambia and paid only 1% in taxes, they would have to pay 9% tax to the US.

[-] 1 points by HarryCrew07 (433) 12 years ago

or if this wouldn't be an income tax, what kind of a tax would it be? And what would keep people from storing money in "tax-havens?"

[-] 0 points by jjpatrick (195) 12 years ago

Actually, U.S. does have a progressive income tax rate (but could be better).. I believe the richest currently pays around a 35% income tax and the poorest like 10%, and so in terms of GROSS amount, does pay more. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._income_tax#Year_2011_income_brackets_and_tax_rates

What Rand Paul seems to advocate is to decrease federal spending and stop giving Wall Street all these bailouts with our taxes. In terms of tax cuts, he wants to tax Wall Street but ultimately his vision is to decrease all federal taxes and allow the States to beef up their taxes (or not) in order to serve individuals better. The FBI and other federal beurocrats in things like the Department of Education aren't very good in managers.

And why did Obama renew the corporate tax cuts?

[-] 3 points by powertothepeople (1264) 12 years ago

There is a top tax tier of 35% before deductions. That is a tax on W2 income. The capital gains tax is 15%.

Lower income people do not have capital gains income, all of their income is W2 income, subject to income tax and FICA. And no, don't shoot back anything about the EIC, I am talking about people who earn too much for the EIC yet do not have income from capital gains like the wealthy do.

[-] 2 points by looselyhuman (3117) 12 years ago

Right, effective tax rate on the top 400 is about 17%.


[-] 0 points by Slammersworld (210) 12 years ago

stephenadler... You are mistaking the comparison of dissimilar things, as for the percentages, the most recent figures are these (from cbo.gov):

The top 1% Earn 18.8% of the income in this country, and after-tax are left with 16.3% of income

They pay 28.3% of ALL federal taxes (Individual, SS/MC payroll, corporate, and excise taxes)

When you talk about 50% of the wealth, that is based on savings, not income. We don't tax accumulated income in this country, as that is a disincentive to personal savings, which we want to encourage...we only tax certain increases in accumulated income, such as interest...but not the principle "wealth".

The changes in census definitions of "poor" are part of the problem, no longer is the definition the ability to exist at a certain income level, it is now based on the disparity between the highest and lowest income levels...many called "poor" are nothing near that, and an analysis of those considered in that group reveals that most own cars or truck, televisions, high end electronics, computers, internet, cable tv, etc etc...things that are luxuries of a market economy...not necessities.

The rise in consumer credit can be as easily blamed the lowering of disposable income as any other factor, the practice of buying mostly unneeded things before one has the ability to pay for them is a huge factor in why many americans cannot make ends meet, and I know many will blame banks for making credit available, but the consumer still makes the final decision, and with it, holds the final responsibility.

As for cutting jobs to maximize profits...that's the purpose of business enterprise, the creation of profits, it's NOT a charitable entity created to provide jobs...those jobs are purposeful, and when outside forces change the situation (competition, regulation, labor mandates, ordinances, taxes, fee's, etc) then the deck must be reshuffled to maintain profits, because that is the POINT of business...I am sorry if that rubs you wrong, but...if you think you have a better way to do it, then, by all means, begin at once to create an enterprise that is more accommodating to employees and operators, and finds it's existence in creating jobs, rather than profits or marketable products...that's the beauty of the free market, you can start out with any concept you have in mind and do your best to make it work...but, be warned...that government that you want to use, to punish those who's idea's and wealth creation you find distasteful...they will require much in the way of permit, certification, licensing, documentation, and compliance before you can begin...which is one of the largest reasons companies relocate to other countries. The reason they relocate is not because they can get cheap, completely unskilled labor, cost of building and maintaining facilities, increased transportation and warehousing costs, and import tariff and taxation...it because remaining here costs more.

[-] 2 points by BTKcongress (149) 12 years ago

absolutely wrong on regulation point. companies' biggest costs are always labor--at my company our labor costs are 68% of total costs, and that is standard across almost every industry. we have opened in foreign countries to get cheaper labor, not to avoid regulations and certifications, etc...

on the other fallacy: computers, internet and cable have become necessities, like electricity (which was previously a luxury). try to sell yourself into a better job without the important knowledge base owning these things can provide and try getting there without a car when we have very little public transit,,,, you'll likely fail--it's like not wearing a suit to an interview.

[-] 0 points by Slammersworld (210) 12 years ago

so you work at lesser labor and invest in yourself and sacrifice to create a better life.....not demand that those who have, hand it to you

[-] 1 points by hyarborough (121) 12 years ago

I think invest less in corporate entities, by not buying the unnecessary crap they're selling, do more for yourself vs. buying the "convenience" they sell us on, and demand they stop taking more from us.

[-] 1 points by Slammersworld (210) 12 years ago

I agree with all but your last eight words...

[-] 1 points by hyarborough (121) 12 years ago

Understood. "taking from us" is probably a bit strong, and inaccurate in that there's probably no conscious conspiracy to take from the poor, and give to the rich except in a few specific areas. I think business' like paycheck loans and loans for car titles verge on being evil.

[-] 1 points by Slammersworld (210) 12 years ago

they all are voluntary....a more thoughtful consumer is what we need, not more control of the marketplace...

[-] 1 points by hyarborough (121) 12 years ago

I respectfully disagree. I think we need both. Corporate greed is what led to company stores, unions, child labor, and federal controls. I don't much care what they're doing overseas in "third world" countries either,

[-] 2 points by powertothepeople (1264) 12 years ago

Thank you for verifying that Rand Paul's statement is wrong.

28.3% of the total taxes paid is hardly "ALL" of the taxes.

Yet Rand thinks people barely scraping by need to pay an even larger share.

I don't know enough to dispute your assertions about the definition of "poor", etc but having internet and a computer in the home is not exactly a "luxury" when these things are frequently necessary for children in school or for one's work.

I use my computer to earn my living, I barely meet my bills and the other extraordinary expenses that I am having to take care ofevery month and I have little left over for actual luxury. I no longer own a car which means I use public transportation which winds up costing me MORE in the long run.

I don't think I am "poor" but I KNOW I can't afford to pay more taxes so that the top 1% gets to pay less.

The government is either going to have to bring in more revenue or drastically scale back and I wonder if the austerity proponents have really thought hard about what that would mean.

In the meantime, Congress does nothing, remains in gridlock, panders to the constituent groups that shout the loudest while still doing...nothing.

Sometimes not deciding is making a decision. I fear the consequences that are to come.

[-] 2 points by rudysfire (5) 12 years ago

Banks and Wall St are completely in bed with the government. The regulations are tilted to support the 1%. That's why all the top elites at Goldman Sachs are part of the Obama Admin. Perhaps a more free market approach would also bring about... more fairness.

[-] 1 points by Slammersworld (210) 12 years ago

Well, paying 28.3% of taxes on 18.8% of income is hardly "fair"...by the posters own comments that if they have 50% they should pay 50%....it represents a disparity in taxation, given that those in the 1% hardly enjoy an equal number of increased services for those extra tax dollars....and there are many more millionaires than just those who represent the 1% of income earners....

The top 10%, those who earn over 112,00.00 per year, earn 43.2% of the income and pay 70% of the taxes....so those with larger incomes ARE bearing a larger share of taxation, even on income distribution...the idea that the tax cuts are being "paid for" by the poor is a lie, if anyone "paid" for a tax cut (an erroneous idea anyway, that tax cuts are "paid for"...it's spending that must be paid for, not tax cuts...money does not, by nature belong first to the government who chooses how much we are allowed to keep, it is private property and can only be given freely, or confiscated...which do you think is occurring most often?) it was the higher income earners themselves....as the bottom 47.3% pay ZERO in taxes and yet they earn nearly the same amount in real dollars as the top 1%, and use vastly more of the services provided by government....

When you rob Peter to pay Paul, you can always count of the support of Paul.

As far as the government, I think they could easily scale back 20% without much effect on services, just by addressing waste and fraud, and holding bureaucrats responsible for their departments and their spending, with fines and dismissal being the penalty for mismanagement....but, the Unions wouldn't like that...they balk at any standards of performance.

You make false connections also, the necessity of internet for children and schoolwork is not the business of government, it is the responsibility of people not to produce children if they cannot afford to raise them...or they must sacrifice for their children, if through irresponsibility, they are in a situation where they have them before the resources to live comfortable lives are present....harsh, you say?...no more harsh than asking a person with no children to support and sustain children they did not create....

There is something to be said for having to contribute to the system in-which you are a part of, I personally believe that no one should escape contribution....those at the bottom, who may not have the financial resources to contribute, or who may be receiving support in some form or another should be required to contribute in other ways...we have plenty of things that could and should be done that could bring them into the realm of participation in the system.....

The problem is government...so, clearly, the solution is not more government

[-] 4 points by powertothepeople (1264) 12 years ago

Slammersworld said: "You make false connections also, the necessity of internet for children and schoolwork is not the business of government it is the responsibility of people not to produce children if they cannot afford to raise them...or they must sacrifice for their children, if through irresponsibility, they are in a situation where they have them before the resources to live comfortable lives are present."

Excuse me, but my premise was not that the government should pay for computers for families.

My premise is that you are ridiculous when you list a computer as a "luxury" that families should forego so that they can pay more taxes, while the highest one percent of earners get a tax cut.

Yachts, sixth, seventh and eighth homes and protection of luxury lifestyles are not the business of government either.

In fact, protecting the luxury lifestyles of the rich is LESS the business of government than providing an education for ALL of the nation's children is.

And with this statement, you redirect the conversation completely:

"The top 10%, those who earn over 112,00.00 per year"

The 1% is not the 10%.

And if we look at the original post and what the supercommitte is considering:

Tax increases for millionaires are on the table. Tax increases for people earning 112K per year are not.

You want to take blood out of stone, but you want people at the very top who benefit GREATLY from government spending, to pay less.

Why not just abolish minimum wage and let everyone earning under 14K be declared a legal "slave" so they can "contribute" their "fair share".

[-] -1 points by Slammersworld (210) 12 years ago

Millionaires in the eyes of the government are anyone earning over 200k per year single or 250k per year as a couple, so...the top 10% group of wage earners IS key to the discussion...

You make the assumption that the government has a right to take what it likes, and your statement about yachts, sixth, seventh and eighth homes is proof of that...the tax code allows for the deduction of the mortgage interest of second homes just like that on a first, the hunting, camping and fishing cabins of many in the middle class qualify for this, as do summer rentals of oceanfront and lake properties...however, you are incorrect when you talk about anything beyond two homes....mortgage interest is NOT deductible is a third or beyond home, nor on a yacht if there is another property deducted as recreational or vacation property...so, please don't introduce false arguments to make your point.

Providing education does not require internet service...the education system in this country worked quite well, and produced a superior student in the years before we got the idea that technology and huge amounts of spending were necessary or even reasonable to the education of Americas' children...

I do support abolishing the minimum wage, because it has done more harm than good, removing many positions once available to those entering the job market, positions where they could learn the skills and behaviors necessary to become successful and contributing members of society...and it created a sector of employment where contribution does not equal the compensation that the employer is forced to dispense for the labor tendered, which in-turn has a negative effect on prices in the marketplace....every negative issue forced upon business is passed along to the consumer, businesses don't absorb cost increases, or even pay taxes...they factor those costs into their cost structure and reduce employment, and/or increase prices...that, AGAIN, is it's nature...business is not charity for the good of mankind, to create jobs and make the world a better place....those things are ancillary to the profit motive, the reason jobs are created and products which make our lives easier, better, and more efficient, are produced is because the producer sees the opportunity to create abundant profit...as I said in my previous comment...if YOU, or others, think that is a poor rational, then I encourage you to create products and businesses based on your own particular model of how you think things should work.

But, that's not how you approach it, ever...instead you do it by force, bullying people into compliance with your ideas by force of government...because, at heart...you're lazy and entitled, and without the necessary motivation to create anything in this world, you are greedy consumers, demanding more and more while offering less and less in exchange...you use "the poor" as your foil, but in the end, you don't really care about "the poor" you care about yourselves and what freebies you might get...as it is quite clear how this ideology has effected the "poor" after 50 years and trillions of dollars in the war on poverty.....poverty won, because that is what you and those like you encouraged and defended...you never tried to motivate or inspire those in the lower income levels, you merely told them they were not responsible for their plight, and that they had no chance...which is the most evil lie ever perpetrated on a group of humans in the history of the race....you stole their potential by telling them they didn't have any....and now you use them in your further effort to get more from those who labor and create, using false, emotional argument to rally your cause....but, many of us have wised up, we see your efforts for what they are....we understand the potential that is present in every person, and that there is no "common man" we are all uncommon and can rise to heights unknown to us in our misery, if we just make the effort to see beyond it...instead of living in our own filth and pretending it's worthwhile...

Those that work, operate, create and employ already pay their "fair share" it's time for the rest to do so as well....it's time to take out the trash and clean and organize the house, and balance the books...

[-] 3 points by BTKcongress (149) 12 years ago

you do understand abolishing the minimum wage at this point would mean tremendously more poverty? companies in the 1% would pay many low skill workers $2.00/hr. and the worker would have to put up with it because, well, there are 17million unemployed, no new jobs have been created. i think if you do that, you get truly violent revolt, like in france, workers just going into rich folks home with guns en mass and taking their stuff, maybe even guillotining them. and i think americans are probably better fighters than the french.

[-] 0 points by Slammersworld (210) 12 years ago

first..knock off the 1/99% nonsense...you and your "we are the 99%" idiocy...you don't represent me, or hundreds of millions of others...and, you've been sold a false representation of the marketplace and capitalism

[-] 1 points by BTKcongress (149) 12 years ago

i have a extremely sophisticated and lucid knowledge of capital markets, it's what i do for a living... and that's why i support many of the OWS tenets and feel they represent my interests--because i am an insider and i see, experience and facilitate what goes on. it has finally exacted a very pernicious effect on the country bringing it to its' knees. right now i cannot envision the way out, absent a revolution. congress is incompetent to bring about change, they're like the defense contractors suckling the teet of the taxpayer, a teet which now is dry, and can no longer support the massive overages of gov't debt, student debt, daily living, student loans, overpriced, underwater housing. the whole thing makes me sick, and should make anyone else sick if they know what's going on.

thusly, if you're as experienced as you appear i don't know why you'd say these people don't represent you, or why you're bashing them???

[-] 2 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 12 years ago

I believe the computer, if used wisely by the user, is the best education devise ever made. It allows people to learn for themselves. and not be led by the nose. schools only teach conventional wisdom which changes quicker than the teacher is preview to. Government, institutions, schools, computers and highways are just tools. They can be used for good or bad which are just different perspectives of the same use of the tools. no?

[-] 0 points by Slammersworld (210) 12 years ago

sure...and every library has several to use..for free.

highways are available to all, computers are an individual product...

and, our current centralized education system now teaches children "what" to think, rather than "how" to think.....it's better termed as "training" than "education"....look up the etymology of the word "education"

Standards of education are a thing of the past....there is no "conventional wisdom" of the rules of language, the actual events of history (not the opinions of the events) or the workings of mathematics...

A society doesn't benefit from those unable to think critically due to indoctrinational training, it benefits from those able to educe solutions from known factors

[-] 3 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 12 years ago

well, i don't think a single mother with children to feed, raise and cloth has the time to be educated out of the house. and this is my opinion from having been raised by a single mother. but i could be wrong. and if you are going to say i'm wrong, please give me an argument i can digest and not a simple one word response.

[-] 1 points by Slammersworld (210) 12 years ago

that's not really anyone else's responsibility...beyond the two person's who created said children....society is not responsible for the behavior of those who make poor choices...

[-] 1 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 12 years ago

wow, that is something i'd expect out of a 2000 year old book, but I believe we have evolved pass that. and if you don't believe in community looking out for the least wealthy, then maybe you should stop complaining about every thing our nation does in your name and find a spot in the middle of the woods and disappear. if my mom did not have government resources, I believe I would be in jail, or one of the biggest king pins alive.

[-] 0 points by Slammersworld (210) 12 years ago

also...with 60% of the entire federal budget going to entitlement and welfare redistribution, another 20% going to defense, 5+% going to service the national debt, and 10% going to executive branch departments...that really doesn't leave much to "Greatly Benefit" (in your words) from...does it?

and, btw...our 15ish trillion dollar GDP, that is created totally and completely by private industry, business, and corporations...the government only siphons from that...in increasing amounts, so when you talk about those who benefit from government spending, try and remember where the money the government spends comes from in the first place...huh?

[-] 2 points by powertothepeople (1264) 12 years ago

A LARGE portion of this 60% you speak of includes Social Security, Medicare and pensions for Federal workers. Social Security is an entitlement because we pay in to it. I pay the entire 15% FICA tax (employee portion & employer portion) because I am self-employed.

You are damn right I am entitled to those benefits after tithing 15% of my income for the past ten years. That money was collected from this nation's workers for a specific purpose and should be reserved for that purpose.

Your so-called welfare "redistribution" i.e. TANF and food stamps is actually a very small part of the Federal budget, something like four percent. Medicaid spending is a much higher percentage.


And military spending is 27 percent of this year's budget, not 20%, and it has been at 25% or more for the past several years.

"private industry, business, and corporations...the government only siphons from that...in increasing amounts"

How many of those private businesses you glorify paid NO corporate income tax last year? And how many actually got rebates from the government? EITC for businesses? You'd begrudge a family with kids a $500 EITC payment, yet billions in govt contracts go to these companies and they pay NO taxes.

[-] -1 points by Slammersworld (210) 12 years ago

Social Security is a TAX, just as it was argued by the FDR administration when it was challenged in the SCOTUS...feel free to read the briefs

and NO private business paid taxes....we, the consumers paid them when we bought the products/services

[-] 2 points by powertothepeople (1264) 12 years ago

Your wall of text is tl;dr. But here are a few choice comments on what I did glean by skimming it.

Your first line:

"Millionaires in the eyes of the government are anyone earning over 200k per year single or 250k per year as a couple"

Where is your proof of that? You just make shit up to defend your statements? 1 million does not equal 200K. What is being discussed now is a millionaires tax. I don't care what was said in 2008 about incomes over 200K. That didn't happen, it has nothing to do with what we're discussing right now.

"You make the assumption that the government has a right to take what it likes, and your statement about yachts, sixth, seventh and eighth homes is proof of that.."

No. I mentioned yachts and houses because YOU think that middle class families who own computers should quit whining and pay more taxes and that the rich should pay less. Doesn't that mean that YOU are the one advocating force by the govt because you think the small "luxuries" of working people should be "taken by force" and the big luxuries of the rich should be left alone?

"..you're lazy and entitled, and without the necessary motivation to create anything in this world"

Here's my response to that. Go fuck yourself. You don't know me nor one thing about my life except the small bit I shared above. You ridiculous "conservative" fools condemn everyone as if you were the first person who ever did a day's work in life.

I wonder what your income really is and what you do for work. Get off your high horse. Your personal insults and condemnations are laughable.

"...that really doesn't leave much to "Greatly Benefit" (in your words) from...does it?"

Yeah, it leaves plenty. 27% of the budget is military. All those contracts for military equipment go to large PRIVATE corporations. We are even, increasingly, using private contractors for manpower. (See Blackwater/XE). And someone was talking about privatizing the VA the other day.

A portion of the Fed budget (don't have the % handy) is for law enforcment and Federal prisons. Equipment, again, purchased from contractors. PRIVATE corporations. A PRIVATE prison company runs the ICE detention facilities.

What about agriculture subsidies?

What about copyright, patent & trademark enforcement?

What about the federal highway system that facilitates trade?

What about all the rich whose FICA deductions cease after the first 106K of earned income every year, but who don't hesitate to collect those Social Security "entitlements" when they retire?

And so on. I know you cons think rich people just float several feet above the ground, propelled by their own fabulousness and they never partake in any of the public services we proles use, but you are WRONG.

[-] 0 points by Slammersworld (210) 12 years ago

actually EVERY dollar of federal spending goes to private companies genius...the government doesn't produce ANYTHING

laugh all you like, I'm not the one complaining ...

why would they hesitate to collect SS..they pay in far more than they'll ever hope to collect..

No one is advocating an increase in middle or lower income sector ("classes" to you marxists) taxes....taxes on those sectors were lowered by the Bush43 tax cuts to levels not seen since Reagan....but, "the rich" pay enough...time for the government to cut back

and, I don't really need to know more about you than you've revealed...the only place a person with your views could excel would be in government, education (which is government), community organizing, non-profit organization, or in labor relations...all of which suck value out of the system they exist in...like a parasite. No need to tell me your occupation or income, I know enough already...and care very little about knowing more...

[-] 3 points by shoozTroll (17632) 12 years ago

"all of which suck value out of the system they exist in."

You missed the biggest value sucker of all. The fattest leach of them all.

Wall Street.

Why do you guys always miss that one?

[-] 0 points by Slammersworld (210) 12 years ago

actually wall street just trades value, it doesn't add to, or subtract from the innate value of the marketplace....

[-] 3 points by shoozTroll (17632) 12 years ago

Wallstreet sucks the value out of all products traded on it's boards. That's where it's wealth comes from.

It produces no value at all. It thrives on and makes forms of inflation.

Enron is an example of it. A corporation created only for the sake of profit.

They got carried away and got caught and became the fall guy.

They are still doing the same kinds of things today.

[-] 0 points by Slammersworld (210) 12 years ago

Enron was a fraud, from the beginning, using it as an example of typical financial markets behavior is like using OJ as a comparison to all former Black NFL players...it doesn't follow

and again, all corporations are created only for the sake of profit

Wall Street traders and brokers perform a service, and they receive a fee for that service, and most of the totally financial illiterate people in this country have no idea how that market works...the trades don't create the markets, they respond to them...

[-] 2 points by shoozTroll (17632) 12 years ago

More like comparing a jewel thief to a gas station robber.

The little guy, like Enron gets caught, while game goes on.

Again.Wallstreet produces nothing. It doesn't invent anything, it doesn't produce anything.

It sucks value out of those that do.

It uses it's profits to purchase laws that make it easier to do so.

It creates real inflation for the folks that buy things. It has no morals.

It is immoral.

[-] 0 points by Slammersworld (210) 12 years ago

It organizes the finances and capital for many products and inventions, it was Wall Street that financed Apple Computer, and many other tech companies..if you want to be a hater, be one, but you have your facts wrong...you should at least thoroughly examine something if you're going to hate it...

[-] 2 points by BTKcongress (149) 12 years ago

FALSE, the people financed apple. first it was the 1% with private equity money, then they turned it over to mutual funds (owned by the people invested in the mutual fund) and other investors who bought shares in a process called an "IPO." then it was microsoft with a giant loan when apple had troubles (again the MSFT investors). any bank financing, including commercial paper, is ultimately sponsored by depositor money (again, the people). currently apple has no debt.

the same is true for every other public company. private companies rely on founders' money, private equity, but to the extent they have bank debt, it is once again the people financing it.

[-] 2 points by shoozTroll (17632) 12 years ago

Ahhhh,, so it wasn't Jobs that made sure Apple products were stupid expensive, it was Wallstreet.

Did they also encourage the use of shell corporations to raise the prices even higher, or was that Steve's decision?

I did notice the prices didn't come down after Apple got caught.
The wonders of a zillion " choices", when it comes to profiteering?

[-] 1 points by Slammersworld (210) 12 years ago

what do you think "Wall Street" is? it is only a market to trade equities between people...Wall Street managed the trades, as they do with all companies listed in their exchange

[-] 1 points by powertothepeople (1264) 12 years ago

When you run out of arguments you start with ad hominems.


"the government doesn't produce ANYTHING" is your religion talking.

Can't argue with a zealot, I give up. You win!

Eat the poor.

[-] 0 points by Slammersworld (210) 12 years ago

I'm sorry...aren't you the "fuck you" guy...run along now...the grown ups are talking..

[-] 2 points by Denofearth (41) 12 years ago

OK Slammersworld. Riddle me this. When discussing the fair and equitable distribution of tax breaks, I keep hearing this garbage that the wealthy and corporations need tax breaks to create jobs. Those of us living like serfs have few of these tax breaks afforded us, but one in particular is the earned income credit. One way to increase this EIC is to have children. Now pay attention this gets complex. Do working class shmoes get an EIC for considering having children? No!!! So why should "potential" job creators get squat before they creat said jobs?

[-] 0 points by Slammersworld (210) 12 years ago

Well...one huge difference is that EITC often gains people a more than they had withheld from their pay, so they are receiving funds "from" the treasury... In the case of high income earners they are only keeping more of the funds they actually produced, NOT receiving funds from the treasury. In the case of business and/or corporations (of all types) and try to understand this, as it seems to fly by so many...every cent of cost to do business is figured into the price that is charger for a product or service, every single solitary cent, the purpose of business is to create profits, so...if you increase costs to business, in this case, taxes...you increase the final cost of goods and services from those businesses....why is that so hard to understand? People are so into the punishment, or inequitable "fairness" idea when it comes to business...and they shoot themselves in the foot, the increased taxes on business become an increased expense for us all...there will NEVER be a time that a business will absorb a cost increase and allow that to decrease profits...in the case of an S corp small business that cuts into the owners income with which they live and raise their families, in the case of big business the profit margins are so small (yes, they make millions or billions, but the margins are cents on the dollar, as an example Apple Inc make about 23 cents for each dollar of sales, and they are near the top, most large companies are single cents on the dollar of profit margin) that cost pressures effect final prices. Again, and I feel like a broken record here, but you people just don't want to listen...BUSINESS IS NOT A CHARITY...IT EXISTS FOR PROFIT!!!

[-] 3 points by powertothepeople (1264) 12 years ago


And "you people" want to strangle all the "customers" in this country til they have no money to spend.

Lower their wages, make them pay more taxes, take away Social Security so that you have young working people supporting aged relatives...

And then all those businesses can sell their products in China, I guess, because no one here will have any money to shop with anymore.

And then American businesses will no longer even be American anymore when they

  • 1.) no longer pay taxes in the US
  • 2.) no longer hire US citizens to work for them and
  • 3.) no longer sell their products here.

They only do 2 out of the 3 now. Let's just finish the exportation of everything to China and call it a day.

[-] 2 points by PandoraK (1678) 12 years ago

It's funny how boycotts affect business when consumers have no effect on business according to some.

Supply and demand...what a grand concept, excepting that when there is no demand there is no need for supply. When there is no need for supply then there is no need for workers to produce the product that fuels supply.

I see in the next reply that Slammersworld is speaking of innovation which is a different subject and not a valid argument to the topic at hand at this current point in this thread.

[-] 0 points by Slammersworld (210) 12 years ago

Really? that's how you think it works, huh? so Steve Jobs and Bill Gates created the personal computer because customers were lined up to buy a product they had never seen or heard of before? Or Henry Ford was just filling the needs of customers when he created the model T? Or the mobile phone industry....iPhones are create to meet demand, huh? they aren't created and then GENERATE demand...who about flat panel televisions, more creation for an already knowledgeable consumer, not created to generate new demand...right? The Big Mac was screamed about by customers for years before it was actually produced, and Ralph Lauren was hounded his whole life to produce a line of clothing and accessories because customers demanded it.....

Sorry, my friend, it's not demand that drives the creation of products, it's a gamble by producers that brings about the creation of a product, in the hopes of creating demand.

why do you continue this false line of raising taxes? I never said anything about raising anyones taxes...are you paying attention?

It's your line of reasoning that sends companies to china, the idea that enterprise will sit idly by and allow government to erode their profit margin through taxation, mandate, fees and regulation is just about the dumbest damn thing I've ever heard, but you guys keep on it like it's the holy grail....like I said, start your own business and run it however you choose, but...if you want to work for someone else, you do it at their pleasure and they get to set the rules...

As for social security...it would have been fine if left alone, but you libs had to expand it beyond those who participated and paid into it, and then under LBJ decided to put it on-budget to manipulate the statistics and make medicare look more viable than it was...Social Security is broke, NOW, there is no "trust fund" it's all IOU's from the treasury, the money has been spent long ago, and every penny as it's collected is spent...you can bury your head in the sand if you like, eventually it will just run out of money and go bankrupt, then NO ONE will get benefits...that is a fait accompli if something isn't done...

[-] 2 points by powertothepeople (1264) 12 years ago

Slammersworld said: "...why do you think Apple moved it's manufacturing from Cupertino to China? answer; because with all the confiscatory policies of California they couldn't compete...that's why."

Labor costs. Not "confiscatory policies".

Slammersworld said: "this isn't self-esteem building class there are right and wrong answers...I know your teachers told you you were special and that "trying" was enough, and your walls are lined with participation trophies..."

You blustering, blubbering idiot. My walls are lined with Dean's list certificates and a diploma showing I graduated from university summa cum laude - and I didn't major in "self esteem".

Indeed, there are right and wrong answers. You get MANY wrong.

Sister Agnes would have slapped your knuckles raw, you bullshitting boob.

[-] 2 points by powertothepeople (1264) 12 years ago

Slammersworld said: "so Steve Jobs and Bill Gates created the personal computer because customers were lined up to buy a product they had never seen or heard of before? Or Henry Ford was just filling the needs of customers when he created the model T? Or the mobile phone industry....iPhones are create to meet demand, huh?"

What are you saying? That Bill Gates and Steve Jobs did what they did because they got tax breaks?

Bill Gates started developing software in his garage because he loved doing it and yes, because there was beginning to be a demand for personal computer technology.\

We need more people like that.

I recently answered a post on here from someone claiming to be a conservative high school senior who said "What's the use of going to college if I'm not going to make more money than other people" and that person couldn't understand that some people just do things because that is what they feel called to do, and because it is what they love.

Slammersworld said: why do you continue this false line of raising taxes?

The topic of this thread we are posting in:

"millionaires and billionaires are paying all of the taxes - Rand Paul"

See? Look up at the top of the page.

The only reason I am even in a conversation with you is because of your first reply about taxes.

We were discussing taxing those with incomes over a million dollars, remember?

Try to stay on topic, okay?

[-] 1 points by Slammersworld (210) 12 years ago

It seems as if you have a degree in collectivism....did they educate you on its false premise, and that every attempt has failed miserably?

labor costs are also regulatory issues....are you aware of the HUGE costs to construct new, or expand old, facilities and the costs involved just to begin the permit and compliance proceedings? I would guess not, or you wouldn't make such idiotic remarks...

and, BTW...the guy with the big penis never has the need to pull it out and prove it....or provide testimony or documentation of it...

[-] 1 points by powertothepeople (1264) 12 years ago

No, it is not semantics to say Jobs and Gates didn't invent a totally new product but improved upon and innovated using an existing one.

It is extremely relevant to make that distinction, if we are talking about how "demand" for this product influenced their decisions to create products and go into business servicing this already existing but growing market.

[-] 1 points by powertothepeople (1264) 12 years ago

Oh...and Slammersworld...."GENIUS" ... Bill Gates and Steve Jobs didn't invent the personal computer as you stated:

" so Steve Jobs and Bill Gates created the personal computer because ..."

They didn't "invent" the pc at all. They innovated, they improved on it, they created software for it...but it already existed by the time they came along.

My, my all your fawning sockpuppets are very easily impressed.

Too bad I'm not.

[-] 1 points by Slammersworld (210) 12 years ago

powertothepeople...No they did it to earn a profit, yes it was something they loved and were drawn to do, but they didn't and wouldn't have done it for free, if there had not been an eventual payoff they wouldn't have invested the kind of effort that was necessary...and speaking of taxes...why do you think Apple moved it's manufacturing from Cupertino to China? answer; because with all the confiscatory policies of California they couldn't compete...that's why.

and this phrase..."tax breaks"...again, you seem to think that income is somehow authorized by government and any amount that a person gets to keep is a loophole, or a tax break.....income is property, it does not belong to government, we have a system (an unfairly distributed, punitive progressive system) where there are established rules for taxation, some make sense, some are foolish.....this insistence by those of you liberals that business pay taxes is goddamn stupid, that insistence is raising prices on everything...BUSINESSES DON"T PAY TAXES, THEY FACTOR THEM INTO THE BALANCE SHEET AND PASS THEM ON TO CONSUMERS.....and nothing you say will change that fact, if you advocate an increased tax on business, YOU pay it, not the business, you, me, and everyone else...then you get to feel all smug and self-satisfied because business now pays more taxes, meanwhile, your cutting off your own nose to spite your face....try to understand how the world works...this isn't self-esteem building class there are right and wrong answers...I know your teachers told you you were special and that "trying" was enough, and your walls are lined with participation trophies...but this is the real world, where there are winners and losers...so get with the program or get the fuck out of the way...your fucking it up for everyone else..

[-] 1 points by Slammersworld (210) 12 years ago

Just because the top income sectors pay most of the taxes (which is indisputable fact) doesn't mean they need to be raised on anyone, the government needs to cut back, they are/were talking about cutting 1.2 trillion over 10 years...which is akin to cutting NOTHING...they need to cut 1.2 trillion THIS YEAR!

[-] 0 points by Slammersworld (210) 12 years ago

now you're playing semantics....hahaha


[-] -1 points by notlaughing (-3) 12 years ago

I would say saved, but this isn't funnyjunk. still, thank you for shedding intelligent light on this.

[-] 2 points by BTKcongress (149) 12 years ago

FALSE, business margins increase and decrease on a regular basis,,, not all cost increases (from taxes or otherwise) can be passed through to the consumers. that said, you are correct that business exists for a profit.

this guy talks like an authority but is NOT one.

[-] 1 points by powertothepeople (1264) 12 years ago

Thank you.

Apparently, baffle em with bullshit works in some quarters.

[-] 1 points by BTKcongress (149) 12 years ago

hot air and bluster:):)

[-] 1 points by Slammersworld (210) 12 years ago

the only exception would be reduction of other costs within the enterprise, such as labor....businesses don't exist for long operating at a loss...PERIOD Businesses do not absorb increased costs by sacrificing profits other than for VERY short term adjustments...

the minor increase or decrease in margin does not disprove the point, there are many variables that create small changes..

[-] 1 points by Denofearth (41) 12 years ago

Where as I concede that there is some merit to what you are saying, I think you are only seeing one side of a double edge sword, and here it is. The businesses of America have been ignorantly shooting THEMSELVES in the foot. The biggest difference between business today and businesses of the 50's ( America's undisputed hay day economically speaking) is that profit has become the sole and only consideration. Businesses/entrepreneurs in the 50's still made profits, still increased the financial security of stock holders, while simultaneously paying taxes with very few tax breaks, shelters, or loopholes, a higher tax rate, and many more regulations than presently exist. Oh yeah...AND they paid their employees a living wage. You see what people like you are missing in your argument is the long term versus the immediate. If your only concern is for the immediate than yes a near religious infatuation with the bottom line does seem to be the only way. However, if instead American businesses tried to look more to the future ( yes that means curtailing profits now for greater gains in the future ) then paying a living wage to employees equates to increased profits as the American working class would then more easily consume all those consumer products provided by American businesses. No matter how you dance around the issue with this line of reasoning that casts business and workers as enemies, reality is that for business to succeed they need workers, and therefore said workers deserve to make a living wage. This never stopped anyone or any company from getting rich in the 50's it just took them longer to do it because the workers mattered as well. As to taxes the solution seems rather simple to me. Businesses creating jobs right here in America get tax breaks when and only when they employ people. If they move their factories outside America than they are treated and taxed as foreign businesses. This was but one of many of FDR's strategies for re-stabilizing our economy by making OUR companies take care of AMERICANS.

[-] 1 points by Slammersworld (210) 12 years ago

your assertion that business paid higher tax rates with less "loopholes, or shelters" is wrong, there were vastly MORE deductions "loopholes" in liberal speak...and the 50's were not the "undisputed heyday" that you contend....but, in comparison to the prior two decades of the 30's-40's they were...at the time, and we also had a nation energized by the war and war effort into production levels previously unknown, AND...we were the only game in town with unmolested industrial and manufacturing infrastructure undamaged by the war...the growth periods of the mid-60's mid-80's, mid/late-90's and mid 2000's all eclipsed that of the post war 50's...

when it comes to the "bottom line" there is no time when that is not important, and it is labor that doesn't have a long view...there are plenty of unemployed and underemployed americans today who used to work for now closed businesses who, through labor negotiations, refused to accept concessions...and paid for that obstinacy with their jobs. Another difference between today and post war america was a willingness to work, without complaint...something missing in many of todays employees....and, let's not forget the funds which once went to employees that now goes to automation, technology, and computerization..

The bottom line is you cannot create and sustain an inorganic economic system, the "living wage" fallacy doesn't take into account the value of labor...the value of the labor expended to sweep a floor is not the same as the value of the labor that runs a machine, or maintains equipment, nor are those efforts equal in value to the effort required to organize the effort of men to create a product, create an enterprise, or operate a facility...it's not the job of business to PROVIDE a minimum wage, it is the responsibility of the individual to develop the skills to warrant and EARN a living wage...employment is a simple contract: I will pay you "this" to do "that"...it is not a charitable relationship, it is an equitable barter for reward....and "money" is only the means to exchange one man's labor for another...

When you become an adult it's time to take care of yourself, and not look to business, or government to relieve you of that responsibility....

[-] 1 points by Slammersworld (210) 12 years ago

If you would examine the lifetimes of the typical operator/employee, and that of the typical executive, and calculated the time and effort, the continuing education, the effort expended without direct compensation, and the accumulation of specific and general skills, I think you would find that typically the earning disparity is considerably LESS than the time/effort disparity

[-] 1 points by BTKcongress (149) 12 years ago

fair,,, but on the flip side, I am not aware of any C-level corporate officer that deserves (adds organizational value) remotely close to their compensation level, thanks to "executive compensation specialists" who shield the board from liability for overpaying their executives with their fairness opinions. That is, those few running the place loot the place, and would just love to pay that guy $0.50 per day, no benefits, to run that machine.

this circumstance is a microcosm of government, too.

[-] 1 points by jay1975 (428) 12 years ago

Actually, that d-bag said to "go fuck yourself". It seemed to come out right after he realized that you owned him in the debate.

[-] 2 points by powertothepeople (1264) 12 years ago

LOL, no.

"Go fuck yourself" was after the first few ad hominems, right after I was called "lazy and entitlted".

Try to follow along.

[-] -2 points by jay1975 (428) 12 years ago

On the spectrum of insults, lazy and entitled are pretty far down compared to telling someone to fuck themselves. The response should be just one tick above the initial insult. For example, if someone said your mother was fat, then you would respond that you feed her with food you take from their mom's fridge each night after sneaking out of the house. You never jump directly to the f-bombs, otherwise the insult banter is completely lost.

[-] 1 points by powertothepeople (1264) 12 years ago

You may think so, but the way I see it, calling someone "lazy" who is actually hardworking is a way to completely devalue that person and their opinion.

I have no patience for people who think debating issues actually consists of name-calling, moral judgments and making themselves and their opinions seem "superior" by trying to devalue and demonize their opponents.

Oh and PS the person who wins the debate is not the one who types the most characters. This guy rambles on and on about every topic under the sun and uses personal insults and moral judgements and thinks that means he's a star debater. And apparently you think that, too. Ramblling on and typing walls of text is hardly "owning" anybody.

Since this is what passes for intellectualism on the right, I'm glad I never visit any right wing political sites.

[-] -1 points by mandodod (144) 12 years ago

Wow, you just mentally assassinated that guy.


[-] 0 points by mandodod (144) 12 years ago

Just how I saw it. There are millions of us that are working, have good jobs, are happy. Many of us are invested in corporations. If you have a TSP or 401K, you are invested in them.

[-] -1 points by notlaughing (-3) 12 years ago

look at all the pretty lines! oh and stop trying to sound like an adult and then acting like you're just a troll when slammersworld makes a good point. You appear as if you are a young child and you don' represent your cause well. let people with maturity debate.

[-] 0 points by mandodod (144) 12 years ago

Everything that slammersworld said was taught in high school. That is all I am saying.

[-] -1 points by notlaughing (-3) 12 years ago

wait did I reply to you? because I hit reply on power and I would hate to think I had insulted someone else who isn't stupid.

[-] -1 points by Sonotows (-16) 12 years ago

Thank you Slammersworld. You are the most informed, rational person on this site. You obviously touched a nerve because when they start saying " fuck off", you know you've won the argument.

[-] -1 points by mandodod (144) 12 years ago

Sir, you are no match to Slammersworld. Really after reading this persons fine blog, you sound like a 4th grader. Really. If I were you I would just go back to reading the blogs and not responding to them. And maybe going to night school.

[-] 2 points by powertothepeople (1264) 12 years ago

Oh, really. As I said below, just because someone writes a lot of words doesn't mean they write well or debate well. You should go back to fourth grade and figure out what good writing and actual logic is.

And while you're advising people on what kind of education they need, why don't you pick out some of your right wing brethren on here who create vile usernames and do nothing but sling insults and go lecture them on their writing and "blogging" skils and tell them what grade in elementary school they belong in.

And ps - this isn't a blog, it's a forum.

[-] 0 points by mandodod (144) 12 years ago

Sorry, it's just that everything that slammersworld said was what we all learned in high school and college.

[-] 1 points by powertothepeople (1264) 12 years ago

Really? Let's see you summarize it in one sentence then.

[-] 1 points by mandodod (144) 12 years ago

It is not the corporations fault, they only have one goal, to make profit and not to create jobs and Wall street just trades.

[-] -1 points by notentitled (125) 12 years ago

Great post! Couldn't have said it better myself.

[-] 2 points by flip (7101) 12 years ago

one big question is how much the rich keep of their income - forget the idea that they do not really earn those millions and billions (the top 10 hedge fund managers last year made on average 900k per hour - yes - per hour and earned every penny) - it does not matter the percentage one pays - if i pay 50% and keep $4,000,000,000 and you pay 10% but keep only 20k then what is the complaint? doesn't rand paul have a site you can play on?

[-] 0 points by Slammersworld (210) 12 years ago

do you understand what a hedge fund is? f you do, perhaps then you would understand why, in this market, the are doing so well.....beyond that, where do you draw the line? maybe we should take half of your income, since I'm certain we could find someone who thinks YOU get to keep too much, the fact remains that what fund managers earn is a mere fraction of the amount they exchange for their clients...and who are YOU to determine what another person is allowed to keep out of their earnings..

[-] 2 points by flip (7101) 12 years ago

first of all you did not respond to my main point - i assume it is because you have no good response. my wife is d o (director of operations for those of you who are not in the know) of a hedge fund - so there - works her fingers to the bone - she would much rather dig ditches but it just doesn't pay very well - don't know why. don't lecture me on work and taxes unless you do your homework and by that i do not mean reading a book by paul, rand (ayn that is) or hayek - all nonsense - go read manfred max neef and then come back to the site - read chomsky if you have the balls. oh, and by the way - paulson is down 44% for the year - that is why he is selling 1 million ounces of gold! well at least he won't have to pay taxes - it may be a while before he does - i am sure you know he has to make back the losses before he gets his 20%

[-] 0 points by Slammersworld (210) 12 years ago

hahahaha!!!....I have to accept your opinion to be correct, or accept your sources, of course....that's always the final card the left plays when they are pushed up against the brick wall of economic reality, and historical reference. I am to believe some academic theory as fact, when the entire course of human history has discredited the assertion made by those theories

no thanks, I'll stick to the actual instead of the theoretical....and I'll choose Emerson over Chomsky, Milton Friedman and Adam Smith over Neef....but thanks...keep trying to suspend gravity without effort, let me know how that evolution works out

and the question is NOT how much do the "RICH" get to keep...thiis isn't a marxist environment where those who have more are, or should be, punished for it.

the shares of total taxes paid by the rich increased under the Bush43 tax rate reductions, at higher rates than income shares (which remain about the same as they were under Clinton)....the more they get to keep the more they produce and pay reduced rates on...increasing the total amount they pay....which flys in the face of your academic theories

[-] 1 points by flip (7101) 12 years ago

first of all my question was about how much one keeps, so for you to say that is not the question is a bit weird. i gave a concrete example from the real world and you cannot deal with it so why are you here? also it appears you have not read smith but just read what others have said about him and what can one say about milton - useful idiot is what comes to mind. as to mr clinton - the republican disguised as a dem - well you can have him! ok, try to stay on topic here - i am sending along something from my boy manfred and i would like you to refute it point by point - not one of your childish rants - point by point slammy -i would start with #5 - that should do it. MANFRED MAX-NEEF: The principles, you know, of an economics which should be are based in five postulates and one fundamental value principle.

One, the economy is to serve the people and not the people to serve the economy.

Two, development is about people and not about objects.

Three, growth is not the same as development, and development does not necessarily require growth.

Four, no economy is possible in the absence of ecosystem services.

Five, the economy is a subsystem of a larger finite system, the biosphere, hence permanent growth is impossible.

And the fundamental value to sustain a new economy should be that no economic interest, under no circumstance, can be above the reverence of life.

[-] 1 points by Slammersworld (210) 12 years ago

Five: I actually like this, but I am sure my perspective will be opposite of that which your hero intends. The economy IS like the 'biosphere" or "nature" the same rules apply to it, that apply to every species and every organism that exists in the world, the weak perish, and cannot be carried by the strong because they will eventually weaken the strong and all will perish. In nature, and the economy, the obstinate perish, those who follow mirage and false information perish, those to accept and ingest poison perish, those who do not obey natures laws perish (even if they feel themselves above them, or evolved beyond them) those who seek something for nothing will eventually pay the price demanded and the longer the gap between the receiving the thing and tendering the payment, the more magnified the cost of the payment will be, nature has its own compounding interest (for more on this, read Emerson's essay on compensation)

Permanent growth IS impossible, but, that is also the nature of financial economies.....through decay, and dispersal fortunes are diminished....much of that vast wealth of the "Robber Barons" has been scattered in the sands of time, as has the wealth of the great nations that preceded our own, The British Empire, Imperial France, Rome, Greece, The Persian Empire, etc etc etc...all dissolved and dissipated by time and mismanagement or by recycling like the grand fortune of Carnegie turned into libraries, Museums and concert halls that benefitted several generations, or the Rockefeller, Mellon, and Vanderbilt fortunes endowed and bestowed upon edifices of all sorts and broken up and distributed through successive generations of heirs to the point their not even discussed as a "great fortunes" any longer....Buildings, boats, cars, lavish parties and great luxuries all decaying entities which recycle the wealth and move it through the economy into the hands of others....there is no permanent growth, and there never will be....the Gates, Jobs, Buffet, Bush, Soros, Koch, etc fortunes will disappear in the span of history just as the fortunes of those who preceded them....

In the 16 years the IRS has kept track of the richest of the rich, the top 400 highest wage earners, 2500 out of 3400 have only appeared on the list once. While only 78 have been on the list more than 10 times...and only 7 have appeared every year.....to say that wealth, its accumulation , or the retention of it is permanent, is just foolish.

As for the final principle, it erroneously avoids the reality that money (the exchange method of effort) IS life, it is time, effort, toil and life force expended for it's creation...to say that allowing one man to take that which is produced by another, or to give the collective the "right" to a mans labor, or any portion of it, is to place the reverence of the life of that individual man below that of the system, and exactly what the theory pretends to protest. You think that requiring a man to labor for another is reverence for life, it's not...it's just an excuse for groups of men to assume centralized power in the name of fairness that is fundamentally inequitable to the individual, rewards certain people for lack of effort, and punishes others for their achievement....

Neef is a crackpot, as are Marx, Engles, Lenin, Trotsky, Keynes and all the other centralized planning collectivist (by whatever name they choose to call it, socialism, statism, leninism, maoism, communism, liberalism, blah blah blah) economists...

[-] 1 points by flip (7101) 12 years ago

wow - you are whacked - do you believe this or are you just dancing

[-] 2 points by looselyhuman (3117) 12 years ago

Social darwinist. You can't reason with someone who's decided man and society can't improve on nature. I wonder why people like this bother to read & write, or participate in civilization at all.

[-] 1 points by flip (7101) 12 years ago

let's see how this works - " the economy is a subset of a finite biosphere so infinite growth is impossible" - no! a 10 yr old can understand it and he says no with some dumb ass lawyer like ramblings - you are right - he needs to be ignored

[-] 1 points by Slammersworld (210) 12 years ago

Do I believe this? Of course I believe it, it is historical fact...there has never been a collectivist, or centralized system, in the history of mankind which has led to innovation or cultural evolution...they, in fact, have largely led to barbaric conditions and merciless, brutish conditions for everyone but the ruling class and their pets....

You academic theorists, who's ideas are just a rehash of those tried through the ions of time, with your collectivist "compassion and fairness" which always becomes slavery and servitude at the point of a spear or barrel of a gun, think that you can do better than the natural evolution of man has done over millions of years...you think you are more powerful and intelligent than millenniums of trial, error and adjustment....you are fools, and it is you who cannot be reasoned with, as you ignore the reality of your idea's, claiming they are "New" or "evolved", but when shown that they are nothing of the sort, you resort to turning away from the truth and ignoring it's glaring reality...

In a little over 250 years mankind has surpassed all invention and cultural evolution of the millions of years prior to it....the capitalist free market system is a relatively new evolution in the relationship of men with one another, unlike those that, you and your academic hero's create in the sterile environments of economics laboratories, lecture halls, offices, classrooms, coffee shops, drum circles, or drug induced discussions...which have been tried and retried throughout the history of man by every sort of leader from savage to benevolent, and failed in every case....even you attempts to collectivize the market system through controls, regulations, mandates, progressive taxation, etc are failures, and always will be...the only system that is just, fair, compassionate, and altruistic is the free market system, where any man, regardless of birth or association can rise above his current station by his own means, by simply providing the system with something it needs or wants, be that a product, service or idea...and through that service and effort towards it, he can exchange his effort with others for their efforts and can create alliances and partnerships to create even more and greater things...THIS is the history of man, THIS is all the proof my contentions need, I don't need your approval, or the approval of some foolish academic, protected from reality by the hallowed halls of indoctrination...simple human history is all I need to prove my theory...

Fight, protest, and struggle with that all you like, in the end the results are the same...no contrived system, created by the mind of men as a utopian solution can ever match the evolved trial and error system of the free market, and no system contains fundamental liberty for all and reward for those who participate as does that system.

I understand your comments about ignoring me, and the false statement about me not being reasonable, but..in the end I can provide historical evidence of my contentions, and you...well, all you have is academic theory and historic failure....so, good day to you, and your intrinsically stupid idea's.......

[-] 1 points by flip (7101) 12 years ago

you really are stupid - " the economy is a subset of a finite biosphere so infinite growth is impossible" - you can disagree with this statement - well at least others can read it and read your babble and judge for themselves. only a free market religious fanatic can say these things. first of all have you read history - remember slavery - and how about them indians - should i go on?? "the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today" - mlk - what did he know anyway! just, fair and compassionate - wow - let see how you put those things together. as to history - it is not capitalism but fossils fuels that are responsible for our success the last 250 years - and we are running out! just put the charts along side each other and you might be able to figure it out. i doubt it but maybe. as to capitalism - have you been to haiti - nice capitalist country that have benefited from our benevolence - i could make a much longer list but for zealots it is a waste of time. they are blinded to the most obvious truths by their religious convictions - why are you here - go away - go to glen becks site or somewhere more stupid - like your own room!

[-] 1 points by Slammersworld (210) 12 years ago

I didn't disagree with that statement...if you'll read my response...and as I said, Market capitalism is a recent evolution of man, slavery existed and continues to exist in many places on the earth that have no system of free markets, so that argument is out, as for the Indians (and I am assuming you are referring to the aboriginal people of north america) that was simply another casualty of human evolution, as have been almost every nomadic tribe, or people of the world, you can get all emotional and hateful about it, if you like... but the facts remain after and under the emotions. I don't condone, or condemn what was done, as it was before my time on this earth...I can only comment on what happened and what transpired after. If you want to find appalling and horrible events you will find them in all systems, but there is no body count like that of the collectivists.

Dr King was speaking of the government, not the economic system when he uttered those words in NYC.

Fossil Fuels? for 250 years? really? that's your argument, you are going to go back to a time when they were still using whale oil in lamps and say the genesis of the prosperity of this nation is based on fossil fuels...you really are a fool. Fossil Fuels did not rise up out of the ground and become a source of energy, they were extracted by men, methods for its use and machines were developed by men to create increased productivity, enable efficient transportation and ease life's burdens ....but it was capitalism that created those means and methods, and had it not been for those circumstances we wouldn't have the technology to evolve beyond fossil fuels...but you would like to ignore that, I know...

you call Haiti a capitalist system? hahaha..wow, you really are streching, aren't you....more proof of your foolishness.

anyway, have a wonderful thanksgiving...you do know the story of thanksgiving..right, and the mayflower compact? the first story of capitalism vs collectivism on our soil...you might be interested in Gov William Bradfords words on the subject...since he, unlike you and your like minded fools had actual experience with the difference, not just academic theory....In his own words:

"'The experience that we had in this common course and condition tried sundry years...that by taking away property, and bringing community into a common wealth, would make them happy and flourishing -- as if they were wiser than God,' "'For this community [so far as it was] was found to breed much confusion and discontent, and retard much employment that would have been to their benefit and comfort. For young men that were most able and fit for labor and service did repine that they should spend their time and strength to work for other men's wives and children without any recompense, "'that was thought injustice.'" "Every family was assigned its own plot of land to work and permitted to market its own crops and products. And what was the result? 'This had very good success,' wrote Bradford, 'for it made all hands industrious, so as much more corn was planted than otherwise would have been.' .....

As for Glen Beck...he's a pussy and I can't stand him, and I have no plans to leave this site, there is too much disinformation and I hope to dispel it...thanks

[-] 1 points by flip (7101) 12 years ago

so i guess haiti is communist - they been under our boot for too long - read the history - too much nonsense to respond to all of it - long day at work - running my own business. i would lke to hear what mlk would say about the free market trade in slaves

[-] 1 points by Slammersworld (210) 12 years ago

maybe it would be interesting to hear what he has to say about the fact that it's still going on in the same areas of africa that it did in the 17-1800's

and Haiti is rank with corruption and is not a free market...keep telling that lie though, maybe someone will believe it, like the Clinton "surplus"

[-] 1 points by Slammersworld (210) 12 years ago

for more on the expansive nature of capitalism over the high-minded but non-producing centralized system, I recommend this:


[-] 1 points by flip (7101) 12 years ago

haiti is corrupt - we agree but does that mean it is not capitalist? give me your definition please - private ownership of the means of production - doesn't describe haiti or almost any dirt poor country around the world - define your terms then you will not be able to make you silly arguments. remember that others are reading so you need to try to be coherent. respond to the chomsky quote below - really existing free market theory - privatized profits socialized losses - we just witnessed it with the banks in 2008 - now go ahead tell everyone that what they watched did not really happen - go ahead - come on now! brings to mind groucho marx -"do you believe me or your lying eyes" - fool - go to a Ron Lawl free market love in or some such nonsense - and bring some chips and salsa - they love that stuff - so ethnic! and don't bring that mass murderer clinton into this - that free market, jack booted pig - ok, sorry that was a bit over the top - the jack booted part anyway - the rest is accurate. fool - go away!

[-] 1 points by flip (7101) 12 years ago

try not to cry when you read this - And the principle of really existing free market theory is: free markets are fine for you, but not for me. That's, again, near a universal. So you -- whoever you may be -- you have to learn responsibility, and be subjected to market discipline, it's good for your character, it's tough love, and so on, and so forth. But me, I need the nanny State, to protect me from market discipline, so that I'll be able to rant and rave about the marvels of the free market, while I'm getting properly subsidized and defended by everyone else, through the nanny State. And also, this has to be risk-free. So I'm perfectly willing to make profits, but I don't want to take risks. If anything goes wrong, you bail me out.

So, if Third World debt gets out of control, you socialize it. It's not the problem of the banks that made the money. When the S&Ls collapse, you know, same thing. The public bails them out. When American investment firms get into trouble because the Mexican bubble bursts, you bail out Goldman Sachs. And -- the latest Mexico bail out, and on and on. I mean, there's case after case of this.

In fact of the leading -- top -- hundred leading transnationals in the Fortune list of transnationals -- there was a recent study of how they -- how they related to the States in which they- they're all somewhere, you know, so they're all mostly here -- in some National State, it turns out that all hundred of them had benefited from industrial policies, meaning, State intervention in their behalf. All hundred had benefited from the State in which they're based. And twenty of the hundred had been saved from total disaster, that is, collapse, by just State bail-out. When people talk about globalization of the economy, remember that the nanny State has to be very powerful in order to bail out the rich. And nothing is changing in that regard. Twenty out of a hundred, again, were saved from collapse b

[-] 1 points by Slammersworld (210) 12 years ago

again..all of those things have nothing to do with market capitalism....stop trying to make the connection between centralized collectivist practices and market capitalism.....markets would have let the banks fail, but...IF there had been market capitalism in place, none of it would have happened. The financial crisis is totally and completely regulatory created....try not to cry about THAT

[-] 1 points by flip (7101) 12 years ago

so what about this scenario - private ownership is capitalism - correct? bechtel buys the water rights from someone - gov't or some rich man who happens to own the water supply(how did he get it - i think the king gave it to his great grandfather) - now bechtel has a law passed that it is illegal to collect rain water - they bought the rain rights also! bechtel decides to raise the price since china is offering much more than you can pay for water - what are you drinking? if you know anything about bolivia you will realize that the scenario is not complete fantasy. this is capitalism no - one person can own all the land or water - soon the air and if you cannot afford to pay what he wants then too bad for you! you must now very little history - read of the real free market capitalism in the 1800's - no financial crises then? how about child labor and the 40 hour week - how about polluting the rivers or air with the by products of industry. and regulation during the 1920's - too burdensome? will there no regulation at all - or someone must have some regulation - and that someone??? read "debt the first 5000 years" to better understand the history of world economic systems then read "the invention of capitalism" - let me know what you learn - if anything! read some one who has a critical stance towards your beloved free markets or you cannot understand the argument - you must know both sides to make a reasonable judgement. you cannot just read the cheerleaders

[-] 1 points by Slammersworld (210) 12 years ago

Capitalism is far more than private ownership, and the separation of water rights from ownership and or laws against rainwater collection are, again, NOT market forces...they are contrived government creations. One person cannot own all the land, nor has there ever been a case of that occurring under a market system, even in the years it was largely unregulated...like Carnegie's half a billion, or Rockefeller's Billion and a half (both which existed before the income tax)...they still chose to put those funds into enterprise, and then into philanthropy...I grew up in a town with a Carnegie library, and not for the efforts of that Scotsman, we would likely not have had that luxury.

As for child labor, that very Mr Carnegie was a bobbin boy in a textile mill, and we evolved beyond child labor...as for the 40 hour week, that is the creation of negative market forces...I have rarely in my life worked less than a 60-70 hour week, and have earned the benefit of that time.

Most of the criticism of capitalism, much like your own, is based of contaminated and contrived systems of market control, not on free markets or actual competition....but, keep making excuses, keep going negative, that will lead to positive results, instead of the terribly negative result that mindset has ALWAYS created....you, and those like you, are your own, and societies worst enemies...as you glorify and support the lowest tendencies of the human condition..

[-] 1 points by Slammersworld (210) 12 years ago

What is capitalism? Ok..that is fairly simple, Capitalism is the equitable exchange of effort between people based on the market forces of supply and demand, With private, individual, ownership of the components and means of exchange. But there are many forms of capitalism...the current and most destructive being crony capitalism....in which specific business entities are favored due to their allegiance to specific political figures and movements....not entire sectors, or business enterprises in general, but cherry-picked, specific, entities and organizations allied to the ruling authorities.....Like GE, BP, Goldman Sachs, The Unions (Especially the Public Sector Unions), etc....why don't you see where their donations and political money was spent...not with free market capitalist politicians....but instead, with the centralized big government control types that you advocate as the saviors of the "common man"

and, the funny thing about collectivist economic systems...whether you call them Socialism, Statism, Communism, or any other name...this idea of "Public Ownership of the Means of Production' always becomes "Ruling Class" ownership and control of the means of production....only through capitalism and individual stock purchases (or "capital" investment in business) can the "public" ACTUALLY ever own a piece of the means of production...in the collective it's owned by the collective and administered by it's rulers, as they see fit...

No one said everyone that works hard gets rich and has servants...If that is your idea of capitalism, you are greatly mislead, you are rewarded by your contribution to the greater marketplace....If you make a small contribution your reward is equally small, and so on as the contribution increases, so does the reward....but, and here's the difficulty for small minds such as yourself....sometimes reward is delayed, or deferred into the future, but, in that case it's value accrues and is greater than direct pay....if you have trouble understanding this concept, read Emerson's essay on compensation...he clarifies the principle quite nicely...

You make this false dichotomy between rich and poor multiple times in your responses, as if everyone not getting rich is an invalidation of capitalism, which is far from the truth...in a free market system you can choose your participation and so choose your compensation, and then with the choice of your behavior you can choose your lifestyle, and you can go for immediate gratification, or deferred gratification....and there are thousands, if not millions of stories of people who choose simple lives, working average jobs, and earning average wages who left estates of millions of dollars to philanthropic causes, and or future generations...and millions more stories where families went from the bottom and provided education and opportunity to their children and grandchildren because of their behavior and financial conduct with the funds they earned... It's not an either/or situation, it's a "what do you want" situation, where your participation gains you the just and equitable reward you have earned...you are allowed to plateau wherever you feel comfortable.

Haiti is no a free market capitalist country...please stop trying to make that foolish claim, it is ripe with criminal behavior, thug type intimidation, and political corruption...that is not free market capitalism...sorry, try again.

I do work a 70 hour week, but I enjoy the ability to spend some time on the web as I complete my tasks, as the practice doesn't interfere with my responsibilities....

I love the left and the Koch Brothers...you have decided these two are your public enemy number one, and you reference them anytime you need a villain, it's cute...actually. Funny how you never mention Uncle Warren, or George Soros, or Jeffery Immelt, or any of the other crony's of the left...you have a little hypocrite on your face from that sanctimony sandwich you are eating....

I don't really care what Malcolm would call me, I'd be more concerned with the opinion of Frederick Douglas, Joseph H. Rainey, Hiram Rhodes Revels, Sojourner Truth, Harriet Tubman, James Meredith or Booker T Washington....and as for the rest, I don't really care about the opinions of others...I don't seek to gain favor with people by removing the struggle that would allow them to become the best that resides within them, in order to curry their favor, like you libs, and lefty's...you just want to "appear" kind and compassionate, even if what you do robs the potential and promise of those you pretend to care about, and leaves them without hope or the means to support themselves and their families....The fraud you and those like you have perpetrated on several generations of Americans ranks as the most evil maltreatment of human beings at the hands of others in the history of the world...you convince people, in the land of the greatest opportunity mankind has ever seen, that they have no chance...it's despicable. Those who come here from other countries (legally and illegally) are the retort to your assertions... as they, as a group, are very successful and live comfortable lives in comparison to those born on our own soil, convinced by you fools, that opportunity doesn't exist for them.

I believe in the Republic of the United States of America, and the federation of states that it is composed of, and the paramount right of the individual to live as he choses, free from the constricting entanglements of the collective that would enslave his efforts, to the benefit of other men, men who contribute less, or not at all. We are not a "democracy" we never have been and hopefully never will be....Mob rule is "Idiocracy" as the public votes to reduce it's struggle and devolves into the chaos of a non-producing non-participatory nanny state...and eventually falls under the financial pressures of too many benefits and not enough participation (see Europe for the many examples of this fact).

The fact is...YOU are the problem, not capitalism, not corporations, thoe of you who advocate broad expansion of reward to those who have not participated enough to have earned those rewards are the problem...you are children masquerading as adults, weaklings and high-chair tyrants demanding that everything be provided for you before you can contribute...which means you will never contribute...since reward doesn't precede effort in any natural system, and never will...

The funny thing in discussions with those such as yourself, you always bring up the theory of collectivism, and how great it would be, but you never address the actual results of collectivism on real people, which is nothing but devastation and suffering...you constantly compare the "Ideal" of socialist theory with your cherry-picked examples of the negative effects of capitalism, which can, in almost every case, be traced to non, or limited, effort, or participation by the persons in the example...as choice of participation is a fundamental component of free market capitalism...so, in the future, why don't you try an apples to apples comparison of the evidence-based results, or the theory against the theory, rather than the misleading and false comparison you usually make.

I've read Chomsky, and many other leftist Icons including Marx and Engles, and Trotsky...Hegel, Darwin and Rousseau, and I found them all to be impractical and historically incorrect, although they often make points which sound plausible, until you apply practical examples and critical thought to them.....tell me, what examples of counter-philosophy have YOU read...or is the answer, as is most often the case, None....

and...why don't you just stop making excuses and blaming others and just get to work doing something positive, something that creates, or aids in building something, instead of parasitically draining from or destroying the creations of others...just a thought

[-] 1 points by flip (7101) 12 years ago

can you answer some questions instead of your religious ranting - define capitalism. here i will help you - : an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision. socialism is public ownership of the means of production. yes - no? it was a hypothetical question but check out bechtel and bolivia - can't answer hypothetical questions - too hard for you ok, never mind. just stay in your little fantasy world of pretend free market capitalism where everyone works hard and gets rich and has servants. haiti and many dirt poor countries are capitalist - you can't wriggle out of that - remember slammy, others are reading and laughing at your comments. and what about regulation and who does it in your fantasy world (as opposed to really existing free market capitalism - go back and read chomsky if you can). no regulation - none needed in your world since competitors keep everything honest and all children work hard in factories and grow up rich. we should all be like carnegie - bobbin boys (where the hell did you get that phrase) and girls working in the mills - others are reading - i can hear the gasps! as to your 70 hour weeks - you're on this website 70 hours - the only way you work 70 hour weeks is if the koch brothers pay you to be a disruptor - if you were black malcolm would call you a house negro - if you were an indian they would call you and apple (red on the outside and whit on the inside - just in case you didn't understand). i assume you are a little white boy raised by your mommy so we can call you a quisling - of course, if you are rich then i take it all back and you are making a rational appeal to keep your wealth. there is another contradiction - do you believe in democracy - well then we (the 99%) can vote into being confiscatory taxes and take your wealth - madison saw the same contradiction - he decided against democracy when he erected the governing structure of the united states - should i explain for you or did you get a good education? so what is it - democracy or capitalism - can't have both - even the ancient greeks knew that. maybe in your fantasy world everyone is rich so there is no problem - and the servants can't vote right. slammy - get a grip - and answer some questions instead of ranting - it will be more fun for both of us!

[-] 1 points by Slammersworld (210) 12 years ago

Well...you're devolving into theoretical foolishness with this post, so...I'll respond, but I think we're pretty much done, as these points have no basis in practical reality...as is true with most leftist utopian economic theory..

One: the economy is neither servant, nor master, the economy is just the playing field where men exchange time, effort, and idea's with one another, it's not a tangible thing that can serve or be served...it can only be participated in, and that participation can be, equitable exchange, contribution, or withdrawal....those who do not contribute and yet withdraw from the system are parasitic and damage the system, lowering the intrinsic value of the units of exchange...

Two: development IS about people, but people who refuse to participate do not develop in ways that benefit the larger system (or economy, if you wish...I prefer the term "marketplace") and again, are negative factors on the system

Three: this point is an obvious utopian collectivist perspective, that, I guess, is supposed to make us believe that "development" is better and more virtuous than growth, when in nearly every case, the "development" effectively requires placing one man as the servant of another, another who by choice, by error, or by existence creates less of a contribution to the system... on this point I will concede, but only to this point...that there are necessarily times when one man may serve another who's contribution is less than his own, some examples are: Children, Family Members, Friends, and those who by no fault or decision(conscious or unconscious) of their own are unable to contribute, or those who, for a short time, need to recover from some situation beyond their control...but, these decisions must be made by choice, not by mandate of a central authority, they must be willingly entered into and chosen by the person who provides the support, and it is solely his choice of the measure and duration and manner in which the support will be given...any other method, by centralized control, or bullying of a mob majority is akin to slavery..

Four: this point is another foolish point, so we'll skip it, since it's late and I have no temper for nonsense.

[-] 0 points by kingscrosssection (314) 12 years ago

If they own 50% of the wealth why the hell would they pay 50% back?

[-] 1 points by flip (7101) 12 years ago

you are right - they should pay 70% or more. the question is not what they pay but what do they keep! the next question is how do they make that money - the top 10 hedge fund managers made on average (in 2010) $900,000 per hour - yes per hour - just off the top of my head i think they could pay 90% and live much much better than you or me or anyone else you might know - just guessing here - let me know if i am off base. a thought experiment for you - let say someone makes $100, 000,000 and pays 90% tax - and now we have those people making 36k paying 10% - you pick - which would live better? go find a free market site - there must be one for you people

[-] 0 points by kingscrosssection (314) 12 years ago

However, you do not need a computer in your home to live comfortably. Its called living within your means and hardly anyone does anymore.

[-] 1 points by powertothepeople (1264) 12 years ago

Just don't point to working people's computers and tell us they have "luxuries" which means they aren't overtaxed.

Not unless you are also going to point to the multiple homes, boats and airplanes owned by the rich to tell us THEY are not overtaxed, either.

[-] 1 points by kingscrosssection (314) 12 years ago

A portion of the middle class own multiple homes and do not live within their means.

[-] 1 points by flip (7101) 12 years ago

i assume these are the people you are talking about - credit cards and luxuries - you need help or you are just badly misinformed. Census data showing that 49.1 million Americans are below the poverty line — in general, $24,343 for a family of four. An additional 51 million are in the next category, which they termed “near poor” — with incomes less than 50 percent above the poverty line.

[-] -1 points by kingscrosssection (314) 12 years ago

The rich are some of the only people with any savings at all. Part of the reason that the poor are poor is that they use their credit cards for everything.

[-] 1 points by flip (7101) 12 years ago

you are a fool - sorry to say - you are wrong on so many points i do not know where to start - i doubt that there is any point discussing - look at the tax history in this country and then look at living standards - the 60's and 70's were better for working people and less good for your favorite rich people. i hope you are very wealthy otherwise what are you doing? if you are every wealthy why are you here on this site - i can only assume some rich man is paying you to cause trouble - possibly you are just stupid

[-] -1 points by l31sh0p (279) from Sand Fork, WV 12 years ago

I don't have the actual figure in front of me, and I refuse to do any research less I find out how ignorant I am, so I'll just throw in arbitrarily high numbers to provide the shock value I need to distract from my otherwise mindlessly opinionated post.

Good work.

[-] -1 points by Febs (824) from Plymouth Meeting, PA 12 years ago

Your assumption on how our tax system works is way off base in regards to the income tax. Some people pay zero income tax. And due to the gradient of tax versus income the higher income always pays higher totals and higher % of income.

This becomes even more apparent when one begins to add in inheritance taxation, gift tax, and capital gains. It isn't "all" but it is certainly "most".

[-] -1 points by libssuk (-1) 12 years ago

LOL someone reads Drudge!!!!! Bottom Line is this... OWS is clueless as to whom they should be protesting well maybe not clueless but partly so... Newsflash for you, you tools chant Obama "4 more years" and then say bankers and corporations are evil and killing jobs blah, blah, blah yet Obama's biggest donors are from Wall St more than any other previous president "follow the money" NOT YOUR LIBERAL HEART Obama has Jeff Immelt as his Job Czar you know him don't you? The CEO of GE the guy who's big greedy corporation made 14Billion in profit and paid ZERO taxes!!!! and ships GE's jobs overseas... Tim Giethner is Wall St thru and thru as is Bernanke You OWS folks amount to nothing more than useful idiots The Joke is on you!!! you will not get what you seek and crapping on police cars, raping women, vomiting, stealing, murdering, doing drugs etc etc etc make you look like the lowlifes the majority of you are! The Tea Party never looked so respectable, Thank you! dumbasses

[-] 2 points by BTKcongress (149) 12 years ago

most people seem to at least understand that the system needs a serious reset, and something pernicious has happened as companies and a few wealthy individuals control congress through campaign finance and lobbyists. they know too how the pay to play system at the root of this pretend "democracy" crushed the country's future economic well being... and that's why there's 17 million unemployed and probably another 8million underemployed from where they were 3 years ago. it's also why the US is not the land of opportunity, that's over in SE asia, but they don't want to move.

the bad behavior is unfortunate, but probably a fair cross section of america.


[-] -2 points by mandodod (144) 12 years ago

It is true. I was taught that in high school many years ago.