3rdnlng Posted June 9, 2010 Posted June 9, 2010 Create jobs or go buy a villa and a yacht? The govt may suck at $ mgt but they are the largest employer in the country. Rich kids creating jobs. nice. Building the villa and/or yacht did create jobs.
Buffalonian-at-Heart Posted June 9, 2010 Posted June 9, 2010 Thank you, back atcha. The Republicans repeatedly make an issue of how hard people work for their money. I'm just throwing it back in their faces and they don't seem to like it. They rail against entitlements and yet expect entitlements themselves. Obviously hard work scares a lot of them, they are terrified that they might actually have to work for something rather than have it handed to them. I think "Family Guy" put it best when they said the Republicans help those with the means to help themselves. You are saying Republicans think things should be handed to them because they think they should keep what they have? And Democrats who think you should give a large portion of what you have to them, because you have more, is working hard for it?
JinWPB Posted June 9, 2010 Posted June 9, 2010 What militia do you belong to? How many camouflage outfits do you have? Do you have your uzi ready when the government storm troopers try to take over your bunker? Some judgments don't take too long to make. I'm sure this very hard-nosed fellow can handle the comments. Well thank you for the compliment. Yes I did serve my country in the USMC. I still remember what our founding fathers died for. To free us from a tyrantical government that levied unfair taxes,usurped personel freedom,enforced limited property rights and forced us to believe as they did,....sound familiar.
Buffalonian-at-Heart Posted June 9, 2010 Posted June 9, 2010 Create jobs or go buy a villa and a yacht? The govt may suck at $ mgt but they are the largest employer in the country. Rich kids creating jobs. nice. Yep. Know any poor kids creating jobs? Furthermore the Government is not the largest employer in this country, its not close to the private sector. Even if that was true, it could only be true because "rich" peoples taxes afforded them to.
K Gun Special Posted June 9, 2010 Posted June 9, 2010 Building the villa and/or yacht did create jobs. So would govt spending for that matter by the same token. Even if you hate the fed govt and their so called wasteful spending, its still spent on something..... which following your line of reasoning, creates jobs. so then no matter what jobs are created?
Peevo Posted June 9, 2010 Posted June 9, 2010 Thank you!! Somebody else gets it too! I'd put it this way; that thoughtless cold hearted people could disagree on this point. How about this one from JC himself. Matthew 19:24 (New International Version) 24Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God." So if you're a Christian Conservative who believes that we'd be better off if we practiced Christianity in government (I don't know if you are or not, it's more of a comment for those reading this who are.) then you should support taxing the rich into poverty in order to save their mortal souls. It's funny how I have yet to meet a Christian conservative with that viewpoint. I've met many who think gays are going to hell but not rich people. Man, I was just about to post this. I'm not very religious at all. But if there's one thing that I remember from Sunday school is that the rich man was going to have a very, very hard time getting into heaven. Christ himself was poor and was an advocate of the poor. So, yes, I'd agree that Christ would find corporatism, excessive greed, and oligarchy a sin. And yes, we're still growing at a rate where the top 1% of the country still earns and possesses more than the bottom 95% of it. http://www.scribd.com/doc/6674234/Citigrou...y-Report-Part-1 - say what you want about how "socialist" this may sound, but this memo might be the most disgusting and prideful boasting of greed, excessive wealth, and income disparity i've ever read. I wholeheartedly disagree with the biggest Fox News talking point railing against progressivism. At the end of the day, the most Republican president in our history, in my opinion Teddy Roosevelt, championed progressive tax legislation-tax the rich to give to the poor. Regressive taxation, like sales tax, hurts the poorest the most. As a Political Science major I do study this material empirically, just for your information. Call him a king of socialist entitlement programs, but even in my "liberal indoctrinated" education at UB, I NEVER once, ever read about this until I saw it in Michael Moore's latest film. I earned a 5 on the AP US History exam in 2004. I've aced all my political policy classes. I never, once, heard about FDR's "Second Bill of Rights." Call it socialism. But is every American with a job, an education, and decent healthcare such a bad thing? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Bill_of_Rights And yes, I do understand that entitlement programs cost money. And for the record, I'm sure every member of my generation won't see a dime of Social Security. But I'm glad I got a good public education. It costs money. Taxes. We can't have it both ways people. You want good infrastructure (roads, bridges, hospitals) it costs money. How about good teachers? Where do you think they get their paychecks? At some point, it has to come from the taxpayer. I'm sorry, but spending $50k plus on a HIGH SCHOOL education is retarded. I got a great one for free.
Buffalonian-at-Heart Posted June 9, 2010 Posted June 9, 2010 So would govt spending for that matter by the same token. Even if you hate the fed govt and their so called wasteful spending, its still spent on something..... which following your line of reasoning, creates jobs. so then no matter what jobs are created? No they would give the money to someone who didn't work. Hence no job created and no work performed.
3rdnlng Posted June 9, 2010 Posted June 9, 2010 So would govt spending for that matter by the same token. Even if you hate the fed govt and their so called wasteful spending, its still spent on something..... which following your line of reasoning, creates jobs. so then no matter what jobs are created? Government spending on welfare creates jobs? I suppose it does for the people administering the program but it would seem to me to be sort of non-productive spending. Just a thought.
leh-nerd skin-erd Posted June 9, 2010 Posted June 9, 2010 As far as I know WB doesn't have any kids. BG isn't saying to tax it all away he's saying that a tax is necessary. Your argument about his kids not suffering after he dies just makes the argument for estate taxes stronger. You're right they won't suffer even if half of his wealth is taxed. An ultra conservative friend of my brothers recently moved back to NY after living in SC. He's more than happy to pay the taxes now in exchange for the much better schools in this state. If Golisano wants to cry and pout about how he was being screwed by NY down in Florida let him. He is more about money than country anyway. couple things--WB has 3 or 4 children as I recall. he's a brilliant man, as is bill gates. certainly they have a right to their opinions. i never argued agaisnt the estate tax, just rendered an opinion on how it all works. taxation is a necessary fact of life, and fully understand that our way of life is dependant upon someone paying for it. the question is one of degrees, and my personal opinion is that the system is pretty flawed. as for your ultra-conservative friend--he voted with his wallet. that's good for him. i don't follow why golisano is "crying and pouting" when he votes with his? i haven't read up on him lately, but did he say he didn't want to pay any taxes at all? does one lose the right to make personal decisions once they cross a certain threshold? ******** http://money.cnn.com/2006/06/25/magazines/...arity1.fortune/ http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/colyrmn/yrmn081.htm As you'll see from the articles above, both Gates and Buffet are indeed passing their children over to a large extent and donating their estates to charity. Gates is planning (or was planning, as it's an old article admittedly, although I don't ever recall reading that he's changed his mind) to give away almost all of his money to charity, leaving his kids $10m each. A whopping sum to the average person, but an infinitessimal fraction of what he's worth. Ten million is more than a few thousand sheckles, but comparatively to what he's giving away, not by much. These guys are practicing what they're preaching. From what I've read, Gates fears that the kind of wealth he has would destroy his kids' drive and make them less likely to be worthy contributing members of society (having known the kids of some of the wealthy, I'd tend to agree in many, but certainly not all, cases.) You may not agree with them, but you may want to check your facts before making statements such as those bolded above. ************ with due respect to you--what facts was I supposed to check? the $10million each he's leaving them? what's the magic of $10m v. say $1m or $500k? like you, my thoughts are colored by my own experiences, but bg leaving $10m of his estate to his kids is different than, say, a hard-working entrepeneur with a modest estate of $7.5 million getting dinged for $3.85 for his kids. for what it's worth, i find it admirable that he'd look at it life that way, but at the same time i would love to see the details of the trusts and tax-avoidance mechanisms he --- and microsoft----currently has in place to reduce his otherwise 'fair share'. and, where the government is concerned--- what's the magic of 55%? could the government be more efficient and get by with 35%? would you meet me halfway and agree that the government is largely and institutionally wasteful and should be able to get by with less? and so i don't paint a picture that i'm all about the benjamins---here's the problem with taxation: federal gas tax+state gas tax+federal estate tax+ state estae tax+sales tax+county sales tax+property tax+school tax+federal excise tax+carbon tax+social security tax+federal income tax+state income tax+cable tv tax+utility tax+tire recovery tax+911 surcharge tax+ all the other taxes i can't think of right now ==================== not enough tax. ever. it's all a question of degrees. oh--and someone mentioned earlier one of the great misnomers of our time. "defecit neutral". how is anything "defecit neutral" if to pay for it, you have to get it from someone else, willingly or otherwise?
Mr. WEO Posted June 9, 2010 Posted June 9, 2010 Mr. Weo--this is absoultely the best non-football post I have ever read on this website. It's succinct, brilliant, and goes directly to the heart of the issue. The fact is that our value system as it relates to taxation is based on the old world theory of Master/Servant. In our system, the king is repalced with the government, and the government rigs the game to it's benefit. see your standard 401k. the government allows it's citizens to save their money for their future needs, giving them the most gracious and benevolent gift of tax deferral on the relatively small amount they save. in return, the goverment has the right to tax the entire value of the asset at the time when you use it. in fact, just to play it safe, the government maintains that regardless of your personal situation, come age 70 or so, you must begin to get their share. so, in theory anyways, the government creates millions of little annuity accounts for itself along the way. the king simply must get his share. the estate tax issue is fundamentally the same. i won't argue the merits of it, i believe the citizens of a nation must pay for it's infrastructure through a moral and just tax code, but the citation of Messrs Gates and Buffet as super-rich proponents of the estate tax is laughable. tell you what---show me Warren Buffet's kids living on their own pennies when dear old dad heads to his heavenly reward and i'll be impressed. show me that bill gates has not used every legal corporate and personal tax dodge known to man to do his part for the greater good while he's alive, and has his kids set up with just a couple hundred thousand sheckles to survive and i'll be the first in line to shake his hand. the truth is the very wealthy go to great lengths to plan for the eventualities of life, and any suggestion to the contrary is pure naivete. And you know what? I respect the hell out of both of these people for their obvious intellect and business accumen. i just happe to think theya r e bit full o' crap in this regard. The root of the problem is this theory of one's "fair share". Tom Golisano left NYS not long ago because his fair share in NY was different than his fair share in Florida. How is one's share "fair" when dealing with a corrupt and bloated infrastructure like that we live with in NY? We all complain about it---why should he be forced to bail out ANYTHING related to NY when the general populace is apparently 100% comfortable with the status quo? as to the rest, class envy is great if you want to vent. rhetoric sells well to the simple-minded. Thanks. Good point that this isn't just about the Fed taking money and redistributing it to others---the states are far more outrageous in taking money. NY governance is a laughingstock---filled with criminals, crooks and craven incompetents. Tax money doesn't grease the palms of politicians??? Government workers make up the biggest group of union employees in the nation. Auto workers (many who have "gold plated" health benefits that will be exempt from new taxes Obama has planned for everyone else in his country with such plans) form the next largest group. $65 billion dollar bailout for GM--a company so poorly run and so bogged down in ridiculous retirement benefits that they cannot afford to honor? A bailout of Chrysler with billions and also by simply giving the union a huge chunk of the equity in the company while stiffing actual creditors (investors) who had loaned the company billions more? Why were those companies allowed to survive? Nobody wanted to buy their cars! And there were plenty of other cars being made in this country by better run companies. I'm not a fan of the banking bailout, but at least there was some economic risk in failure there to be considered. How can you say that tax dollars aren't used to buy votes? How old are you? Rfeyneman, before you comment on the factual content of other posts, you should make sure your own are a lot tighter than they are now in that regard.
leh-nerd skin-erd Posted June 9, 2010 Posted June 9, 2010 So you believe they should be handed things on a silver platter. Taxes are a part of living in almost any country, deal with it. If your net worth, after deductions, is more than a million then your kids are gonna have to deal with the fact that they'll have to make due with a half mil or more. If you want to coddle your kids into a life of leisure half of your worth will still be more than enough to do it. rfey, demand more from your government than asking them to take someone else's money. or, at least, demand they spend what they have wisely and efficiently before they go banging on the door like a crack ho looking for more. and by the way--how much extra do you send the government each year to help those less fortunate than you?
K Gun Special Posted June 9, 2010 Posted June 9, 2010 Government spending on welfare creates jobs? I suppose it does for the people administering the program but it would seem to me to be sort of non-productive spending. Just a thought. dont people on welfare spend their money?
Buffalonian-at-Heart Posted June 9, 2010 Posted June 9, 2010 Man, I was just about to post this. I'm not very religious at all. But if there's one thing that I remember from Sunday school is that the rich man was going to have a very, very hard time getting into heaven. Christ himself was poor and was an advocate of the poor. So, yes, I'd agree that Christ would find corporatism, excessive greed, and oligarchy a sin. And yes, we're still growing at a rate where the top 1% of the country still earns and possesses more than the bottom 95% of it. http://www.scribd.com/doc/6674234/Citigrou...y-Report-Part-1 - say what you want about how "socialist" this may sound, but this memo might be the most disgusting and prideful boasting of greed, excessive wealth, and income disparity i've ever read. I wholeheartedly disagree with the biggest Fox News talking point railing against progressivism. At the end of the day, the most Republican president in our history, in my opinion Teddy Roosevelt, championed progressive tax legislation-tax the rich to give to the poor. Regressive taxation, like sales tax, hurts the poorest the most. As a Political Science major I do study this material empirically, just for your information. Call him a king of socialist entitlement programs, but even in my "liberal indoctrinated" education at UB, I NEVER once, ever read about this until I saw it in Michael Moore's latest film. I earned a 5 on the AP US History exam in 2004. I've aced all my political policy classes. I never, once, heard about FDR's "Second Bill of Rights." Call it socialism. But is every American with a job, an education, and decent healthcare such a bad thing? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Bill_of_Rights And yes, I do understand that entitlement programs cost money. And for the record, I'm sure every member of my generation won't see a dime of Social Security. But I'm glad I got a good public education. It costs money. Taxes. We can't have it both ways people. You want good infrastructure (roads, bridges, hospitals) it costs money. How about good teachers? Where do you think they get their paychecks? At some point, it has to come from the taxpayer. I'm sorry, but spending $50k plus on a HIGH SCHOOL education is retarded. I got a great one for free. Don't let this fool trick you. He obviously despises God, look at how he mocks him in his signature. He quotes a scripture to condemn people, when he himself doesn't believe in the scripture he quotes. The Rich Man's greed is another topic and a completely separate issue. Does the verse right after Matthew 19:24 say "And to save Rich people from the possibility of greed making them miss entering the Kingdom of Heaven, steal from them and give it to a corrupt entity for them to decide what should happen with the man's money"? Does it say that? So taking from someone by force and giving it to someone else, is a Christian proposition? You got fooled by Rfeynman, who himself is a fool. Quoting the word of God out of one side of his mouth, while mocking it out of another. Also what constitutes "rich" from God's point of view? Are you and Rfeynman sure it's money? Make sure it isn't you and that you haven't been duped into thinking it's the people that have money. I find it comical that people who don't believe in the word of God, quote it to shove things in your face, then don't even truly understand the meaning behind the words, just see the words themselves. Oh Rfeynman, you simple minded little boy.
Rob's House Posted June 9, 2010 Posted June 9, 2010 dont people on welfare spend their money? The spending of money doesn't create wealth, production does. You can pay a man to pound sand and call it a job, but he isn't contributing anything to society. Who does? The guy that starts a business providing products and services to others and the people who work within his organization to help provide those things that people want. You can argue day and night about who deserves how much of the money that organization makes providing it's services, but that's another story altogether. A welfare recipient as well as MOST government employees produce nothing for society so rather than contributing they simply consume resources someone else produced.
JohnC Posted June 9, 2010 Posted June 9, 2010 Well thank you for the compliment. Yes I did serve my country in the USMC. I still remember what our founding fathers died for. To free us from a tyrantical government that levied unfair taxes,usurped personel freedom,enforced limited property rights and forced us to believe as they did,....sound familiar. If you believe our government is tyrannical then you are on the political fringe. Your tea bag views are very difficult to digest. When I see elderly people getting medicare coverage and receiving social security checks and then rant about how our oppressive government shouldn't be involved in their lives I sometimes want to laugh and other times cringe. You should be commended for your service. For that I thank you. But your views as you state them are very retrograde.
K Gun Special Posted June 9, 2010 Posted June 9, 2010 The spending of money doesn't create wealth, production does. You can pay a man to pound sand and call it a job, but he isn't contributing anything to society. Who does? The guy that starts a business providing products and services to others and the people who work within his organization to help provide those things that people want. You can argue day and night about who deserves how much of the money that organization makes providing it's services, but that's another story altogether. A welfare recipient as well as MOST government employees produce nothing for society so rather than contributing they simply consume resources someone else produced. That is some circular reasoning. Spending money on something the small business guy produces does stimulate wealth. More people buying stuff produced by someone else does nothing? How do resort communities survive? they dont produce anything, just provide an outlet for spending?
Buffalonian-at-Heart Posted June 9, 2010 Posted June 9, 2010 dont people on welfare spend their money? That's like eating your own throw up and saying you paid for the meal. And it's not "their" money they are spending.
Rob's House Posted June 9, 2010 Posted June 9, 2010 That is some circular reasoning. Spending money on something the small business guy produces does stimulate wealth. More people buying stuff produced by someone else does nothing? How do resort communities survive? they dont produce anything, just provide an outlet for spending? They produce recreation. If I drop $3Gs at Sandals, I get a week in the lap of luxury. I get utility. They have provided me a service. I have traded my production for what they provide. Your welfare guy gave me nothing for my production. He just stole it via the government, and then traded it back to me for more of my production.
3rdnlng Posted June 9, 2010 Posted June 9, 2010 The spending of money doesn't create wealth, production does. You can pay a man to pound sand and call it a job, but he isn't contributing anything to society. Who does? The guy that starts a business providing products and services to others and the people who work within his organization to help provide those things that people want. You can argue day and night about who deserves how much of the money that organization makes providing it's services, but that's another story altogether. A welfare recipient as well as MOST government employees produce nothing for society so rather than contributing they simply consume resources someone else produced. Good post. Thank you for taking the time to explain it to him. I went to post something similar and am glad I read your 's first.
bills_fan Posted June 9, 2010 Posted June 9, 2010 So you believe they should be handed things on a silver platter. Taxes are a part of living in almost any country, deal with it. If your net worth, after deductions, is more than a million then your kids are gonna have to deal with the fact that they'll have to make due with a half mil or more. If you want to coddle your kids into a life of leisure half of your worth will still be more than enough to do it. I didn't say silver platter, but I do want to make things easier for my children than I had it. I'm not sure what deductions are permitted under the estate tax, but $1 million can be reached fairly quickly, especially if the family home is not excluded. And my feelings on taxes are expressed in my signature, from Thomas Jefferson's inaugural address.
Recommended Posts