Said the bottom runger with no chance of advancement.

You see kid, when I was in your position, I wasn't bitching about my betters. I was out working to become one of them.
Survival of the fittest, son.
And you ain't that fit.:1orglaugh

Sorry, I still believe you are an idiot. :thumbsup

Great misread of the information! Congrats! :thumbsup

Don't send blankets. Just send your cash.

They have the same cuts you obfuscating jackass. We have a progressive tax system, everyone pays the same tax on the first 250k and the same tax on the next 250k. The more you make in this wonderful land the more you pay.

To dumb this down to a talking point is the epitome of stupid. It is a 100% fact that tax cuts to the rich do not trickle down. It is a fact that if the middle class isn't given room to breathe that the entire economy suffers.

There are many people that are my betters, you aren't one of them with $1 or $1 billion.

How does raising the tax rate for the upper 1%, give the middle class room to breathe?

Listen raising the taxes on the Rich Business Owners, is NOT going to cut their profits. They will figure out a way to keep the profits the same. Most of the ways will not be good, as greed always takes over. Prices will go up, or employees cut, or cheaper made products. Sad but true!

One thing that I do find funny is people saying if we don't raise taxes for the rich, it will cost us more money in the long run. Ha it does NOT Cost us more, it is just less taken in. How about we CUT fucking spending. Maybe do Both raise taxes and Cut spending??

I heard they are thinking of a .15 per gallon gas tax?

Your right Income taxes are NOT going up, but all the other ones are!

Have a good day!

Hahaha, and still the rabble chirp.

Work harder, fools!
Posting on chat boards doesn't prove YOUR point, it proves MINE.

If someone making 1m a year in profit, who employs let's say 10 people, gets a tax increase of 7% (33 to 40), thats 70k a year less profit for that person...

Now, there is 2 options here, either he just let the gov take an additional 70k from him, which might seem little compared to the 1m, but I think its more than most people on this board make a year so claiming its not a lot is just stupid...

OR, how about he tries to recoup the 70k and fires one of his 10 employees? Now who did that increase help? <G>

I have 2 ideas though:
1) _cut_ _EVERYONES_ taxes, just cut middle and low class more %age wise than the rich, it will give everyone more money to spend and noone can really complain...
2) make it an option for the 1m guy to either get his taxes increased by 70k a year or pay each employee 7k more... how about that?

I for one would be much more inclined to make my employees happier than to pay more to the government who, quite frankly, does not do me any good that I can see...

Spoken like a true rich man...


Now lets hit that island - I'll supply the tail.

I say we end the penalties imposed by our government for being smart enough to earn more money than our peers. Saying the rich "have a responsibility" to give back is BS. If you can't hack it deal with it. The more you tax the wealthy the worse off the country will be.

Billionaires should be cut off with a five hundred thousand max salary cap. LOL!

It's hard to take you seriously when your statements contradict facts.

Also, smart doesn't have as much to do with making money as you'd like to think. As you can see from this board a lot of people are just in the right place at the right time, others work harder than anyone, etc. What matters though is that you used the system to get more money than others, but the system wouldn't exist if taxes weren't paid. Deal with it.

PS, you aren't rich anyhow.

Must be tough to get by — crocodile tears.

There are so many ways to reduce your AGI (taxable income) ...

For all tax payers.

The myth that top earns don't pay their "fair share" is just that, a myth.
Perpetrated by the non-earning non-paying rabble

they already are.

Play on words!
Rate, Percent

So many things left out of this, it could go a hundred ways.

i like more

Warren lies. Sadly.
He's in a unique position to derive ALL if his income thru investments.
The rest of us who actually EARN our money, all pay a higher rate than our secretaries. :thumbsup

Translation: I do not agree with the facts in this matter, so I will just keep on spewing out my ignorant spin instead. I am better than you, rabble, rabble, blah blah blah....

Carry on!

Wow. I hope you like your current status in life because you're not smart enough to do anything more.

Dear child, I just explained the farse that is the "my secretary pays more than I do" fallacy.
You've never earned enough to pay taxes, you've never employed anyone, yet you chirp and chirp about things you have no understanding of.
:1orglaugh

..."We have so many people who can't see a fat man standing beside a thin one without coming to the conclusion the fat man got that way by taking advantage of the thin one. So they're going to solve all the problems of human misery through government and government planning. Well, now, if government planning and welfare had the answer?and they've had almost 30 years of it?shouldn't we expect government to read the score to us once in a while? Shouldn't they be telling us about the decline each year in the number of people needing help? The reduction in the need for public housing? "...

March 31, 1976

Ima gonna take care of myself and my affiliates.

How about you?

Top 10 Reasons for Higher Taxes on the Top 1%

by Paul Buchheit

Funding for our country's children is being cut, but we allow a hedge fund manager to make enough money to pay the salaries of every public school teacher in New York City. Most of his earnings are taxed at a rate less than that of his secretary.

We haven't been able to do anything about it because the cry of 'socialism' from the top generates fear in the minds of average Americans. It's a meaningless cry. Here are ten reasons why the wealthiest 10% of us, and especially the richest 1%, should be paying higher taxes.

1. Benefits to the rich (and everyone else)

Americans with land and expensive houses have the most to lose by failing to support national security and a clean environment and infrastructure repair. And they have a lot to lose from the growing levels of crime and violence. Researchers Richard Wilkinson and Kate Pickett have documented numerous studies that correlate economic inequality with shorter life expectancies, increased disease and health problems, and higher rates of murder and other forms of violence.

About their book "The Spirit Level: Why Equality is Better for Everyone," Wilkinson says: "We quote a prison psychiatrist who spent 25 years talking to really violent men, and he says he has yet to see an act of violence which was not caused by people feeling disrespected, humiliated, or like they've lost face. Those are the triggers to violence, and they're more intense in more unequal societies, where status competition is intensified and we're more sensitive about social judgments."

2. Correcting the redistribution of income to the rich

The richest 1% took $7 of every $100 of America's income in 1980. They have increased that to $20 of every $100 today. In just one generation they've TRIPLED their cut of the pie. Most of the gains by the rich were not 'earned' in the sense of production, innovation, inventiveness. They didn't work 3 times harder than everyone else as they tripled their share. They benefited from tax cuts and deregulation.

3. Correcting the redistribution of income from the poor

Since 1980 our country's productivity has steadily risen, with total income doubling approximately every 10 years. If the bottom 90% of America, most of whom have not been lazy, had shared in this prosperity at a level consistent with 1980 incomes, they would be making $45,000 a year instead of $35,000.

Change to Win, a coalition of union organizations, notes that the high point for wages was in 1972 when union membership reached 28%. Workers are now "earning only 83 cents of every dollar they earned more than 35 years ago, while their productivity has increased a dramatic 80%."

4. Outmoded tax brackets

Our tax system is stuck at 1980s levels. As noted by The New Yorker economist James Surowiecki, "Our system sets the top bracket at three hundred and seventy-five thousand dollars, with a tax rate of thirty-five per cent...This means that someone making two hundred thousand dollars a year and someone making two hundred million dollars a year pay at similar tax rates. LeBron James and LeBron James's dentist: same difference."

5. Inequality to instability

As explained by Time's economics writer Stephen Gandel, "Consider what [money held by the very rich] is doing now. It is adding to our economic problems not helping. For the most part it is not money being spent and trickling down. Instead it just adds to that global pool of money that sloshes around our financial markets and creates all types of bubbles...it actually makes our economy prone to booms and busts, and less stable."

6. Instability to catastrophe

The current level of inequality is equivalent to that of the years just before the Great Depression. There is reason to suspect that this level of income inequality is dangerous to our economy. The only other year since 1913 that the wealthy claimed such a large share of national income was 1928, when the top 1% share was 23.9%. The following year, the stock market crashed, which led to the Great Depression. After peaking again in 2007, the U.S. stock market crashed in 2008, leading to what some are now calling the "Great Recession."

7. The Tax Myth

The belief that the "rich pay most of the taxes" is incorrect. The truth comes from the U.S. Congressional Budget Office and the Internal Revenue Service. It's true that the top-earning 1% of Americans pay 23% of their incomes in federal income taxes, while the lowest-earning half of Americans pay only 3%. But top earners pay 5% of their incomes in state and local taxes (sales, property, and income taxes), while low earners pay 10%. Top earners pay 2% of their incomes toward social security, compared to 9% for low earners. Top earners pay 0% (i.e., a negligible portion) of their incomes in federal excise taxes (e.g., tobacco, alcohol and gasoline), while low earners pay 2%. Top earners save another 1% through the Bush tax cuts, while low earners see little benefit. So total taxes for top earners are 29% of their incomes. Total taxes for low earners are 24% of their incomes.

Beyond this, the US Department of Housing and Urban Development and the American Gas Association concur that low-income households pay over 20% of their incomes for utilities, while high-income households pay less than 4%. As a result, total taxes and utilities for top earners consume 33% of their incomes. Total taxes and utilities for low earners consume 44% of their incomes.

8. The Consumption Myth

The belief that rich stimulate the economy is another myth. If anything, the poor stimulate the economy. Low-income earners have a higher "Marginal Propensity to Consume," which means that they spend a greater percentage of their overall income on consumption. High-income earners, on the other hand, will hold more in investments. A University of California study showed that from 1980 to 2003 the share of capital income (stocks, interest, dividends) owned by the richest 1% grew from 37% to 57%.

It's not just rich individuals holding the money. The 500 largest non-financial corporations are currently sitting on $1.8 trillion in cash.

9. Wealth with Honor

Although our country is built on capitalism, wise American business leaders have recognized the danger of the "free hand" of unregulated open markets. Adam Smith, the father of capitalism believed that unrestricted businesses tend to engage in "conspiracy against the public." John Kenneth Galbraith said "Capitalism left to its own devices, doesn't work properly; it excludes the poor, ruins the environment, and fails to deliver enough collectively produced goods, such as roads, reservoirs, schools and hospitals."

Teddy Roosevelt (in 1910, exactly 100 years ago) criticized the "small class of enormously wealthy and economically powerful men, whose chief object is to hold and increase their power...We grudge no man a fortune in civil life if it is honorably obtained and well used...We should permit it to be gained only so long as the gaining represents benefit to the community...I think we have got to face the fact that an increase in governmental control is now necessary."

Taxes were raised on the rich shortly after Roosevelt's speech, and the United States gradually became a middle class nation.

More recently, Warren Buffett and Bill Gates have been trying to convince the rich of their responsibility to society. "Responsible Wealth," a project of United for a Fair Economy, is a network of over 700 business leaders and wealthy individuals in the top 5% of income and/or wealth in the US who advocate for fair taxes and corporate accountability.

(10) As the Tea Party argues, there should be no new taxes. On 90% of us.

Jailbait topic for 12clicks. Never fails. Be what you never will.

today the greedy fucks have weapons that can scope you on a screen and shred you to pieces from a mile away and millions of broke kids who can't wait to click that mouse.

The simple problem that you cannot understand is that this is an issue of mathematical reality not one of emotional wants and needs and appeals. Attacking success, does not create more success. That is a simple economic reality.

Even dumber is that you advocate confiscating wealth and redistributing it which has never worked for any period of time, has ultimately resulted in a complete economic meltdown of any nation that has tried it and rarely happens without force, mass murder and at the direct expense of EVERYONE's rights, not only the rich.

"The rich get richer, the poor get poorer" mantra is the 10,000 year old rant of simplistic people, who produce little to nothing and who have no intention of stepping up, getting into the game and taking advantage of all the opportunity they have before them. Obviously a person who is educated, intelligent and business savvy, is going to make better life decisions and better financial decisions than a kid raised by a single mother of 5 who's unemployed kids busy themselves buying gold grills, iphones and $150.00 jeans and telling themselves and everyone that they are going to be a rapper to impress their friends vs working hard, effectively managing their money and building their future.

http://www.cccpfashion.com/posters/C...R-Poster21.jpg

ahhhh, society's failures still blaming their betters.............
classic.

when you use my name, try to put it in a sentence written in english.

It's always nice to see all of you GFY multi-millionaires and billionaires taking a stand. :1orglaugh

I love trash trying and failing to piss up at their betters.

You mean, shit on the heads on my lessers, right?

The day YOU are MY better, hell will freeze over! :1orglaugh

All the super hot pussy!

What do you mean here?

I ask only because I've read the exact same research about how after a certain fairly small figure, wealth didn't increase a household's happiness, it only increased a desire for more wealth. I'm not talking about some 3 paragraph news blurb.. there has been some pretty involved research on the subject.

hahaha! sure punk. you've got it all figured out :1orglaugh

How do you define "better"?

There are athletes who have earned a considerable amount of compensation exceeding others whom have contributed more to the knowledge and humanity of society.

Is Dennis Rodman Albert Einstein's better?

Furthermore, who is more successful a man who has earned $20 million focusing 100% of his time in business.. or a man who has earned $5 million squandering 50% of his time spending it with family?

Everyone needs money to survive.. most people desire more money to survive at a more comfortable level.. many people think having more of it makes them someone better.. others are so dependant upon it they lose track of the things that really matter.


BTW, if anyone doesn't want some of their money I'll gladly ease you of the burden :1orglaugh

Or maybe he just hires an extra employee or two, or invests into his business some other way. Writes off the $70K+ as an expense, and voila, he's all the better for it and in a lower tax bracket again.

You've missed the point.
The earners of this country who already pay for the majority of the government bill are the betters of all the rabble in this thread bitching about them.
They are better because they are busy succeeding. The rabble here are not because they are here bitching.