Higher taxes for the rich?

[Vetalia]

It's not a stellar economy but to say it's horrible is a lie.

Eh, it's pretty horrible if you're one of the long-term unemployed or one of those forced to drop out of the labor force, to say nothing of the retirees currently being reamed by the ZIRP. On the upside, though, at least it's getting better...and more generally what the hell else could you expect from an economy deleveraging itself from a truly unholy debt binge? We're finally going through the hangover from a 30-year debt bubble and it will be painful until we return to a more sustainable level; on the upside, at least now our growth is real and lasting again, driven by manufacturing and increases in real incomes.

[Moving Forward Inc]

The 2nd line did not refer to Mesopotamian's, they referred to other places which used polycentric legal systems.

The 4th line is referring to the laws themselves, not the system behind it.

All cleared up now?

Ok I am not following your convoluted logic.

So why not explain it. But go slow.

Don't worry about it.

It seems to be that the moment someone misreads another persons post the whole thread devolves into fucking pages of straw men.

[Republic of SAS]

What are your views on higher taxes for the rich? In my oppinion, it is a rather bad idea. However, who cares, because I asked you about yours.

No, they already have a higher income tax rate (here in the US). Why should they give away their money to over - spending politicans (on both sides)? If some rich people want to give more money to the government, then thay can do it without raising taxes.

Side note: Obama seems to say that He thinks millionaires and billionaires should give 'their fair share", but according to his tax plan, anyone making over 250,000 is a "millionare".

[The Black Forrest]

It's not a stellar economy but to say it's horrible is a lie.

Eh, it's pretty horrible if you're one of the long-term unemployed or one of those forced to drop out of the labor force, to say nothing of the retirees currently being reamed by the ZIRP. On the upside, though, at least it's getting better.

Depends on your area. My wife was unemployed for 2 years. Full time now. Several people in the neighborhood were in the same predicament. They are working again.

Sorry I guess I don't believe I have to suffer so the wealthy can maintain if not improve their lifestyles.

Look at the fabled plan b which the repubs are talking about. It's a fraken joke if you are not part of the social club......

[The Black Forrest]

What are your views on higher taxes for the rich? In my oppinion, it is a rather bad idea. However, who cares, because I asked you about yours.

No, they already have a higher income tax rate (here in the US). Why should they give away their money to over - spending politicans (on both sides)? If some rich people want to give more money to the government, then thay can do it without raising taxes.

Side note: Obama seems to say that He thinks millionaires and billionaires should give 'their fair share", but according to his tax plan, anyone making over 250,000 is a "millionare".

*sighs*

[Vazdania]

What are your views on higher taxes for the rich? In my oppinion, it is a rather bad idea. However, who cares, because I asked you about yours.

Flat Tax is the only fair taxing system.

[The Black Forrest]

What are your views on higher taxes for the rich? In my oppinion, it is a rather bad idea. However, who cares, because I asked you about yours.

Flat Tax is the only fair taxing system.

Not really.

A 10% tax on lower incomes hurts more then a 10% on higher incomes.

[Our Most Resplendent Goddess Sen]

What are your views on higher taxes for the rich? In my oppinion, it is a rather bad idea. However, who cares, because I asked you about yours.

Flat Tax is the only fair taxing system.

Depends on how you define the word "fair".

[Vetalia]

Depends on your area. My wife was unemployed for 2 years. Full time now. Several people in the neighborhood were in the same predicament. They are working again.

Sorry I guess I don't believe I have to suffer so the wealthy can maintain if not improve their lifestyles.

Look at the fabled plan b which the repubs are talking about. It's a fraken joke if you are not part of the social club......

Can't argue that. I'm still waiting for the NASDAQ to hit 20,000 so we can pay for the Bush tax cuts...

[Moving Forward Inc]

Flat Tax is the only fair taxing system.

Not really.

A 10% tax on lower incomes hurts more then a 10% on higher incomes.

That is absolute bullshit.
There is a law that says the more money you have the more buying power per dollar you have.
Therefore, a 10% tax on the rich affects their buying power more than a 10% tax on the poor.

[Our Most Resplendent Goddess Sen]

what

[The Black Forrest]

Not really.

A 10% tax on lower incomes hurts more then a 10% on higher incomes.

That is absolute bullshit.
There is a law that says the more money you have the more buying power per dollar you have.
Therefore, a 10% tax on the rich affects their buying power more than a 10% tax on the poor.

Guess again.

Their lifestyle will not change.

[Sociobiology]

What are your views on higher taxes for the rich? In my oppinion, it is a rather bad idea. However, who cares, because I asked you about yours.

Flat Tax is the only fair taxing system.

taking ten percent from a man who can barely afford to feed himself, when you could take it from someone who can feed an army is... fair?
No I don't see it.

[Sociobiology]

Not really.

A 10% tax on lower incomes hurts more then a 10% on higher incomes.

That is absolute bullshit.
There is a law that says the more money you have the more buying power per dollar you have.
Therefore, a 10% tax on the rich affects their buying power more than a 10% tax on the poor.

source?

the wealthy do not starve if you increase their taxes from 10 to 11%.
However people at the right poverty level do. Many of them starve at 10%.
but look if you tax the rich 12% that means you can eliminate all taxes on the poorest and have the same amount of money, the rich still have more money overall, AND nobody starves (at least because of taxes).

[Moving Forward Inc]

That is absolute bullshit.
There is a law that says the more money you have the more buying power per dollar you have.
Therefore, a 10% tax on the rich affects their buying power more than a 10% tax on the poor.

Guess again.

Their lifestyle will not change.

Yes it will.
A 1% tax on Bill gates would have gained near 1 billion dollars.
That, is a lot of fancy cars, widescreen LED TV's, Mansions, and wives with big tits.

[Sociobiology]

Guess again.

Their lifestyle will not change.

Yes it will.
A 1% tax on Bill gates would have gained near 1 billion dollars.
That, is a lot of fancy cars, widescreen LED TV's, Mansions, and wives with big tits.

all of which he can easily afford because he has 99 more of that amount.

[Moving Forward Inc]

That is absolute bullshit.
There is a law that says the more money you have the more buying power per dollar you have.
Therefore, a 10% tax on the rich affects their buying power more than a 10% tax on the poor.

source?

the wealthy do not starve if you increase their taxes from 10 to 11%.
However people at the right poverty level do. Many of them starve at 10%.
but look if you tax the rich 12% that means you can eliminate all taxes on the poorest and have the same amount of money, the rich still have more money overall, AND nobody starves (at least because of taxes).

I don't even know what the law is called, "Law of negotiating variable prices" something technical like that.
By the way, you just changed the measurement from buying power to starvation.
What the fuck?
You know, raising tax on a billionare could mean one or two less ferrari's/lambagini's/widescreen LED TV's/mansions, but raising tax on a poor person wouldn't affect how many ferrari's/lambagini's/widescreen LED TV's/mansions he has at all.

[Moving Forward Inc]

Yes it will.
A 1% tax on Bill gates would have gained near 1 billion dollars.
That, is a lot of fancy cars, widescreen LED TV's, Mansions, and wives with big tits.

all of which he can easily afford because he has 99 more of that amount.

Still affects lifestyle.

Hey, if you tax 1% out of a poor persons food money, they still have the other 99%, it doesn't affect them at all

[The Black Forrest]

source?

the wealthy do not starve if you increase their taxes from 10 to 11%.
However people at the right poverty level do. Many of them starve at 10%.
but look if you tax the rich 12% that means you can eliminate all taxes on the poorest and have the same amount of money, the rich still have more money overall, AND nobody starves (at least because of taxes).

I don't even know what the law is called, "Law of negotiating variable prices" something technical like that.
By the way, you just changed the measurement from buying power to starvation.
What the fuck?
You know, raising tax on a billionare could mean one or two less ferrari's/lambagini's/widescreen LED TV's/mansions, but raising tax on a poor person wouldn't affect how many ferrari's/lambagini's/widescreen LED TV's/mansions he has at all.

Again the convoluted logic. Explain the point you are trying to make but do go slow.

[Sociobiology]

all of which he can easily afford because he has 99 more of that amount.

Still affects lifestyle.

Hey, if you tax 1% out of a poor persons food money, they still have the other 99%, it doesn't affect them at all

except that 1% buys only a few days of food. because it is made of less dollars.

[The Black Forrest]

all of which he can easily afford because he has 99 more of that amount.

Still affects lifestyle.

Hey, if you tax 1% out of a poor persons food money, they still have the other 99%, it doesn't affect them at all

Ok so Bill lost a billion. He can't purchase any of what you mentioned.

He won't notice the hit.

[Moving Forward Inc]

Still affects lifestyle.

Hey, if you tax 1% out of a poor persons food money, they still have the other 99%, it doesn't affect them at all

except that 1% buys only a few days of food. because it is made of less dollars.

1% of their income what?
Annually?
Monthly?
Weekly?

[Sociobiology]

source?

the wealthy do not starve if you increase their taxes from 10 to 11%.
However people at the right poverty level do. Many of them starve at 10%.
but look if you tax the rich 12% that means you can eliminate all taxes on the poorest and have the same amount of money, the rich still have more money overall, AND nobody starves (at least because of taxes).

I don't even know what the law is called, "Law of negotiating variable prices" something technical like that.

so your just making it up.

By the way, you just changed the measurement from buying power to starvation.
What the fuck?

no I just have different version of FAIR than you. mostly that fewer dying is more fair than some dying and anything to do with buying power.

You know, raising tax on a billionare could mean one or two less ferrari's/lambagini's/widescreen LED TV's/mansions, but raising tax on a poor person wouldn't affect how many ferrari's/lambagini's/widescreen LED TV's/mansions he has at all.

but does effect how many basic necessities her can afford. The rich don't deserve more IF it comes at the expense of other peoples basic needs. For the same reason they should not be able to buy slaves to hunt, no matter how rich they are.

[Moving Forward Inc]

Still affects lifestyle.

Hey, if you tax 1% out of a poor persons food money, they still have the other 99%, it doesn't affect them at all

Ok so Bill lost a billion. He can't purchase any of what you mentioned.

He won't notice the hit.

So you are suggesting that we tax people based on how much they notice it?

You know, a right-libertarian hopped up on drugs who has a personality disorder no matter how rich he is will notice a miniature tax a lot more than a larger tax to just some person who works in a chinese factory for almost nothing.

[Sociobiology]

except that 1% buys only a few days of food. because it is made of less dollars.

1% of their income what?
Annually?
Monthly?
Weekly?

do you understand what rich and poor mean?
Or percentage for that matter?
A poor persons 1% will always be less dollars than the congruent 1% from a rich person.