|
|
Post by rally2xs on Dec 20, 2015 7:40:29 GMT -5
Just had a curious streak, and looked up the Walton family fortune. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walton_family$146.3 billion. Divide that by 320 million Americans, and that's $458.43 for each of us. Now, remember, that is their net worth, not their incomes. If you take away all the stores and sell them, all their savings and retirement accounts, all their other holdings like real estate, and sell them, that's $458.43 for each of us, a 1-time payment, because you can only sell off their fortune once, and then its all gone. So tell me again how soaking the rich is going to save us all? |
|
|
|
Post by Dave's Not Here Man on Dec 20, 2015 9:47:23 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by pastafari on Dec 20, 2015 20:31:36 GMT -5
Why do you always think that the redistribution has to go to each individual citizen?
|
|
|
|
Post by rally2xs on Dec 21, 2015 5:49:13 GMT -5
Why do you always think that the redistribution has to go to each individual citizen? Oh, yeah, that's right, it goes to the politicians, right? |
|
|
|
Post by bobathon on Dec 21, 2015 6:19:28 GMT -5
I would prefer if they made equitable contributions to our economy instead of sucking wealth up and concentrating it in wherever they stash their cash.
|
|
|
|
Post by rally2xs on Dec 21, 2015 8:33:17 GMT -5
The stash it overseas, away from where it can be income taxed.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 22, 2015 10:22:19 GMT -5
Divide that by 320 million Americans, and that's $458.43 for each of us But that's not what is proposed. And you implying it is means you're either a dumbass, or a liar. You pick. Also, even in your dumbshit fantasy world of raiding the bank accounts of the %.1, why would we give any of that money to the people who don't need it like the couple hundred million Americans that aren't living in poverty or at higher risk for poverty? I don't need any of the Waltons' money, I'm doing fine. But I see and know plenty of people that could use a little help in their back pocket whether it's in the form of groceries or insurance or whatever else is taken for granted by those of us lucky enough who've never really known what struggling really is because we won the socioeconomic lottery in life. As for soaking the rich, I agree. Soak 'em in kerosene. |
|
|
|
Post by rally2xs on Dec 22, 2015 14:27:47 GMT -5
So you want to not give it to a couple hundred million that are doing fine. That leaves about 100 million, which means the Walton's fortune would give about 100 million that are left a bit more than 3 times the $458 I calculated, 1 time, forever, and then the money is gone. So, how's $1400 or so going to help? What are they going to buy with that? Will it sustain them forever, or even pay tuition on an education to get a better job? Nope, that still ain't enough.
Bottom line is that your method is only good for 1 thing, and that is heaping hate upon the rich, and punishing them simply because you don't like them and their success. Your line concerning kerosene confirms the hatred. I had a tag line on the other board about liberalism being the philosophy of resentment, hate, and self-hate. Appears to be as true as ever.
|
|
|
|
Post by bobathon on Dec 22, 2015 15:10:52 GMT -5
I want a sustainable economy that assists us in funding our collective government - the one that provides fire departments and roads and a military defense and public education, yadda yadda yadda. If the Walton's and their ilk continue concentrating our wealth into their hands, the economy is unsustainable. Fuck them and their brown nosing sycophants,
Ya filthy, murder loving, bastard ass-kisser to the greedy.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 22, 2015 17:31:53 GMT -5
So you want to not give it to a couple hundred million that are doing fine. That leaves about 100 million, which means the Walton's fortune would give about 100 million that are left a bit more than 3 times the $458 I calculated, 1 time, forever, and then the money is gone. So, how's $1400 or so going to help? What are they going to buy with that? Will it sustain them forever, or even pay tuition on an education to get a better job? Nope, that still ain't enough. Bottom line is that your method is only good for 1 thing, and that is heaping hate upon the rich, and punishing them simply because you don't like them and their success. Your line concerning kerosene confirms the hatred. I had a tag line on the other board about liberalism being the philosophy of resentment, hate, and self-hate. Appears to be as true as ever. And you're still talking about something I never proposed nor advocate for. The only person whom I hate here is you, rally. And I know your dumb ass ain't billionaire rich. Stop acting like taxing an extra %15-25 of a billionaire's money means we want them dead. You think the Waltons are going to go die in the streets from hunger from only being worth $100 billion instead of $150 billion? Get the fuck outta here. You're a dishonest asshole, is all it really comes down to, rally. You're a pathetic, cowardly piece of shit who doesn't want to have an honest conversation about anything. Any time someone does try and engage you, you go into full-swing strawman mode, refusing to acknowledge the real arguments people are talking about and creating dystopian/apocalyptic projections instead. And there is absolutely zero point in treating you with any respect, considering the absolute lack of empathy that you project to your fellow man. The world's gonna be a better place when you're gone and dead. Fuck you, you fascist cunt. |
|
|
|
Post by bobathon on Dec 22, 2015 17:34:17 GMT -5
I wish I could like your post X100, sip.
|
|
|
|
Post by rally2xs on Dec 23, 2015 13:06:37 GMT -5
Hannity has already calculated that, all of his taxes combined - income, property, sales, capital gains, etc. come to 65%, and he's nowhere close to billionaire. So, you put an extra 25% on that, and that is 90%, just what Bernie Sanders is talking about.
So, at 90%, with 52 weeks in the year, then the rich guy, working for the gov't's here for 46.6 weeks of the year, and able to keep only the last 5.4 weeks of pay, what makes you think they would work at all? I mean, slavery for 46.6 weeks, when you're already a billionaire, why would you bother. Just shut down the company (nobody else is going to want to run it either and work for 46.6 weeks for free) order up the mint julip, and do Sudoku by the pool, and maybe play the stock markets (overseas, out of reach of the IRS) and... there will be zero business activity in the USA, because there will be no commensurate reward for it.
|
|
|
|
Post by rally2xs on Dec 23, 2015 13:10:13 GMT -5
The only person whom I hate here is you, rally. Of course you do. You're a liberal. Resentment, Hate, Self-Hate. That's the philosophy. OBTW, I don't give a F. |
|
|
|
Post by rally2xs on Dec 23, 2015 13:28:26 GMT -5
Any time someone does try and engage you, you go into full-swing strawman mode, refusing to acknowledge the real arguments people are talking about and creating dystopian/apocalyptic projections instead. Yes, absolutely, because any new idea is always the seed for a massive oak tree that will consume all nutrients for 100 yards. Any innocuous-appearing gun control law is the seed of mass confiscation in the near or far future, and you're stupid if you don't realize it. Hillary just openly proposed it a few weeks ago, but you probably missed that. It has been proposed before by one of those Wild-eyed California women senators - Boxer or the other one - so if even the most innocuous-looking new gun control law is not opposed to the maximum effect we're capable of bringing to bear, it just hastens the day when the looney left gets the idea that they have a green light to try the confiscation thing, which will result in a full-up civil / revolutionary war, because gun owners will actively resist. Same crap with the taxes. Income taxes were supposed to be a few percent, only paid by the rich, or so they told the people at the time, but now look how massive they've become, and who is paying them. The middle class is paying them, and its way more than a few percent. They have made nonsensical definitions that $250K a year is "rich" and should have their taxes raised, and have since revised that to $200K. That's nuts. It has progressed to the point that it has ruined the world economy, not just the American economy, and the only way we're going to see the prosperity we deserve again (yeah, I know you're part of the "blame America first" leftist delusion, but we are not evil and really do deserve prosperity) is to get rid of them. So, if you propose a tax on thimbles, I see a tax that will eventually cripple the entire textile industry, as the bad shit ALWAYS grows exponentially. Don't expect any sort of proportional response here to anything that is bad, but appears innocuous only because it is small. And _ANY_ new tax is bad, BTW. This isn't medicine, where poison is only a function of dosage. _ANY_ income tax is harmful, there is no beneficial doasage, and _ANY_ gun control measure is harmful, there is no beneficial dosage. So, don't come here with bad ideas and expect support. I don't care how small a bad idea is, it is still a bad idea and I'll oppose it as if it were nuclear weapon ownership by the Hells Angels. Both bad ideas, and degree doesn't matter even a little bit. Resist all bad ideas with everything you have. |
|
|
|
Post by pastafari on Jan 19, 2016 19:48:22 GMT -5
HA! You kill me.
|
|
|
|
Post by pastafari on Jan 19, 2016 20:00:09 GMT -5
Hannity has already calculated that, all of his taxes combined - income, property, sales, capital gains, etc. come to 65%, and he's nowhere close to billionaire. So, you put an extra 25% on that, and that is 90%, just what Bernie Sanders is talking about. Where did he say that?  52% seems to be the top end of that. Because that 4.6 weeks of pay still nets him a huge house, nice cars, vacations, health care, security, etc. I will take any job you can offer right now that would put me in a position to pay 90% in taxes. Sign me the fuck up. |
|
|
|
Post by rally2xs on Jan 19, 2016 20:09:24 GMT -5
Hannity has already calculated that, all of his taxes combined - income, property, sales, capital gains, etc. come to 65%, and he's nowhere close to billionaire. So, you put an extra 25% on that, and that is 90%, just what Bernie Sanders is talking about. Where did he say that? On his TV program in Fox. He didn't mean just Federal income taxes, he meant those plus sales taxes and excise taxes and property taxes and every penny of tax he pays. |
|
|
|
Post by pastafari on Jan 20, 2016 9:38:58 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by pastafari on Jan 20, 2016 9:46:20 GMT -5
Also, that rate would only be applied to the money earned in that bracket, so no, you wouldn't be paying 90% of your total income, you'd be paying 90% of any money earned over $400K. I mean 37%.
|
|
|
|
Post by bobathon on Jan 20, 2016 9:48:12 GMT -5
|
|
