If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Guardian)   New study shows that the rich are hiding between $21-32 trillion in offshore tax havens around the world. A sum greater than the entire US economy and enough to bail out all of the EU and put Africa on its feet   (guardian.co.uk) divider line 306
    More: Asinine, tax havens  
•       •       •

3864 clicks; posted to Politics » on 22 Jul 2012 at 2:47 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



306 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-07-22 03:57:00 AM  

cman: I dont know anything about personal wealth being hidden, but I do know that many companies are doing it. Apple, for example, has billions of dollars in cash just sitting there. Apple refuses to bring the money back home until the tax is lower. Their argument is that they were already taxed once by the country where they sold their goods, so they shouldnt have to pay more.

I am thinking that maybe a sliding scale might be the best way to approach this. Make it something like if you return the money to the states within one month of being handed it, you get taxed at a lower rate. The longer it stays over seas, the higher the tax rate goes.


Apple would happily bring the money back into the country to hire people, if only they had more customers. The middle class doesn't have enough money to buy Apple's products. If the top 1% bought a few hundreds ipads each, we wouldn't have this problem.
 
2012-07-22 03:57:57 AM  

Curse of the Goth Kids: batcookie: Curse of the Goth Kids: ely, but I'm not so sure that's quite what it was driving at.

Nevertheless, I don't find that prospect any more unnerving than the kind of overconcentration of wealth that

Indeed. And in a way taxing IS redistributing - only instead of putting cash in the hands of the people, it goes toward shiat like roads, education, etc... you know, things the people NEED, and which the governments, both state and federal, do not fill their end of the bargain due to "budget reasons". The one place it SHOULDN'T be is hoarded by these stupid mother farkers.

The real problem I think is that wealth is power, and it's a particularly difficult kind of power because it's in the hands of people who aren't elected and who aren't constrained by any sort of written constitution or parliamentary procedure. I'm sure there are certain people on the right who are so far gone as to chastise me for saying this, but it's my firm belief that duly elected sovereign national governments SHOULD be the most powerful entities on the planet. There used to be a time when that wasn't a controversial statement at all.

What happens when individuals -- and here I do mean solitary individuals, and not great masses of generalized people -- tower head and shoulders over sovereign governments? Just look at this guy:

[img822.imageshack.us image 234x349]

That man was a product of Saudi-style feudalism. Before his family cut him off, he had access to the kind of wealth that allowed him to buy off entire (third world, shiathole) countries. He did not give two farks about your first or second or third amendment rights. Nobody voted for this guy. He wasn't obligated to build infrastructure or educate anybody, he did precisely what he wanted: he murdered a ton of people. And for the first time, if not in history than in a long, long time indeed, the US found itself in the bizarre position of going to war not against some other country but against one super-wealthy Ur-Libertarian ...


Couldn't have said it better myself.
 
2012-07-22 04:12:13 AM  

Chariset: Coelacanth: That much money, we could teach Africa how to dance.

I'd like to teach the world to sing.


And we're on Broadway!
 
2012-07-22 04:16:22 AM  
How about a constitutional amendment for this.

They're waiting for another tax holiday and the government is holding out, and for good reason.

Let's make it constitutionally required to repatriate the money. Just the tax on that fortune along could balance the budget with a bit of a surplus to boot.
 
2012-07-22 04:20:37 AM  
Who lets people write headlines with such insufferably foolish numbers in them?

If we take all the cash we think these people have in their mattresses, and pretend they have entire investment portfolios in their mattresses in an ordinary proportion, ignoring utterly the difficulties in putting real estate and equity into mattresses... well, there's trillions and trillions in them there mattresses. The thing is, though, it's patently insane to ignore the difficulties - nobody's hiding the Chrysler Building or General Motors anywhere. And even if they are, they haven't removed them from the world economy.

Not that the provably hidden cash isn't bad enough, but c'mon people, coming up with that number does not aid in understanding the issue.
 
2012-07-22 04:27:21 AM  
To be honest - if I was that rich, I wouldn't know what to do with the money either. I could get a mansion and live in a new house every day for the rest of my life? I suppose I could see myself running broke on five million, or ten, maybe even thirty. Start a business and run it into the ground, Curt Schilling style. Start a whole bunch of businesses that fail? I don't know. Anything more than thirty, maybe fifty mil tops, my mind just blows.
 
2012-07-22 04:32:24 AM  
Well, the world needs yacht polishers, too, you know
 
2012-07-22 04:39:50 AM  
So basically we're going to go with the usual clap trap...

You don't deserve your money because you didn't earn it yourself anyway. It should be taken by wiser, smart, better people than you in the government who clearly know better how to use your money than you do.

Enough to bail out Europe? Kicking the can down the road because you don't want to admit the problem is only going to delay the problem and after you've tried taxing your way out of problems... and it fails... and it WILL fail because logic says it will... What will you do next? Cry some more about how surely if we just taxed more...!

You're also not going to help Africa by pouring money or food aid in to it. If that's all it took to solve the problems there it would be thriving by now and all it does it get worse. I'm not saying they shouldn't be helped, but I am saying that unless you come up with some radically new method of helping them... It's not going to change a thing no matter how much money you spend.

But yes, keep sitting around screaming how it's not your little liberal pet policies that created the problems and find a scape goat in the rich, just blame them because admitting you're wrong is hard.
 
2012-07-22 04:51:01 AM  

REO-Weedwagon: geek_mars: I'm starting to think that WWIII won't be a war fought between nations, but between classes. And while the wealthy can afford better weapons, who's going to fight for them? They're pretty heavily outnumbered.

[4.bp.blogspot.com image 550x400]


I lol'd. Then I pictured .50 caliber machine guns mounted on hoverrounds and lol'd again.

/(barely) mobile infantry
 
2012-07-22 04:51:20 AM  

randomjsa: Enough to bail out Europe? Kicking the can down the road because you don't want to admit the problem is only going to delay the problem and after you've tried taxing your way out of problems... and it fails... and it WILL fail because logic says it will... What will you do next? Cry some more about how surely if we just taxed more...!


Randomjsa, think a moment. Bailing a country, or group of them, is not "kicking the can down the road". The actual problem with the European countries - and the USA too, to a lesser extent - is that out of every dollar of money spent on anything, so much of it is soaked up by interest on the national debts.

Eliminate the national debt of a country or group of them, and suddenly that very same amount of income they regularly recieve goes a lot further. The problem with EU, and again, to a lesser extent America, at the moment, is that they can't just be efficient, or "balanced" for tax income/spending, they have to be efficient to a degree of an additional 50% beyond dollar for dollar value. When, as Sen. Rubio recently said, you're not spending 40 cents of every dollar on the interest to the national debt, that's 40 cents of every dollar that can ACTUALLY be spent on things - whether that's social spending or military spending, whatever.
 
2012-07-22 04:52:24 AM  

slayer199: No, but when governments spend money irresponsibly and then want to raise taxes to pay for the debt, I can't blame people for moving money offshore.



I think you mean governments have created policies that allow these people to make these trillions of dollars in the first place, then when the bill comes, they all magically disappear from the dinner table.
 
2012-07-22 05:02:16 AM  

slayer199: Weaver95: And remember - suggesting we change the rules to prevent this sort of thing automatically makes you a socialist.

No, but when governments spend money irresponsibly and then want to raise taxes to pay for the debt, I can't blame people for moving money offshore.


What passes for "wasteful spending" is Republican for "anything that's not free money for the wealthy".
 
2012-07-22 05:02:28 AM  
Mongo is just pawn in game of life.
 
2012-07-22 05:03:09 AM  
Colour me surprised. Actually I was a little surprised at the immensity of the sum.
 
2012-07-22 05:03:37 AM  

propasaurus: It'll trickle down. Like any day now.


In blood.

/soon, you will have more trickle down than you can stomach.
//I only wish it was my generation instead of my children who will have to deal with it.
 
2012-07-22 05:04:04 AM  
Don't the rich understand that If they don't pay their fair share, and this country goes bottom up, that money is useless?

Or will they see the danger an cash out now and leave us to rot?
 
2012-07-22 05:04:20 AM  

dickfreckle: Don't you dare suggest that tax cuts sunset, as was the stated intent of the guy who signed the farking thing in the first place.

They'll call you a hippie socialist who's jealous of others' success. Be a good boy and trust that the next tax cut extension will work. This time. We promise.

That's the "new" plan for prosperity you're trying to sell America, you FOX-breathing shills. When we're all dried husks, you'll still be rich. Except we'll no longer be supporting you via demand and reasonably ordered society.

Keep farking that chicken.


Then they can move to Somalia and start all over.
 
2012-07-22 05:09:38 AM  

Curse of the Goth Kids: Noam Chimpsky: Who's money is it, Obama's?

[img41.imageshack.us image 674x674]

It's Uncle Frank's money, and Uncle Frank says get your ass to bed.


holyshiatwinrightthere
 
2012-07-22 05:38:15 AM  
Does this mean we can finally put that tired "raising taxes on the rich won't fix the whole problem so we should just keep cutting the top tax rate" argument to bed? Or are we still running with the whole "Because SOCIALUISMSZ!1!!!11" think.

/Never mind, looks like Randomjsa already answered my question in his own derptastic way.
 
2012-07-22 05:54:03 AM  
So what I'm hearing is that every rich person is just like Scrooge McDuck.
 
2012-07-22 05:54:03 AM  

Lsherm: The super rich people don't need tax breaks. The problem is that they just ship their money elsewhere to avoid paying taxes on it.


Horseshiat.

We could take the money if we wanted. Right now. The government virtually seized all the US assets of all the major online poker companies literally overnight -- some untold tens of billions -- in a move so fast that their players could not even withdraw the funds in time. Some are STILL waiting for their promised funds from now-defunct accounts.

It's not a hard thing to do to kill a person/company and take their shiat. All that is needed is the political wherewithal. But the only difference is the poker companies didn't have any friends in Washington.

But it can be done. Bring back Proscription!
 
2012-07-22 05:55:01 AM  

slayer199: Weaver95: And remember - suggesting we change the rules to prevent this sort of thing automatically makes you a socialist.

No, but when governments spend money irresponsibly and then want to raise taxes to pay for the debt, I can't blame people for moving money offshore.


It's an interesting cycle: citizen A seeks consideration for company/industry/cause-->lobbyist gets hired-->lobbyist donates to political campaign-->politician propones/passes considerate legislation-->citizen A benefits at expense of citizen B-->citizen B seeks consideration and so on, and so forth, and such like...

I'm curious who in this cycle is to blame for the "irresponsible" spending?
 
2012-07-22 05:55:31 AM  
All enemies, foreign AND domestic...
 
2012-07-22 05:56:42 AM  

WaitWhatWhy: Does this mean we can finally put that tired "raising taxes on the rich won't fix the whole problem so we should just keep cutting the top tax rate" argument to bed? Or are we still running with the whole "Because SOCIALUISMSZ!1!!!11" think.

/Never mind, looks like Randomjsa already answered my question in his own derptastic way.


Seriously. Saving this link to show the next retard who spouts that line of BS.
 
2012-07-22 06:11:53 AM  

starsrift: Randomjsa, think a moment. Bailing a country, or group of them, is not "kicking the can down the road". The actual problem with the European countries - and the USA too, to a lesser extent - is that out of every dollar of money spent on anything, so much of it is soaked up by interest on the national debts.


Yes it is, because no amount of taxation is going to fix this problem. The problem is that too much money is being spent on unsustainable things. As nice as it might be to pay everyone a high salary with lavish benefits so they can retire and have a pension that lasts 20-40 more years and still have the lavish benefits.

That's not going to work. Running around going 'If we just taxed more money we could do this!' is kicking the can down the road. You're setting up a system that cannot maintain itself and taxes aren't going to change that.

If we had taxed 100% of the income on everyone in the US making 10 million or more for an entire year, I mean every dime of income they had... That would be 250 billion dollars in added taxes. Not even enough to pay for 1/3 of Obama's stimulus package much less his health care bill. Remind me again what the problem is, too much spending, or not enough taxes?

Eliminate the national debt of a country or group of them, and suddenly that very same amount of income they regularly recieve goes a lot further. The problem with EU, and again, to a lesser extent America, at the moment, is that they can't just be efficient, or "balanced" for tax income/spending, they have to be efficient to a degree of an additional 50% beyond dollar for dollar value. When, as Sen. Rubio recently said, you're not spending 40 cents of every dollar on the interest to the national debt, that's 40 cents of every dollar that can ACTUALLY be spent on things - whether that's social spending or military spending, whatever.

You can eliminate debt by getting rid of the problem creating the debt. You will not get rid of it by taxing more because you can't raise taxes high enough to cover all the costs. The problem is that we're spending too much money and running around sucking up even more money from the private sector isn't going to provide a long term solution. It's going to eventually screw over everyone.
 
2012-07-22 06:13:26 AM  
If you're not allowed to move yourself, or labor or property out of your own country, then you live under totalitarianism. It couldn't be more clear what political affiliation is against this.
 
2012-07-22 06:14:30 AM  
Because the quality of life here is still relatively pretty high, rich folks like to live in America. They just don't want to pay for the privilege. So they stay here, and move their money to some third world shiathole where they would never consider living, because there they can grease a corrupt official's palm and stash it tax-free. It will continue until Americans grow a pair, and quit worshipping any asshole who has a few nickels to rub together.
 
2012-07-22 06:18:14 AM  

randomjsa: starsrift: Randomjsa, think a moment. Bailing a country, or group of them, is not "kicking the can down the road". The actual problem with the European countries - and the USA too, to a lesser extent - is that out of every dollar of money spent on anything, so much of it is soaked up by interest on the national debts.

Yes it is, because no amount of taxation is going to fix this problem. The problem is that too much money is being spent on unsustainable things. As nice as it might be to pay everyone a high salary with lavish benefits so they can retire and have a pension that lasts 20-40 more years and still have the lavish benefits.

That's not going to work. Running around going 'If we just taxed more money we could do this!' is kicking the can down the road. You're setting up a system that cannot maintain itself and taxes aren't going to change that.

If we had taxed 100% of the income on everyone in the US making 10 million or more for an entire year, I mean every dime of income they had... That would be 250 billion dollars in added taxes. Not even enough to pay for 1/3 of Obama's stimulus package much less his health care bill. Remind me again what the problem is, too much spending, or not enough taxes?

Eliminate the national debt of a country or group of them, and suddenly that very same amount of income they regularly recieve goes a lot further. The problem with EU, and again, to a lesser extent America, at the moment, is that they can't just be efficient, or "balanced" for tax income/spending, they have to be efficient to a degree of an additional 50% beyond dollar for dollar value. When, as Sen. Rubio recently said, you're not spending 40 cents of every dollar on the interest to the national debt, that's 40 cents of every dollar that can ACTUALLY be spent on things - whether that's social spending or military spending, whatever.

You can eliminate debt by getting rid of the problem creating the debt. You will not get rid of it by taxing more because you c ...


USP .45: If you're not allowed to move yourself, or labor or property out of your own country, then you live under totalitarianism. It couldn't be more clear what political affiliation is against this.


All deadbeats have excuses - but at least the poor ones don't concoct lofty, moral-sounding apologias for not paying their bills. And that's what rich folks who don't want to pay their taxes are - deadbeats - no different than some welfare bum who won't pay their gas bill.
 
2012-07-22 06:20:12 AM  

USP .45: If you're not allowed to move yourself, or labor or property out of your own country, then you live under totalitarianism. It couldn't be more clear what political affiliation is against this.



So you want to live under a government, but not actually pay for it? Are you from Greece?
 
2012-07-22 06:21:49 AM  

jso2897: All deadbeats have excuses - but at least the poor ones don't concoct lofty, moral-sounding apologias for not paying their bills.


so a laborer that wants to emigrate to find better work in another country is a deadbeat that doesn't want to spend their talents in the home country holding them back.

I thought "no human is illegal" which is it lib?
 
2012-07-22 06:24:51 AM  

USP .45: If you're not allowed to move yourself, or labor or property out of your own country, then you live under totalitarianism. It couldn't be more clear what political affiliation is against this.


Translation: "I'm an entitled brat who deserves all the privileges of living in a first world country but if you ask me to pitch in my fair share to sustain it I deserve the right to say go fark yourself take everything and hoard it while giving nothing back."
 
2012-07-22 06:25:57 AM  

Foxxinnia: So what I'm hearing is that every rich person is just like Scrooge McDuck.


Not all of them. Bill Gates donates in a year more than your entire family's been worth for generation. He's only leaving his kids .1% each at most, prolly much less.
 
2012-07-22 06:25:59 AM  

intelligent comment below: So you want to live under a government, but not actually pay for it? Are you from Greece?


no, I'm one of the growing segment that effectively pays nothing in taxes. Guess whose political platform that belongs to.

/I'm not but for the purpose of this discussion I am.
 
2012-07-22 06:27:48 AM  

batcookie: USP .45: If you're not allowed to move yourself, or labor or property out of your own country, then you live under totalitarianism. It couldn't be more clear what political affiliation is against this.

Translation: "I'm an entitled brat who deserves all the privileges of living in a first world country but if you ask me to pitch in my fair share to sustain it I deserve the right to say go fark yourself take everything and hoard it while giving nothing back."


I'll pay what everyone else has to pay. Equal protection under the law, right libs? Right?
 
2012-07-22 06:36:45 AM  

randomjsa: That's not going to work. Running around going 'If we just taxed more money we could do this!' is kicking the can down the road. You're setting up a system that cannot maintain itself and taxes aren't going to change that.


I was responding to your specific suggestion of a country being "bailed out" by the superrich, which is not a tax increase, but a one time gift. Read what you first wrote, and then read what I wrote.

Despite that specificity, even at current expenditures/income, tax to spending ratios are MORE than balanced, in isolation of the interest paid on the national debts, for just about every single country with these deep financial problems. The problem, the reason why they are in actuality, NOT balanced, is because so much of every tax dollar gets frittered away on interest payment on that debt. The point that you're arguing - is that they had spending problems to start with - is something that happened decades ago and is NOT happening now. It's a cascade effect, and it's really simple to understand.

Ask any homeowner with a mortgage and a set of large credit card bills. The problem is that a country, unlike a homeowner, can't dump their asset(the house) back on the market and move to a smaller, more reasonable one.
 
2012-07-22 06:37:04 AM  

USP .45: batcookie: USP .45: If you're not allowed to move yourself, or labor or property out of your own country, then you live under totalitarianism. It couldn't be more clear what political affiliation is against this.

Translation: "I'm an entitled brat who deserves all the privileges of living in a first world country but if you ask me to pitch in my fair share to sustain it I deserve the right to say go fark yourself take everything and hoard it while giving nothing back."

I'll pay what everyone else has to pay. Equal protection under the law, right libs? Right?


You sound really tired.
 
2012-07-22 06:37:11 AM  

USP .45: batcookie: USP .45: If you're not allowed to move yourself, or labor or property out of your own country, then you live under totalitarianism. It couldn't be more clear what political affiliation is against this.

Translation: "I'm an entitled brat who deserves all the privileges of living in a first world country but if you ask me to pitch in my fair share to sustain it I deserve the right to say go fark yourself take everything and hoard it while giving nothing back."

I'll pay what everyone else has to pay. Equal protection under the law, right libs? Right?


First of all, don't call me "liberal" or "conservative" or any other stupid title you have to distinguish yourself. I understand that ALL humans are stupid, equally. Second of all, yeah, if you're talking percentage of income, that's kinda the point... that's what people are after here. Everyone paying their fair share. But I just realized why this discussion is so silly, it's greenlit for the politics tab. I'm going to go somewhere less derpy now. :-)
 
2012-07-22 06:39:45 AM  

Bloody William: USP .45: batcookie: USP .45: If you're not allowed to move yourself, or labor or property out of your own country, then you live under totalitarianism. It couldn't be more clear what political affiliation is against this.

Translation: "I'm an entitled brat who deserves all the privileges of living in a first world country but if you ask me to pitch in my fair share to sustain it I deserve the right to say go fark yourself take everything and hoard it while giving nothing back."

I'll pay what everyone else has to pay. Equal protection under the law, right libs? Right?

You sound really tired.


We should tax midgets at a higher rate. They consume less food, wear smaller clothes, not need large cars our houses; their dollar effectively goes farther than mine. It would be regressive to not levy more taxes against them.

Tax the midgets.
 
2012-07-22 06:40:27 AM  

USP .45: no, I'm one of the growing segment that effectively pays nothing in taxes. Guess whose political platform that belongs to.

/I'm not but for the purpose of this discussion I am.



You're a Fortune 500 corporation? Obviously a Republican then.
 
2012-07-22 06:42:00 AM  

USP .45: I'll pay what everyone else has to pay. Equal protection under the law, right libs? Right?



So you're just here to distract from the problems raised in the article and troll useless soundbites.
 
2012-07-22 06:43:47 AM  

USP .45: jso2897: All deadbeats have excuses - but at least the poor ones don't concoct lofty, moral-sounding apologias for not paying their bills.

so a laborer that wants to emigrate to find better work in another country is a deadbeat that doesn't want to spend their talents in the home country holding them back.

I thought "no human is illegal" which is it lib?


A laborer who wishes to immigrate actually MOVES to the nation where he intends to make his fortune. If these rich folks just picked up stakes and moved to the places they are hiding their money, I would have nothing to say about it - but that is not what's happening here. The people we are talking about wish to stay, and enjoy the privileges of staying - just not to pay for it. Deadbeats.
 
2012-07-22 06:46:13 AM  

USP .45: We should tax midgets at a higher rate. They consume less food, wear smaller clothes, not need large cars our houses; their dollar effectively goes farther than mine. It would be regressive to not levy more taxes against them.

Tax the midgets.


Okay, I was joking before, but you really do sound tired. Like, even the shiat you're making up is weak. It's Sunday morning, the only reason I'm up is because I forgot to turn off my alarm, there's no reason you should be white knighting the richest of the rich, especially in such a haphazard manner.

intelligent comment below: So you're just here to distract from the problems raised in the article and troll useless soundbites.


It's really interesting. If it's true, about a third of the world's GDP is basically sitting in a tupperware, being sat on by people who don't care to do anything with it besides shuffle it around nameless accounts. I mean, moreso than we previously thought based on our current way of banking and investing.
 
2012-07-22 06:46:19 AM  

intelligent comment below: USP .45: I'll pay what everyone else has to pay. Equal protection under the law, right libs? Right?


So you're just here to distract from the problems raised in the article and troll useless soundbites.


He seems to be a little out of practice. He is one of the old righty trolls that have popped up here recently after having been pretty much dormant for the last few years.

It's an odd phenomenon.
 
2012-07-22 06:48:15 AM  
If the same amount of time and effort were put into stemming the waste, fraud and abuse of the tax money now being collected, there would be plenty of cash to go around.
That requires hard work and people being held accountable though,
sooo lets just raise more taxes because that's easy and no one gets hurt but the rich.
You just have to admire the simplicity of the liberal mind.
 
2012-07-22 06:49:59 AM  

randomjsa: The problem is that too much money is being spent on unsustainable things.


What exactly are these unsustainable things that should be defunded?
 
2012-07-22 06:50:17 AM  

jso2897: The people we are talking about wish to stay, and enjoy the privileges of staying - just not to pay for it. Deadbeats.


which is nonsense because they still do pay more than most, especially those that pay nothing.

If I double my income overnight, and it's now twice that of my neighbor, how am I using the privileges of the United States to a higher degree?
 
2012-07-22 06:51:22 AM  

Tor_Eckman: intelligent comment below: USP .45: I'll pay what everyone else has to pay. Equal protection under the law, right libs? Right?


So you're just here to distract from the problems raised in the article and troll useless soundbites.

He seems to be a little out of practice. He is one of the old righty trolls that have popped up here recently after having been pretty much dormant for the last few years.

It's an odd phenomenon.



It's only a handful of people. They just keep switching between their alts every few days or weeks to make it seem like there's more like minded fools out there
 
2012-07-22 06:52:53 AM  

Curse of the Goth Kids: That man was a product of Saudi-style feudalism. Before his family cut him off, he had access to the kind of wealth that allowed him to buy off entire (third world, shiathole) countries. He did not give two farks about your first or second or third amendment rights. Nobody voted for this guy. He wasn't obligated to build infrastructure or educate anybody, he did precisely what he wanted: he murdered a ton of people. And for the first time, if not in history than in a long, long time indeed, the US found itself in the bizarre position of going to war not against some other country but against one super-wealthy Ur-Libertarian ...


I need to think about that for a bit, and consider if there are good arguments against viewing it that sort of way (particularly along the lines of: after he was cut off, he built the terrorist organization largely not through personal wealth but instead through religious zealotry, so maybe that's what led to our strange war against him). But that was an interesting post putting forward a viewpoint I haven't really considered before, so I wanted to thank you and let you know you're favorited for it.
 
2012-07-22 06:55:50 AM  
CS Lewis explained why the rich are so corrupt in his essay "The Inner Ring". It's one of the most important things you will ever read. It explains the american decline throughly and why it can't be stopped. It's safe to say that america is built on the principle of corruption expressed the Lewis essay. The inner ring phenomena doesn't just manifest itself among the rich however. They are just the group with the most negative impact ( see the book "Collapse" by Jared Diamond ). The country is fatally flawed at it's most basic level
 
2012-07-22 06:56:11 AM  
Great article, subby. It's nice to get stuff like this once in a while in the politics tab rather than Townhall of Breitbart derp.
 
Displayed 50 of 306 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report