Do you have adblock enabled?
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
 
2012-07-22 12:00:26 AM  
This is my surprised face.
2.bp.blogspot.com

Like I always said, it's a load of bull that we don't have the resources to go around. We just don't like to share because human beings are childish little shiats.
 
2012-07-22 12:02:10 AM  
And??? People are money grubbing scumbags. Next...
 
2012-07-22 12:04:05 AM  
Well, I'm sure they worked harder than the rest of us so they deserve that money, right?
 
2012-07-22 12:04:51 AM  
...and people would like to discuss the jobs created by this?

Go ahead. Explain why we need MOAR tax breaks for these folks, please. You have the floor...
 
2012-07-22 12:06:02 AM  
It'll trickle down. Like any day now.
 
2012-07-22 12:07:49 AM  
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.
 
2012-07-22 12:08:20 AM  
Whoa whoa whoa, I thought the Chinese were putting the African continent back on its feet.
 
2012-07-22 12:09:49 AM  
It's too bad that greed doesn't cause ass cancer.
 
2012-07-22 12:12:49 AM  

hubiestubert: ...and people would like to discuss the jobs created by this?

Go ahead. Explain why we need MOAR tax breaks for these folks, please. You have the floor...


These are the super rich. My brother is a small business owner, and like most small business owners he pays all of his taxes, and one of his largest expenses outside of payroll and healthcare is matching payroll taxes for his employees. You have to get into the super rich territory to get the exemptions. I'm all for lowering the tax burden for people who actually pay taxes. I could give less of a shiat about people who don't pay any taxes at all.

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. If there's a way to keep them from doing that - hey I'm with you all the way. They aren't "job creators" they are "wealth hiders."
 
2012-07-22 12:14:24 AM  

shanrick: It's too bad that greed doesn't cause ass cancer.


If they have a taste for scotch or bourbon it does.
 
2012-07-22 12:15:32 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.


That's...actually not a bad idea, except they can continue to use the money overseas. They would probably consider a rate of zero the line that would get them to bring the money back, and that's bullshiat.
 
2012-07-22 12:15:43 AM  
Bring back proscription and the officium dictatoris. Six months is all we need.

This is unbelievable.
 
2012-07-22 12:17:16 AM  

Lsherm: 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.

That's...actually not a bad idea, except they can continue to use the money overseas. They would probably consider a rate of zero the line that would get them to bring the money back, and that's bullshiat.


Apple wants to bring the money back. Its just sitting there collecting dust. If they are investing in overseas projects, that is different, because the money is being spent to fuel the global economy. Apple sitting on this shiat hurts
 
2012-07-22 12:19:33 AM  
Money is a finite resource. These cretins have drained the economy into their own private holding tanks.

We're under drought conditions, while they're swimming in it.
 
2012-07-22 12:19:52 AM  
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.
 
2012-07-22 12:22:29 AM  
They're hoarders. Hoarding humanity's resources.
 
2012-07-22 12:25:48 AM  

omnibus_necanda_sunt: Bring back proscription and the officium dictatoris. Six months is all we need.

This is unbelievable.


Well I for one can't think of any time where this idea backfired.
 
2012-07-22 12:30:07 AM  
No Econ 101 >C students here.
 
2012-07-22 12:59:45 AM  

bojon: No Econ 101 >C students here.


I can only assume you are talking about yourself. It looks like you may not have done too well in English either.
 
2012-07-22 01:09:20 AM  
I'm sure someone will be along any minute now to tell how this is actually a good thing. And tax cuts.


/jump, you f*ckers
 
2012-07-22 01:16:18 AM  
So the Invisible Hand is squarely in the Invisible Pocket.
 
2012-07-22 01:53:23 AM  
And remember - suggesting we change the rules to prevent this sort of thing automatically makes you a socialist.
 
2012-07-22 02:50:36 AM  

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




1.bp.blogspot.com
 
2012-07-22 02:53:09 AM  
while of course they should be paying taxes on it like the rest of the 49-99 percentiles, isn't the implication of the headline, that it could ALL be "redistributed" a little bit unnerving?
 
2012-07-22 02:54:02 AM  

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.
 
2012-07-22 02:55:35 AM  
Pretty soon it's going to be nothing but the super-rich and the poverty stricken with nothing in between. Wonder what will happen then?
 
2012-07-22 02:55:48 AM  

proteus_b: while of course they should be paying taxes on it like the rest of the 49-99 percentiles, isn't the implication of the headline, that it could ALL be "redistributed" a little bit unnerving?


Class Warfare™
 
2012-07-22 02:59:03 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.


Fine, but if the rich's reasoning for hoarding money like this was a fear that it could be used irresponsibly, than they could put the money into charities they trust to try and help the world (NOT religious tithes/SuperPACs). Then again, having their money do nothing does seem like a valid purpose for it, and has totally valid logic supporting it.
 
2012-07-22 03:00:54 AM  
And republicans cheered.
 
2012-07-22 03:01:23 AM  

fusillade762: Pretty soon it's going to be nothing but the super-rich and the poverty stricken with nothing in between. Wonder what will happen then?


The black plague?
 
2012-07-22 03:04:33 AM  

404 page not found: proteus_b: while of course they should be paying taxes on it like the rest of the 49-99 percentiles, isn't the implication of the headline, that it could ALL be "redistributed" a little bit unnerving?

Class Warfare™


Right. According to this article, that's over already. We lost.
 
2012-07-22 03:05:41 AM  
That much money, we could teach Africa how to dance.
 
2012-07-22 03:14:13 AM  

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


I'd like to teach the world to sing.
 
2012-07-22 03:14:23 AM  
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.
 
2012-07-22 03:18:09 AM  
Don't trickle down my back and tell me you're making it rain.
 
2012-07-22 03:20:56 AM  

proteus_b: while of course they should be paying taxes on it like the rest of the 49-99 percentiles, isn't the implication of the headline, that it could ALL be "redistributed" a little bit unnerving?


I didn't read all of TFA so I can't say so definitively, 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 appears to be indicated here.
 
2012-07-22 03:23:53 AM  
And people wonder why Mitt is hiding his tax returns. I'm convinced part of it is because he doesn't pay that much in taxes due to his offshore tax dodging. Some Republicans may be OK with that but the average supporter who finds out they're paying a higher tax percentage during a recession than a guy worth more than $100M may decide to just sit this election out.
 
2012-07-22 03:25:02 AM  
Chariset
So the Invisible Hand is squarely in the Invisible Pocket.

The Invisible Hand is busy distributing Invisible UFIAs.
 
2012-07-22 03:25:29 AM  

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.
 
2012-07-22 03:33:58 AM  

Tor_Eckman: 404 page not found: proteus_b: while of course they should be paying taxes on it like the rest of the 49-99 percentiles, isn't the implication of the headline, that it could ALL be "redistributed" a little bit unnerving?

Class Warfare™

Right. According to this article, that's over already. We lost.


ABORTION! HOMOSEX! MEXICANS! WAR ON CHRISTMAS! GROUND ZERO MOSQUE! SOCIALISM! DRILL BABBY DRILL! TAXED ENOUGH ALREADY! OBAMACARE! goddamn i sound tired.
 
2012-07-22 03:35:13 AM  

proteus_b: , isn't the implication of the headline, that it could ALL be "redistributed" a little bit unnerving?


Nope.

Institute a 100% worldwide tax on all personal assets over, say, $50 million via some kind of international treaty (still far less confiscatory than one of the French presidential candidates was arguing for in their last election), sieze the assets of everyone who refuses to pay, and use a small percentage of it to put some kind of well-regulated system in place to distribute it to the world's poorest places while making sure the shiathead dictators ruling those countries don't get their hands on any of it.

BONUS: Turn on Fox News the day after and watch Michele Bachmann et. al. go apoplectic about global socialism and UN conspiracies.
 
2012-07-22 03:37:20 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.


A tax holiday was granted for repatriation of foreign held profits during the Bush years with the promise that once the money was brought back into the US it could be used to create jobs. It turned out to be BS as the companies that participated instead used the funds to repurchase stock, pay dividends, and pay corporate bonuses and then continue to invest overseas.

The argument that they've already paid taxes on goods sold is completely bogus. They want a federal tax holiday because of state sales taxes, when said state taxes are paid by the consumers directly.

Your suggestion incents companies to repatriate profits with the threat of future taxes. I think a better solution would be to increase the corporate tax rate by x% for every dollar held offshore over a certain threshold. After a certain point, it simply becomes prohibitive to keep money overseas thus providing a strong disincentive to offshoring profits.
 
2012-07-22 03:37:50 AM  
Some Friday in August we're gonna see a quiet release of tax returns. Or perhaps over Labor Day Weekend. Try and stay sober to see the fireworks, America
 
2012-07-22 03:39:28 AM  

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

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 and the private terrorist enterprise he was able to put together.

When individuals have both the means and the will to carry out something of that order, there is a goddamn problem.
 
2012-07-22 03:39:38 AM  
Who's money is it, Obama's?
 
2012-07-22 03:40:42 AM  
Who is money is it, Obama's?
 
2012-07-22 03:48:24 AM  

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
 
2012-07-22 03:48:59 AM  
Who is Obama? Is it money?
 
2012-07-22 03:51:54 AM  

Noam Chimpsky: Who's money is it, Obama's?


img41.imageshack.us

It's Uncle Frank's money, and Uncle Frank says get your ass to bed.
 
2012-07-22 03:54:57 AM  

cman: Their argument is that they were already taxed once by the country where they sold their goods, so they shouldnt have to pay more.


But they weren't taxed. Take the EU, for example, where the trick is called the Double Irish. Apple sets up two companies, Sales and Rights. Sales sells things, Rights licenses Sales to sell them. Both are Irish (or Dutch) companies, and Rights is only an Irish corporation on paper. It's really in Bermuda or the Caymans.

Sales pays 99% of profit to Rights, writing off the licensing costs on their taxes because they're paid to another company. Rights doesn't pay taxes on licensing income in Ireland, because the checks are deposited in Bermuda.

Bang! No taxes on any profit from any Apple device sold in Europe.

Google paid 2% tax (total) in 2010 using that trick, and nearly every multinational does exactly the same thing.
 
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.
 
2012-07-22 07:01:09 AM  

USP .45: 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?


I think my gas bill is "too high" - does that relieve me of the obligation of paying it? To me, the only thing that would justify not paying for it would be choosing to live without it. But then, I'm an ethically consistent person who doesn't think the universe revolves around him, personally.
The argument over whether the wealthy are undertaxed, overtaxed, or whatever is an academic one of little interest to me, and i don't argue those points with membres of the "taxation is theft" crowd because I find it boring. If rich people think America taxes them too much, they should leave, or stay and fight for lower tax rates in the political arena - it isn't as if they lack the clout. Cheating on ones taxes and hiding ones money is the unethical, sociopathic response to that situation. That of a deadbeat.
 
2012-07-22 07:02:14 AM  

intelligent comment below: 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


Sock puppet software is what you want to read up on. It's use indicates that you can never get an idea of what the opinion of the masses is by looking at Internet forums. Even before the development of sock puppet software forums didn't express public opinion but the software has really exaggerated the problem.
 
2012-07-22 07:04:25 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 and the private terrorist enterprise he was able to put together.


I don't think that word means what you think it means.
 
2012-07-22 07:09:39 AM  

jso2897: I think my gas bill is "too high" - does that relieve me of the obligation of paying it? To me, the only thing that would justify not paying for it would be choosing to live without it. But then, I'm an ethically consistent person who doesn't think the universe revolves around him, personally.


Since the set gas tax is a flat per gallon usage fee, often to pay for the roads on which you use the gas, you would only be justified in not paying for it by not using it.

Basically, you're in favor of a policy in where the gas tax you pay at the pump is based on your income, or how much a loaf of bread costs you is based on your income.

You should also be in favor of taxing midgets for the same reason.

Rock. Farking. Solid. Logic.

/I have the feeling you're equating not paying confiscatory taxes as stealing, which is just laughable, so I changed your example into automotive gas to demonstrate the same point.
 
2012-07-22 07:14:40 AM  

USP .45: 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?


They also have more than most especially those that have (next to) nothing.

Do not continue to labor under the delusion that taxes are some kind of usage fee and that it's only "fair" if you get out exactly what you put in. Your hypothetically doubled income puts you in a better position to help pay for the cost of civilization which we all enjoy and a dollar from you wallet hurts you less than a dollar from your neighbors wallet.
 
2012-07-22 07:17:27 AM  

USP .45: 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?


Very simple, actually. You have more to lose, and therefore are enjoying more benefit from the military, police forces, and fire department. And that's just the protection services.

Let's assume that you doubled your income by opening a business. You therefore get more use out of the courts for contracts, negotiation, and enforcement of such for your business. You get more utility out of the highway system to move your goods, or from the FAA if you ship your goods by air. You also benefit more from the educational system by having employees that are educated enough to do the tasks you require completed, to continue earning your additional profit.

There are further examples, but I've got other things to get accomplished.
 
2012-07-22 07:19:42 AM  

USP .45: jso2897: I think my gas bill is "too high" - does that relieve me of the obligation of paying it? To me, the only thing that would justify not paying for it would be choosing to live without it. But then, I'm an ethically consistent person who doesn't think the universe revolves around him, personally.

Since the set gas tax is a flat per gallon usage fee, often to pay for the roads on which you use the gas, you would only be justified in not paying for it by not using it.

Basically, you're in favor of a policy in where the gas tax you pay at the pump is based on your income, or how much a loaf of bread costs you is based on your income.

You should also be in favor of taxing midgets for the same reason.

Rock. Farking. Solid. Logic.

/I have the feeling you're equating not paying confiscatory taxes as stealing, which is just laughable, so I changed your example into automotive gas to demonstrate the same point.


I only had one thing to say - i said it - and you've offered nothing to refute it. Changing the subject won't work with me. I don't play that.
I'm also bored - have a nice day.
 
2012-07-22 07:22:06 AM  

Baryogenesis: USP .45: 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?

They also have more than most especially those that have (next to) nothing.

Do not continue to labor under the delusion that taxes are some kind of usage fee and that it's only "fair" if you get out exactly what you put in. Your hypothetically doubled income puts you in a better position to help pay for the cost of civilization which we all enjoy and a dollar from you wallet hurts you less than a dollar from your neighbors wallet.


Of course it does, just don't call it a fair share. Please just say you're in favor of midget taxation, and price discrimination. To be consistent logically, you'd have to be.
 
2012-07-22 07:26:48 AM  

Vertdang: Very simple, actually. You have more to lose, and therefore are enjoying more benefit from the military, police forces, and fire department. And that's just the protection services.

Let's assume that you doubled your income by opening a business. You therefore get more use out of the courts for contracts, negotiation, and enforcement of such for your business. You get more utility out of the highway system to move your goods, or from the FAA if you ship your goods by air. You also benefit more from the educational system by having employees that are educated enough to do the tasks you require completed, to continue earning your additional profit.

There are further examples, but I've got other things to get accomplished.


yep, if I doubled my income, with the same tax rate, I doubled my input into the system, which covers it, not to mention associated usage fees with those added services.

you did give a good reason for why midgets shouldn't be taxed more: they're smaller, have smaller things, and therefore have less to lose so don't benefit from the military as much as I do. Great reasoning.
 
2012-07-22 07:33:28 AM  

jso2897: I only had one thing to say - i said it - and you've offered nothing to refute it.


It was a completely useless example and I took a dump on it. It's you that have failed to refute me.

Your example was not paying for a good or service because you don't like the price. Stealing. No one is making this argument. No one.

A good example would be not wanting to pay for extra gas taxes because of your income level, meaning paying more for the exact same product simply based on income, which is price discrimination. I'm almost certain that once currency is completely digitized the left with move forward with this type of policy. Hopefully they will be consistent and tax midgets too.
 
2012-07-22 07:35:19 AM  
So this thread is basically just a weirdo ranting about taxing midgets?
 
2012-07-22 07:36:21 AM  

Halli: So this thread is basically just a weirdo ranting about taxing midgets?


yeah you'd think someone could give me a really compelling reason not to by this point.
 
2012-07-22 07:39:07 AM  

USP .45: Your example was not paying for a good or service because you don't like the price. Stealing. No one is making this argument. No one.


I believe that's pretty much the precise reasoning why all this estimated money is held offshore. So, people are making this argument, they're just doing it IRL instead on Fark.
 
2012-07-22 07:41:50 AM  

USP .45: Baryogenesis: USP .45: 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?

They also have more than most especially those that have (next to) nothing.

Do not continue to labor under the delusion that taxes are some kind of usage fee and that it's only "fair" if you get out exactly what you put in. Your hypothetically doubled income puts you in a better position to help pay for the cost of civilization which we all enjoy and a dollar from you wallet hurts you less than a dollar from your neighbors wallet.

Of course it does, just don't call it a fair share. Please just say you're in favor of midget taxation, and price discrimination. To be consistent logically, you'd have to be.


Taxes based on income are different than taxes based on genetics. You can't compare discrimination based on income and discrimination toward little people. And that's assuming your absurd hypothetical about their cost of living being cheaper is true. I doubt that it is.

Consumption taxes are different than income taxes. I just thought I'd point those things out for you.
 
2012-07-22 07:45:17 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. If there's a way to keep them from doing that - hey I'm with you all the way. They aren't "job creators" they are "wealth hiders."


Thay are "wealth collectors" and "resource hoarders".
 
2012-07-22 07:46:08 AM  

USP .45: jso2897: I only had one thing to say - i said it - and you've offered nothing to refute it.

It was a completely useless example and I took a dump on it. It's you that have failed to refute me.

Your example was not paying for a good or service because you don't like the price. Stealing. No one is making this argument. No one.

A good example would be not wanting to pay for extra gas taxes because of your income level, meaning paying more for the exact same product simply based on income, which is price discrimination. I'm almost certain that once currency is completely digitized the left with move forward with this type of policy. Hopefully they will be consistent and tax midgets too.


Perhaps - but none of that is apropos to what I am discussing. The issue of whether rich people's taxes are "too high" is not one I am discussing. If they think they are "too high" there are ethical things they can do about that - just as there are ethical things I can do if i think my gas bill is too high.I am discussing the ethics of not paying ones bills because one does not wish to for one reason or other. It is the only subject i was discussing - i am not discussing any other.
It seems like you have trouble with that concept - whenever any subject comes up that you have contentious feelings about, you launch into these long rants where you address all sorts of peripheral and unrelated issues that you emotionally associate with the subject - i am beginning to wonder if you are actually mentally focussed enough to discuss any actual issue in and of itself.
 
2012-07-22 07:48:20 AM  

USP .45: Halli: So this thread is basically just a weirdo ranting about taxing midgets?

yeah you'd think someone could give me a really compelling reason not to by this point.


No your logic is airtight. You should tell Grover about it.
 
2012-07-22 07:50:44 AM  
I'd just like to point out that this 32 trillion is GLOBAL not just US rich folk and corps.
That said they are leaches on society. Due to the relaxed way in which investments are
taxed there is NO incentive for them to start business's (IE create jobs). They just sit on those vast sums
and let them earn interest from banks or governments (through bonds or treasury notes).
Those then dole it out in small amounts, through loans to the plebes, at a higher interest rate.
This slowly over time concentrates more of the publics gross value into their hands. And mostly
they don't have to do anything except sign a few pieces of paper every year or pick up a phone
and tell the bank to shuffle the stuff around.
 
2012-07-22 07:51:09 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.


OH PLEASE! Such a worthless statement. Our government spends the majority of it's money on 3 THINGS. Medicare / Medicaid, Social Security and the Military. Everything is barely a drop in the bucket. Are all three of those things irresponsible expenditures by your calculation? Get your head out of your ass. By all means, we should spend money wisely, but it is neigh impossible to do when your revenue streams are being systematically picked away by the rich and powerful.
 
2012-07-22 07:51:17 AM  

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


Haha, of course not. Scrooge McDuck was honest, hard working, and hated cheats.

Plus he didn't hide his money. It was all right there in three cubic acres of gold coins in his Money Bin.
 
2012-07-22 07:55:43 AM  

proteus_b: while of course they should be paying taxes on it like the rest of the 49-99 percentiles, isn't the implication of the headline, that it could ALL be "redistributed" a little bit unnerving?


Not even a little bit.

All that money will sit in a account until they die, then be handed off to worthless spoonfed heirs. There should be a hard cap on inheritance.
 
2012-07-22 07:57:33 AM  

cman: Lsherm: 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.

That's...actually not a bad idea, except they can continue to use the money overseas. They would probably consider a rate of zero the line that would get them to bring the money back, and that's bullshiat.

Apple wants to bring the money back. Its just sitting there collecting dust. If they are investing in overseas projects, that is different, because the money is being spent to fuel the global economy. Apple sitting on this shiat hurts


I doubt it's collecting dust. Interest, perhaps, but not dust.
 
2012-07-22 07:57:46 AM  
Oh, be quiet and have some
upload.wikimedia.org
 
2012-07-22 08:19:23 AM  
Just a thought...

The US announces a crackdown and offers amnesty to anyone who brings their money home by x date.
Then the US asks the tax haven countries nicely for the names of Americans hiding their money there.
The alternative if they say no is to get aggressive. Govt destabilization, black ops, computer hacking. Arresting bankers from those countries if they go to the US for any reason. Payoffs to get the names. Whatever it takes to get the info.
Then the US is able to go after the dodgers legally.

/all this for 1 trillion less than it cost to invade Iraq.
 
2012-07-22 08:26:10 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.


Yeah, that's why they do it. Because of volcano monitoring. They're just so goddamned principled. *eyeroll*
 
2012-07-22 08:27:46 AM  
Let's just throw the rich in jail until they give us everything they own. I know that sounds drastic, so we'll start slow with Warren Buffet and Jeffrey Immelt and see how it goes.
 
2012-07-22 08:29:29 AM  
Wealth is not income, they are two different things.

For one, we don't tax wealth, we tax income. If all that money was held by us citizens (which it wouldn't be, as many of the worlds super rich are foreign oligarchs) and was sitting in the US today the government wouldn't touch a dime of it. What we would tax is the capital gains from those assets. To do otherwise is to punish saving and investment, which would cause the financial system to collapse as it would also prevent banks from lending.

As the article pointed out:

Assuming that super-rich investors earn a relatively modest 3% a year on their $21tn, taxing that vast wall of money at 30% would generate a very useful $189bn a year - more than rich economies spend on aid to the rest of the world.

So we aren't talking about enough in additional income taxes to close the US deficit here. Assuming a third of these assets belong to US citizens, which is in line with the percent of global assets that we have, we are looking an extra $30 billion a year in taxes. Why $30b instead of $60b (a third of the stated $189b)? Because we tax capital gains at 15% not 30%. So we are looking at 2% of the US deficit (not budget, deficit).

Would it be nice to close that 2%? Sure. Are there far easier ways to find $30 billion? You betcha. For example, reforming the way Medicaid is funded would free up far more than that a year, easy, plus it would have significant benefits to the health of our citizens. And military spending is due for a nice haircut.

So this article is really more applicable for other countries than the US. For example, small African countries whose corrupt leadership is siphoning off large chunks of their tax revenue and hiding it abroad. Those assets shouldn't be taxed though, they should be seized and used for their intended purpose.
 
2012-07-22 08:33:09 AM  
4.bp.blogspot.com
 
2012-07-22 08:34:28 AM  
This just in - people don't like to pay taxes and will avoid it if possible.
Progressives have killed hundreds of millions of people in the last 200 years trying to change human nature because they just can't accept the fact that some people could possibly have an unfair advantage somehow. From the violent masturbatory fantasies I read on just about every Fark politics thread, there is a large portion of the population so filled with hate and envy that they can't wait for the next revolution to begin so they can slit some throats, hopefully of 'the rich', but it really doesn't matter.
Really, why does this surprise anyone? When the president comes out and demonizes you because you're rich, when he tells you flat out he's coming after your money because the government deserves it more than you do, and knows how to spend it more wisely, when he has shown from his record that his intent is to take your wealth and redistribute it to his union cronies and campaign contributors, and when he pours massive amounts of wealth down a black hole without any idea of what he is doing, of course people will try to hide their money from him
.
 
2012-07-22 08:36:59 AM  

mark rathburn: This just in - people don't like to pay taxes and will avoid it if possible.
Progressives have killed hundreds of millions of people in the last 200 years trying to change human nature because they just can't accept the fact that some people could possibly have an unfair advantage somehow. From the violent masturbatory fantasies I read on just about every Fark politics thread, there is a large portion of the population so filled with hate and envy that they can't wait for the next revolution to begin so they can slit some throats, hopefully of 'the rich', but it really doesn't matter.
Really, why does this surprise anyone? When the president comes out and demonizes you because you're rich, when he tells you flat out he's coming after your money because the government deserves it more than you do, and knows how to spend it more wisely, when he has shown from his record that his intent is to take your wealth and redistribute it to his union cronies and campaign contributors, and when he pours massive amounts of wealth down a black hole without any idea of what he is doing, of course people will try to hide their money from him
.


Is there a StopArrestingMe-type theme here, or are you just another "new" idiot troll?
 
2012-07-22 08:43:57 AM  

Tor_Eckman: mark rathburn: This just in - people don't like to pay taxes and will avoid it if possible.
Progressives have killed hundreds of millions of people in the last 200 years trying to change human nature because they just can't accept the fact that some people could possibly have an unfair advantage somehow. From the violent masturbatory fantasies I read on just about every Fark politics thread, there is a large portion of the population so filled with hate and envy that they can't wait for the next revolution to begin so they can slit some throats, hopefully of 'the rich', but it really doesn't matter.
Really, why does this surprise anyone? When the president comes out and demonizes you because you're rich, when he tells you flat out he's coming after your money because the government deserves it more than you do, and knows how to spend it more wisely, when he has shown from his record that his intent is to take your wealth and redistribute it to his union cronies and campaign contributors, and when he pours massive amounts of wealth down a black hole without any idea of what he is doing, of course people will try to hide their money from him
.

Is there a StopArrestingMe-type theme here, or are you just another "new" idiot troll?


Is there a point you're trying to make, or shall I just assume you're an ass?
 
2012-07-22 08:47:22 AM  

mark rathburn: When the president comes out and demonizes you because you're rich, when he tells you flat out he's coming after your money because the government deserves it more than you do, and knows how to spend it more wisely, when he has shown from his record that his intent is to take your wealth and redistribute it to his union cronies and campaign contributors, and when he pours massive amounts of wealth down a black hole without any idea of what he is doing, of course people will try to hide their money from him
.


Federal Tax code is set by?
A) The President
B) Congress
 
2012-07-22 08:51:32 AM  

mark rathburn: Tor_Eckman: mark rathburn: This just in - people don't like to pay taxes and will avoid it if possible.
Progressives have killed hundreds of millions of people in the last 200 years trying to change human nature because they just can't accept the fact that some people could possibly have an unfair advantage somehow. From the violent masturbatory fantasies I read on just about every Fark politics thread, there is a large portion of the population so filled with hate and envy that they can't wait for the next revolution to begin so they can slit some throats, hopefully of 'the rich', but it really doesn't matter.
Really, why does this surprise anyone? When the president comes out and demonizes you because you're rich, when he tells you flat out he's coming after your money because the government deserves it more than you do, and knows how to spend it more wisely, when he has shown from his record that his intent is to take your wealth and redistribute it to his union cronies and campaign contributors, and when he pours massive amounts of wealth down a black hole without any idea of what he is doing, of course people will try to hide their money from him
.

Is there a StopArrestingMe-type theme here, or are you just another "new" idiot troll?

Is there a point you're trying to make, or shall I just assume you're an ass?


Your screed is so full of ridiculous right-wing, Fox News, Glen Beck, Obama Derangement Syndrome talking points that I thought it was most certainly some sort of parody.

It appears I was in error.
 
2012-07-22 08:55:36 AM  
Okay, so we can't tax all that stuff, but here's something I've never understood.

If you have $10 billion in cash just sitting in bank accounts somewhere, WHY?

I'm pretty sure I could live beyond comfortably and not have to brush elbows with society's riffraff like me with only a measly $1 billion in my bank account. Why not do something...anything...productive and good with that money?

Bill Gates has given away more money than most of us would see in 100 lifetimes. I applaud that.

But too many of these people are so concerned about proving they have a bigger bank account than someone else, it's just sickening.
 
2012-07-22 08:59:25 AM  

Tor_Eckman: mark rathburn: Tor_Eckman: mark rathburn: This just in - people don't like to pay taxes and will avoid it if possible.
Progressives have killed hundreds of millions of people in the last 200 years trying to change human nature because they just can't accept the fact that some people could possibly have an unfair advantage somehow. From the violent masturbatory fantasies I read on just about every Fark politics thread, there is a large portion of the population so filled with hate and envy that they can't wait for the next revolution to begin so they can slit some throats, hopefully of 'the rich', but it really doesn't matter.
Really, why does this surprise anyone? When the president comes out and demonizes you because you're rich, when he tells you flat out he's coming after your money because the government deserves it more than you do, and knows how to spend it more wisely, when he has shown from his record that his intent is to take your wealth and redistribute it to his union cronies and campaign contributors, and when he pours massive amounts of wealth down a black hole without any idea of what he is doing, of course people will try to hide their money from him
.

Is there a StopArrestingMe-type theme here, or are you just another "new" idiot troll?

Is there a point you're trying to make, or shall I just assume you're an ass?

Your screed is so full of ridiculous right-wing, Fox News, Glen Beck, Obama Derangement Syndrome talking points that I thought it was most certainly some sort of parody.

It appears I was in error.


What part do you disagree with - that progressives have killed millions last century? That Obama has rewarded his union cronies with tax money? That a large portion of Farkers write about their violent fantasies against the rich? Or that people don't like to pay taxes?
 
2012-07-22 09:00:00 AM  

Dog Welder: Okay, so we can't tax all that stuff, but here's something I've never understood.

If you have $10 billion in cash just sitting in bank accounts somewhere, WHY?

I'm pretty sure I could live beyond comfortably and not have to brush elbows with society's riffraff like me with only a measly $1 billion in my bank account. Why not do something...anything...productive and good with that money?

Bill Gates has given away more money than most of us would see in 100 lifetimes. I applaud that.

But too many of these people are so concerned about proving they have a bigger bank account than someone else, it's just sickening.


no, i think if they were proving anything they'd have a lot less, because of expenditures, tax dodging fines, etc.
 
2012-07-22 09:05:48 AM  
mark rathburn:

i52.tinypic.com


And you were off to such a great start.
 
2012-07-22 09:09:23 AM  
Obama should send in Seal-Team-Six to bring that money back to the US
 
2012-07-22 09:09:48 AM  
Waiting...
 
2012-07-22 09:10:10 AM  
the figures from Singapore take the wind of the argument that "lowering tax rates would reduce abuse of the tax system"

Singapore's taxes are just 20% at the top bracket for income, 17% for corporates. these rates are not effective, but before deductions.

the cash sitting offshore is $196 billion, or 80% of GDP.

it does help the argument that the super-rich are assholes though.
 
2012-07-22 09:14:11 AM  

starsrift: mark rathburn: When the president comes out and demonizes you because you're rich, when he tells you flat out he's coming after your money because the government deserves it more than you do, and knows how to spend it more wisely, when he has shown from his record that his intent is to take your wealth and redistribute it to his union cronies and campaign contributors, and when he pours massive amounts of wealth down a black hole without any idea of what he is doing, of course people will try to hide their money from him
.

Federal Tax code is set by?
A) The President
B) Congress


mark rathburn: Waiting...

 
2012-07-22 09:14:34 AM  

mark rathburn:

What part do you disagree with - that progressives have killed millions last century? That Obama has rewarded his union cronies with tax money? That a large portion of Farkers write about their violent fantasies against the rich? Or that people don't like to pay taxes?


Really? So you're saying that things done by progressives in this country have directly attributed to the deaths of millions? I'm sure you have more evidence than your fevered imagination, right? Or are you somehow equating authoritarians around the world as being your evil 'progressives'? I'm sure in your addled mind, you equate authoritarian governments (like the former Soviet Union) as being composed of your imaginary 'progressives', right?

If so, you may want to start actually reading up on governmental theory and how each form of governing is not like the other, no matter what the right wing noise machine tells you.
 
2012-07-22 09:15:06 AM  

Dog Welder: Okay, so we can't tax all that stuff, but here's something I've never understood.

If you have $10 billion in cash just sitting in bank accounts somewhere, WHY?

I'm pretty sure I could live beyond comfortably and not have to brush elbows with society's riffraff like me with only a measly $1 billion in my bank account. Why not do something...anything...productive and good with that money?

Bill Gates has given away more money than most of us would see in 100 lifetimes. I applaud that.

But too many of these people are so concerned about proving they have a bigger bank account than someone else, it's just sickening.


Wealthy people become wealthy by spending less than they earn.

Imagine you are making a nice salary, more than you need. You have one eye on retirement, so you use all the excess to buy into the BPT trust, which returns ~ 10% a year in dividends. Eventually you get to the point that you are getting more in yearly dividend checks than you are in income.

Let's say you stop working at that point (although you probably don't because you like to work). But you weren't spending all your income before, and you aren't spending your dividends now, especially since your income was taxed at 33% but your dividends are taxed at 15%. So your trust keeps growing.

Could you start giving that money away? Sure, but here's the thing, although you don't need it now you might need it later. No need to be hasty right? So it's better to keep it while you are alive and then give it away when you die. And when you die, you might choose to give your wealth to family members instead of strangers, because, well, they are family.

And knowing how irresponsible young ones can be, you set up those assets in a trust, so they can only draw income from the trust at a slower rate than the trust grows, and the cycle continues.
 
2012-07-22 09:15:15 AM  
 
2012-07-22 09:18:26 AM  
So if they brought it back all the that money (yeah right) the governments would get taxes on 32 trillion. If they are lucky that would mean 7 trillion bucks (though probably MUCH less). This would of course be only one time. The deficits and bailouts would eat that all up and leave utterly nothing for Africa. (Not that they would give any to Africa if there was a surplus.) Meanwhile the countries which which sheltered the money would go into immediate catastrophic depression that will destroy the lives of millions and whose effects would probably hurt the First World too especially if it results in wars.

Okay, the hiding of so much money to avoid taxes is wrong. And the tax codes need to change to slow down future hiding. But to think this is an easy way to bailout the U.S., E.U., with enough put Africa on its feet is nothing less than magical thinking.
 
2012-07-22 09:23:16 AM  

AurizenDarkstar: mark rathburn:

What part do you disagree with - that progressives have killed millions last century? That Obama has rewarded his union cronies with tax money? That a large portion of Farkers write about their violent fantasies against the rich? Or that people don't like to pay taxes?

Really? So you're saying that things done by progressives in this country have directly attributed to the deaths of AurizenDarkstar: mark rathburn:

What part do you disagree with - that progressives have killed millions last century? That Obama has rewarded his union cronies with tax money? That a large portion of Farkers write about their violent fantasies against the rich? Or that people don't like to pay taxes?

Really? So you're saying that things done by progressives in this country have directly attributed to the deaths of millions? I'm sure you have more evidence than your fevered imagination, right? Or are you somehow equating authoritarians around the world as being your evil 'progressives'? I'm sure in your addled mind, you equate authoritarian governments (like the former Soviet Union) as being composed of your imaginary 'progressives', right?

If so, you may want to start actually reading up on governmental theory and how each form of governing is not like the other, no matter what the right wing noise machine tells you.

millions? I'm sure you have more evidence than your fevered imagination, right? Or are you somehow equating authoritarians around the world as being your evil 'progressives'? I'm sure in your addled mind, you equate authoritarian governments (like the former Soviet Union) as being composed of your imaginary 'progressives', right?

If so, you may want to start actually reading up on governmental theory and how each form of governing is not like the other, no matter what the right wing noise machine tells you.


No, I am saying the progressive ideology was behind the worst atrocities of the last century - see China, The Soviet Union, Korea and Cambodia. And that many Farkers seem to want to bring back those halcyon days.
 
2012-07-22 09:25:01 AM  

TheMysteriousStranger: So if they brought it back all the that money (yeah right) the governments would get taxes on 32 trillion. If they are lucky that would mean 7 trillion bucks (though probably MUCH less). This would of course be only one time. The deficits and bailouts would eat that all up and leave utterly nothing for Africa. (Not that they would give any to Africa if there was a surplus.) Meanwhile the countries which which sheltered the money would go into immediate catastrophic depression that will destroy the lives of millions and whose effects would probably hurt the First World too especially if it results in wars.

Okay, the hiding of so much money to avoid taxes is wrong. And the tax codes need to change to slow down future hiding. But to think this is an easy way to bailout the U.S., E.U., with enough put Africa on its feet is nothing less than magical thinking.


as Singapore shows, having a tax code heavily biased to rich people and corporates still leads to amazing levels of tax evasion.

you know what stops offshoring of cash? strict capital controls. that's why China's figures are the lowest in the developing world.
 
2012-07-22 09:25:06 AM  

mark rathburn: Waiting...


And you will for a while, Mark. They're waiting for the fax from DNC HQ to tell them how to respond.
 
2012-07-22 09:25:08 AM  
If only there were some multi-billion dollar wealth source that physically couldn't transfer anywhere. It would be something you stand on, build on . . .
 
2012-07-22 09:25:39 AM  

AurizenDarkstar: Really? So you're saying that things done by progressives in this country have directly attributed to the deaths of millions? I'm sure you have more evidence than your fevered imagination, right? Or are you somehow equating authoritarians around the world as being your evil 'progressives'? I'm sure in your addled mind, you equate authoritarian governments (like the former Soviet Union) as being composed of your imaginary 'progressives', right?


If "progressives" are the antithesis of "regressives," I'm not sure why the concept of progress is so threatening to some people who have obviously never benefited from regression.
 
2012-07-22 09:29:21 AM  

mark rathburn:

No, I am saying the progressive ideology was behind the worst atrocities of the last century - see China, The Soviet Union ...


Yeah, see, this is where you need to actually read up on ideologies instead of believing everything Glenn Beck's 'university' tells you. Authoritarian governments (such as the 2 you posted, which are actually authoritarian governments, not true 'communist' countries) are in no way 'progressive'.

But in the end, I'm sure you're just an annoying troll who can spout right wing soundbites just as well as the rest of the troll brigade here.
 
2012-07-22 09:29:28 AM  

mark rathburn: No, I am saying the progressive ideology was behind the worst atrocities of the last century - see China, The Soviet Union, Korea and Cambodia. And that many Farkers seem to want to bring back those halcyon days.


3.bp.blogspot.com

You're even boring Zombie Pol Pot.
 
2012-07-22 09:29:30 AM  
mark rathburn is either an alt of skinnyhead, or they had the same, butterfingered obstetrician.
 
2012-07-22 09:31:07 AM  

AurizenDarkstar: But in the end, I'm sure you're just an annoying troll who can spout right wing soundbites just as well as the rest of the troll brigade here.


I think he's the real thing. Two posts in and he was already a victim.
 
2012-07-22 09:31:45 AM  

GGracie: And??? People are money grubbing scumbags. Next...


...and you're part of the problem.

/Roll over, go back to sleep. It'll all be over soon...
 
2012-07-22 09:32:29 AM  
The progressive mindset at its root is an authoritarian one. It has to be beacuse it goes against human nature (which, horror of horrors, is selfish), and so can only be implemented by force
 
2012-07-22 09:32:47 AM  
Comedian Jimmy Carr became the public face of tax-dodging in the UK earlier this year when it emerged that he had made use of a Cayman Islands-based trust to slash his income tax bill.

But the important question is, how fast will he be going around the Top Gear track this time around?

i3.ytimg.com
 
2012-07-22 09:35:02 AM  

mark rathburn: Tor_Eckman: mark rathburn: This just in - people don't like to pay taxes and will avoid it if possible.
Progressives have killed hundreds of millions of people in the last 200 years trying to change human nature because they just can't accept the fact that some people could possibly have an unfair advantage somehow. From the violent masturbatory fantasies I read on just about every Fark politics thread, there is a large portion of the population so filled with hate and envy that they can't wait for the next revolution to begin so they can slit some throats, hopefully of 'the rich', but it really doesn't matter.
Really, why does this surprise anyone? When the president comes out and demonizes you because you're rich, when he tells you flat out he's coming after your money because the government deserves it more than you do, and knows how to spend it more wisely, when he has shown from his record that his intent is to take your wealth and redistribute it to his union cronies and campaign contributors, and when he pours massive amounts of wealth down a black hole without any idea of what he is doing, of course people will try to hide their money from him
.

Is there a StopArrestingMe-type theme here, or are you just another "new" idiot troll?

Is there a point you're trying to make, or shall I just assume you're an ass?


Login: mark rathburn (Want to sponsor this Farker for TotalFark?) (What's TotalFark?)
Fark account number: 781436
Account created: 2012-05-03 13:23:11
Submitted links approved: None

Guess which one.
 
2012-07-22 09:43:50 AM  

mark rathburn: The progressive mindset at its root is an authoritarian one. It has to be beacuse it goes against human nature (which, horror of horrors, is selfish), and so can only be implemented by force


You're funny. When did they let you out of your rubber room to post to the internet?
 
2012-07-22 09:47:38 AM  

IlGreven: GGracie: And??? People are money grubbing scumbags. Next...

...and you're part of the problem.

/Roll over, go back to sleep. It'll all be over soon...


People will always be money-grubbing scumbags - that is human nature. Therefor, according to you, the entire human race is part of the problem.
 
2012-07-22 09:48:58 AM  
"You know, I think it's fine to talk about those things in quiet rooms..."

www.washingtonpost.com
 
2012-07-22 09:50:41 AM  

mark rathburn: The progressive mindset at its root is an authoritarian one. It has to be beacuse it goes against human nature (which, horror of horrors, is selfish), and so can only be implemented by force


You're changing the topic. Why don't you want to talk about taxes any more, Mark?
 
2012-07-22 09:51:45 AM  

mark rathburn: The progressive mindset at its root is an authoritarian one. It has to be beacuse it goes against human nature (which, horror of horrors, is selfish), and so can only be implemented by force


all laws of civilized society go against "human nature"

if you want true individual liberty to the nth degree go live by yourself in the mountains away from society. forage and hunt for your own sustenance and quit biatching about the benefits of society that allow you to prosper.
 
2012-07-22 09:53:49 AM  

AurizenDarkstar: mark rathburn: The progressive mindset at its root is an authoritarian one. It has to be beacuse it goes against human nature (which, horror of horrors, is selfish), and so can only be implemented by force

You're funny. When did they let you out of your rubber room to post to the internet?


Any political ideology which fundamentally contradicts human nature, which is selfish and tribal, is doomed to failure. Hundreds of millions died last century to prove that point, but let's just keep fighting those class wars, shall we?
 
2012-07-22 09:54:06 AM  

mark rathburn: Tor_Eckman: mark rathburn: Tor_Eckman: mark rathburn: This just in - people don't like to pay taxes and will avoid it if possible.
Progressives have killed hundreds of millions of people in the last 200 years trying to change human nature because they just can't accept the fact that some people could possibly have an unfair advantage somehow. From the violent masturbatory fantasies I read on just about every Fark politics thread, there is a large portion of the population so filled with hate and envy that they can't wait for the next revolution to begin so they can slit some throats, hopefully of 'the rich', but it really doesn't matter.
Really, why does this surprise anyone? When the president comes out and demonizes you because you're rich, when he tells you flat out he's coming after your money because the government deserves it more than you do, and knows how to spend it more wisely, when he has shown from his record that his intent is to take your wealth and redistribute it to his union cronies and campaign contributors, and when he pours massive amounts of wealth down a black hole without any idea of what he is doing, of course people will try to hide their money from him
.

Is there a StopArrestingMe-type theme here, or are you just another "new" idiot troll?

Is there a point you're trying to make, or shall I just assume you're an ass?

Your screed is so full of ridiculous right-wing, Fox News, Glen Beck, Obama Derangement Syndrome talking points that I thought it was most certainly some sort of parody.

It appears I was in error.

What part do you disagree with - that progressives have killed millions last century? That Obama has rewarded his union cronies with tax money? That a large portion of Farkers write about their violent fantasies against the rich? Or that people don't like to pay taxes?


I think the part that folks disagree with is that you might possibly be anything more than a talking point spout.

Folks are going to be burning through Troll accounts this Silly Season...
 
2012-07-22 09:58:12 AM  

mark rathburn: AurizenDarkstar: mark rathburn: The progressive mindset at its root is an authoritarian one. It has to be beacuse it goes against human nature (which, horror of horrors, is selfish), and so can only be implemented by force

You're funny. When did they let you out of your rubber room to post to the internet?

Any political ideology which fundamentally contradicts human nature, which is selfish and tribal, is doomed to failure. Hundreds of millions died last century to prove that point, but let's just keep fighting those class wars, shall we?


Right. And if progressivism were anything like what you are saying, I would agree with you. However progressivism =/= authoritarianism, no matter how you want to try and shoehorn it in. Unless you think that the abolition of slavery, the suffrage of women, and a lot of the things that a certain President (Teddy Roosevelt) suggested for our country as being authoritarian.
 
2012-07-22 10:01:53 AM  

Hobodeluxe: mark rathburn: The progressive mindset at its root is an authoritarian one. It has to be beacuse it goes against human nature (which, horror of horrors, is selfish), and so can only be implemented by force

all laws of civilized society go against "human nature"

if you want true individual liberty to the nth degree go live by yourself in the mountains away from society. forage and hunt for your own sustenance and quit biatching about the benefits of society that allow you to prosper.


All laws to some extent impinge on individual liberty, true. I am talking about not laws, but ideologies - any political system which contradicts human nature must fail.
 
2012-07-22 10:02:35 AM  

mark rathburn: AurizenDarkstar: mark rathburn: The progressive mindset at its root is an authoritarian one. It has to be beacuse it goes against human nature (which, horror of horrors, is selfish), and so can only be implemented by force

You're funny. When did they let you out of your rubber room to post to the internet?

Any political ideology which fundamentally contradicts human nature, which is selfish and tribal, is doomed to failure. Hundreds of millions died last century to prove that point, but let's just keep fighting those class wars, shall we?


Did you just bring that from your philosophy class homework? Society has been inventing new forms of government to bring an order to the chaos of the world around for thousands of years, seems like it keeps on going and with few exceptions we are not exactly living in a world dominated by small tribes or familial ties alone. I guess that means human nature is "progressive" and you're a regressive idiot.
 
2012-07-22 10:03:22 AM  

mark rathburn: AurizenDarkstar: mark rathburn:

What part do you disagree with - that progressives have killed millions last century? That Obama has rewarded his union cronies with tax money? That a large portion of Farkers write about their violent fantasies against the rich? Or that people don't like to pay taxes?

Really? So you're saying that things done by progressives in this country have directly attributed to the deaths of AurizenDarkstar: mark rathburn:

What part do you disagree with - that progressives have killed millions last century? That Obama has rewarded his union cronies with tax money? That a large portion of Farkers write about their violent fantasies against the rich? Or that people don't like to pay taxes?

Really? So you're saying that things done by progressives in this country have directly attributed to the deaths of millions? I'm sure you have more evidence than your fevered imagination, right? Or are you somehow equating authoritarians around the world as being your evil 'progressives'? I'm sure in your addled mind, you equate authoritarian governments (like the former Soviet Union) as being composed of your imaginary 'progressives', right?

If so, you may want to start actually reading up on governmental theory and how each form of governing is not like the other, no matter what the right wing noise machine tells you.

millions? I'm sure you have more evidence than your fevered imagination, right? Or are you somehow equating authoritarians around the world as being your evil 'progressives'? I'm sure in your addled mind, you equate authoritarian governments (like the former Soviet Union) as being composed of your imaginary 'progressives', right?

If so, you may want to start actually reading up on governmental theory and how each form of governing is not like the other, no matter what the right wing noise machine tells you.

No, I am saying the progressive ideology was behind the worst atrocities of the last century - see China, The Soviet Union ...


Semantic arguments are for children. i could label the people you listed as "reactionary extremists" as casually and accurately as you label them "progressives". What you have laid down here is an emotional, melodramatic screed consisting almost entirely of hyperbole, and there is no rational response to it. You are wasting your own, and other people's time.
 
2012-07-22 10:05:13 AM  

mark rathburn: All laws to some extent impinge on individual liberty, true. I am talking about not laws, but ideologies - any political system which contradicts human nature must fail.


Are you familiar with the straw man fallacy?

Also, "human nature" is a pretty funny thing, and more often than not throwing your hands in the air and saying something is natural is only an excuse to allow crap to happen when it can be stopped.

Also, your Boobies made you sound like a troll or a lunatic.
 
2012-07-22 10:10:34 AM  
What did we do with hoarders in World War 2? Let's do that.
 
2012-07-22 10:19:27 AM  

starsrift: mark rathburn: The progressive mindset at its root is an authoritarian one. It has to be beacuse it goes against human nature (which, horror of horrors, is selfish), and so can only be implemented by force

You're changing the topic. Why don't you want to talk about taxes any more, Mark?


People don't like to see their hard earned dollars taken from them and dumped down a black hole of fraud and cronyism. Rich people have the means to hide their money so this does not happen. They have always had this power, and always will. Democrats and Republicans alike have set up the laws so they can do this legally, and Democrats and Republicans alike take full advantage of these laws to keep as much of their money as they can. That is human nature, and all the butthurt in the world is not going to change this.


How's that?
 
2012-07-22 10:22:24 AM  

mark rathburn: People don't like to see their hard earned dollars taken from them and dumped down a black hole of fraud and cronyism.


It may surprise you to learn that many of us do not consider 'the manipulation of numbers to create bigger numbers' to be 'hard-earned dollars' or even 'earned dollars'.
 
2012-07-22 10:23:28 AM  

mark rathburn: People don't like to see their hard earned dollars taken from them and dumped down a black hole of fraud and cronyism.


And yet, the current system of banking still stands.
 
2012-07-22 10:24:42 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.


This isn't about labor or property or your body. It's about taxes. Congress has the absolutely Constitutional right to tax them. Even Roberts (R) made that clear. Is it fair that these 47%s don't pay their fair share while you and I do?
 
2012-07-22 10:26:37 AM  

hubiestubert: Folks are going to be burning through Troll accounts this Silly Season...


I like Fark. There are some exceptionally articulate folks here. All your posts are green for a reason.

But, the trolls muck things up. Therefore, I use a color code. Their posts start out favorited in a nice purple hue, then they move to shades of gray and then they get ignored. They are like the guy in the Aesop's fable. They may even believe what they post is the truth, but for all their effort, they are shouting into a hole in the ground.
 
2012-07-22 10:28:23 AM  

mark rathburn: AurizenDarkstar: mark rathburn: The progressive mindset at its root is an authoritarian one. It has to be beacuse it goes against human nature (which, horror of horrors, is selfish), and so can only be implemented by force

You're funny. When did they let you out of your rubber room to post to the internet?

Any political ideology which fundamentally contradicts human nature, which is selfish and tribal, is doomed to failure. Hundreds of millions died last century to prove that point, but let's just keep fighting those class wars, shall we?


You must hang out with some real winners. Yes, many people are assholes, but many are not. Funny thing about civilization is that it tends to reward that second group and makes them more likely to succeed in life. Do you know what happens when you apply that kind of selective pressure to a species? That's what progressives want to see, that self-reinforcing upwards spiral towards global non-dickery.
 
2012-07-22 10:28:47 AM  
You can fleece the rich until they're but a dim memory, but in the long run its not going to make any difference at all unless the make-a-wish economics and fantasy accounting practices of modern governments are abolished in favor of reality-based policies.

Taking all the rich people's money just gets these governments another fix or two, and soon they're right back to needing more; eventually there will be no one left to loot. Who's going to be their scapegoat then?
 
2012-07-22 10:31:58 AM  

mark rathburn: People will always be money-grubbing scumbags - that is human nature.



Citation needed
 
2012-07-22 10:33:31 AM  

shotglasss: mark rathburn: Waiting...

And you will for a while, Mark. They're waiting for the fax from DNC HQ to tell them how to respond.



Respond to what? A Glenn Beck chalk board diagram? Not sure if serious.
 
2012-07-22 10:35:54 AM  

Lernaeus: You can fleece the rich until they're but a dim memory, but in the long run its not going to make any difference at all unless the make-a-wish economics and fantasy accounting practices of modern governments are abolished in favor of reality-based policies.

Taking all the rich people's money just gets these governments another fix or two, and soon they're right back to needing more; eventually there will be no one left to loot. Who's going to be their scapegoat then?


You sound concerned. Ask them.
 
2012-07-22 10:37:06 AM  

Lernaeus: You can fleece the rich until they're but a dim memory, but in the long run its not going to make any difference at all unless the make-a-wish economics and fantasy accounting practices of modern governments are abolished in favor of reality-based policies.

Taking all the rich people's money just gets these governments another fix or two, and soon they're right back to needing more; eventually there will be no one left to loot. Who's going to be their scapegoat then?


This - it would be much more productive if, instead of whining how we can't squeeze any more money out of the evil rich, we tried to live within our means for a change.

/US borrows $40,000 per second
/GOP and Dems are both responsible
 
2012-07-22 10:39:25 AM  

mark rathburn: we tried to live within our means for a change.



Says a guy supporting a group of a few thousand people who control 90% of the worlds wealth
 
2012-07-22 10:42:50 AM  
Can we maybe invade the Bahamas or Cayman Islands like pirates and walk off with all the booty?
 
2012-07-22 10:45:34 AM  

WaitWhatWhy: mark rathburn: AurizenDarkstar: mark rathburn: The progressive mindset at its root is an authoritarian one. It has to be beacuse it goes against human nature (which, horror of horrors, is selfish), and so can only be implemented by force

You're funny. When did they let you out of your rubber room to post to the internet?

Any political ideology which fundamentally contradicts human nature, which is selfish and tribal, is doomed to failure. Hundreds of millions died last century to prove that point, but let's just keep fighting those class wars, shall we?

You must hang out with some real winners. Yes, many people are assholes, but many are not. Funny thing about civilization is that it tends to reward that second group and makes them more likely to succeed in life. Do you know what happens when you apply that kind of selective pressure to a species? That's what progressives want to see, that self-reinforcing upwards spiral towards global non-dickery.


Then why did the Progressives give us Jim Crow laws, eugenics laws and drug laws?
 
2012-07-22 10:46:29 AM  

Lernaeus: You can fleece the rich until they're but a dim memory,



What fleecing? The rich have never been richer

Lernaeus: but in the long run its not going to make any difference at all unless the make-a-wish economics and fantasy accounting practices of modern governments are abolished in favor of reality-based policies.



You mean the policies that allowed them to create this massive wealth in the first place? I don't think they want a change in policies

Lernaeus: Taking all the rich people's money just gets these governments another fix or two, and soon they're right back to needing more; eventually there will be no one left to loot.


Taking their money? No, they have taken everyone elses money

Lernaeus: Who's going to be their scapegoat then?


The same scapegoat you have created now, the poor and evil governments
 
2012-07-22 10:47:32 AM  

DrPainMD: Then why did the Progressives give us Jim Crow laws, eugenics laws and drug laws?



You spelled conservative wrong

Nice try though
 
2012-07-22 10:49:34 AM  

mark rathburn: starsrift: mark rathburn: The progressive mindset at its root is an authoritarian one. It has to be beacuse it goes against human nature (which, horror of horrors, is selfish), and so can only be implemented by force

You're changing the topic. Why don't you want to talk about taxes any more, Mark?

People don't like to see their hard earned dollars taken from them and dumped down a black hole of fraud and cronyism. Rich people have the means to hide their money so this does not happen. They have always had this power, and always will. Democrats and Republicans alike have set up the laws so they can do this legally, and Democrats and Republicans alike take full advantage of these laws to keep as much of their money as they can. That is human nature, and all the butthurt in the world is not going to change this.

How's that?


That's a lot better, Mark! See, you're able to learn! We've gone from WHAARRGARBL OBAMA to "both sides are bad", in about two hours. That's making pretty good time, though you've got a ways to go yet.

Your point is simplistic, however, and not very insightful or conducive to the topic of offshore tax havens. Congratulations, you stated the obvious. Did you bring anything meaningful to the discussion of offshore tax havens you'd like to share?
 
2012-07-22 10:50:02 AM  
The rich cannot hear your cries of anguish in their $1.5 million Crystal bathtub that is inside their $72 million home

thesuiteworld.com
 
2012-07-22 10:50:49 AM  

intelligent comment below: mark rathburn: we tried to live within our means for a change.


Says a guy supporting a group of a few thousand people who control 90% of the worlds wealth


I don't necessarily support the rich, but I don't hate them either. If you think you can change the system so that rich people end up paying what you feel is their 'fair share', then please, go for it. But considering that both parties in Washington are bought and paid for by these same rich folks, and each and every representative and senator is neck deep in the same trough, it's not going to happen, despite the metric tonnage of whining done on Fark.

Or, like some Farkers, (not you), you can sit in the dark and fantasize about how the rich will be the first against the wall when the revolution comes
 
2012-07-22 10:54:45 AM  

mark rathburn: AurizenDarkstar: mark rathburn: The progressive mindset at its root is an authoritarian one. It has to be beacuse it goes against human nature (which, horror of horrors, is selfish), and so can only be implemented by force

You're funny. When did they let you out of your rubber room to post to the internet?

Any political ideology which fundamentally contradicts human nature, which is selfish and tribal, is doomed to failure. Hundreds of millions died last century to prove that point, but let's just keep fighting those class wars, shall we?


Ideologies like dominionism? If so, I'd agree. Problem is, dominionism is much more pervasive in government and much more of a threat. Yet you ignore it.
 
2012-07-22 10:56:33 AM  

starsrift: mark rathburn: starsrift: mark rathburn: The progressive mindset at its root is an authoritarian one. It has to be beacuse it goes against human nature (which, horror of horrors, is selfish), and so can only be implemented by force

You're changing the topic. Why don't you want to talk about taxes any more, Mark?

People don't like to see their hard earned dollars taken from them and dumped down a black hole of fraud and cronyism. Rich people have the means to hide their money so this does not happen. They have always had this power, and always will. Democrats and Republicans alike have set up the laws so they can do this legally, and Democrats and Republicans alike take full advantage of these laws to keep as much of their money as they can. That is human nature, and all the butthurt in the world is not going to change this.

How's that?

That's a lot better, Mark! See, you're able to learn! We've gone from WHAARRGARBL OBAMA to "both sides are bad", in about two hours. That's making pretty good time, though you've got a ways to go yet.

Your point is simplistic, however, and not very insightful or conducive to the topic of offshore tax havens. Congratulations, you stated the obvious. Did you bring anything meaningful to the discussion of offshore tax havens you'd like to share?


Don't believe I mentioned Obama - but since you brought him up, why, since he was elected, have so many corporations decided that the regulatory and tax structure of the United States is too unstable, and since they can't know for sure what new rules and taxes will be coming down the pike, have decided to sit on their cash until someone more business-friendly is in the White House?

Let me answer that for you - it's because their evil, right?
 
2012-07-22 10:58:15 AM  

mark rathburn: I don't necessarily support the rich, but I don't hate them either. If you think you can change the system so that rich people end up paying what you feel is their 'fair share', then please, go for it. But considering that both parties in Washington are bought and paid for by these same rich folks, and each and every representative and senator is neck deep in the same trough, it's not going to happen, despite the metric tonnage of whining done on Fark.



So vote Romney

mark rathburn: Or, like some Farkers, (not you), you can sit in the dark and fantasize about how the rich will be the first against the wall when the revolution comes


Pointing out they should pay more in taxes means Farkers want to execute them? Nice strawman you got going there
 
2012-07-22 11:01:00 AM  

AurizenDarkstar: You're funny. When did they let you out of your rubber room to post to the internet?


The rubber room is the Internet.
 
2012-07-22 11:01:55 AM  

kyrg: 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.


You just have to admire your own circular reasoning.
 
2012-07-22 11:02:08 AM  

mark rathburn: Don't believe I mentioned Obama - but since you brought him up, why, since he was elected, have so many corporations decided that the regulatory and tax structure of the United States is too unstable, and since they can't know for sure what new rules and taxes will be coming down the pike, have decided to sit on their cash until someone more business-friendly is in the White House?



Right, because it's not like money stuck offshore has never happened before, it must be thanks to Obama and his policies.

Business friendly? The stock market is at a decade long high, taxes never lower, profits have never been higher. How much more business friendly can you get?
 
2012-07-22 11:02:54 AM  

mark rathburn: Don't believe I mentioned Obama - but since you brought him up, why, since he was elected, have so many corporations decided that the regulatory and tax structure of the United States is too unstable, and since they can't know for sure what new rules and taxes will be coming down the pike, have decided to sit on their cash until someone more business-friendly is in the White House?

Let me answer that for you - it's because their evil, right?


Boy, there's someone you oughta talk to, you from two hours ago....

mark rathburn: When the president comes out and demonizes you because you're rich, when he tells you flat out he's coming after your money because the government deserves it more than you do, and knows how to spend it more wisely, when he has shown from his record that his intent is to take your wealth and redistribute it to his union cronies and campaign contributors, and when he pours massive amounts of wealth down a black hole without any idea of what he is doing, of course people will try to hide their money from him.


Now, to address your latest point, I can only reiterate my Weeners to you in this thread:

The tax code is set by?
A) The President
B) Congress

This, of course, leads to "both sides are bad", which you so nicely recapitulated moments ago.
Now, I'd like to contrast this to MY very Boobies in this thread,

starsrift: 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.


In other words - these people have trillions, and trillions of dollars, how the hell is it going to 'trickle down'? What could they possibly spend their wealth on?

Since you're not advancing any points of interest to talk about, I challenge you to take on my point. You have a trillion dollars. Hell, maybe two. How are you going to use that, as a "job creator", to ensure that wealth re-enters circulation in the economy?
 
2012-07-22 11:03:25 AM  

intelligent comment below: DrPainMD: Then why did the Progressives give us Jim Crow laws, eugenics laws and drug laws?


You spelled conservative wrong

Nice try though


The actual, factual Progressives were a small, unsuccessful political party founded by Teddy Roosevelt.
It was only slightly relevant between 1905 and 1918, and had ceased to exist for all practical purposes by 1930. No one involved with the Progressives did any of the things he stated, of course. Nor were Stalin, Hitler, or Mao Progressives.
It's semantic bullshiat - pick a label for people you don't like (progressive, conservative, atheist, Christian, whatever) and simply attribute evil deeds to people you choose to call that.
The beauty part is that no citation of fact or logical argument can be used against you - since you have couched the argument in subjective terms you have chosen to suit your ends - you cannot be disproven or logically impeached. It's a great way to "win" an argument, when you aren't in a real debate.
 
2012-07-22 11:10:38 AM  

jso2897: It's semantic bullshiat - pick a label for people you don't like (progressive, conservative, atheist, Christian, whatever) and simply attribute evil deeds to people you choose to call that.
The beauty part is that no citation of fact or logical argument can be used against you - since you have couched the argument in subjective terms you have chosen to suit your ends - you cannot be disproven or logically impeached. It's a great way to "win" an argument, when you aren't in a real debate.




If something comes along that you don't like, there are a few sort of four-letter words that you can use to push it out of the sphere of discussion. If you were in a bar downtown, they might have different words, but if you're an educated person what you use are complicated words like "conspiracy theory" or "Marxist." It's a way of pushing unpleasant questions off the agenda so that we can continue in our own happy ideology.

--Noam Chomsky
 
2012-07-22 11:11:01 AM  

jso2897: intelligent comment below: DrPainMD: Then why did the Progressives give us Jim Crow laws, eugenics laws and drug laws?


You spelled conservative wrong

Nice try though

The actual, factual Progressives were a small, unsuccessful political party founded by Teddy Roosevelt.
It was only slightly relevant between 1905 and 1918, and had ceased to exist for all practical purposes by 1930. No one involved with the Progressives did any of the things he stated, of course. Nor were Stalin, Hitler, or Mao Progressives.
It's semantic bullshiat - pick a label for people you don't like (progressive, conservative, atheist, Christian, whatever) and simply attribute evil deeds to people you choose to call that.
The beauty part is that no citation of fact or logical argument can be used against you - since you have couched the argument in subjective terms you have chosen to suit your ends - you cannot be disproven or logically impeached. It's a great way to "win" an argument, when you aren't in a real debate.


starsrift: mark rathburn: Don't believe I mentioned Obama - but since you brought him up, why, since he was elected, have so many corporations decided that the regulatory and tax structure of the United States is too unstable, and since they can't know for sure what new rules and taxes will be coming down the pike, have decided to sit on their cash until someone more business-friendly is in the White House?

Let me answer that for you - it's because their evil, right?

Boy, there's someone you oughta talk to, you from two hours ago....

mark rathburn: When the president comes out and demonizes you because you're rich, when he tells you flat out he's coming after your money because the government deserves it more than you do, and knows how to spend it more wisely, when he has shown from his record that his intent is to take your wealth and redistribute it to his union cronies and campaign contributors, and when he pours massive amounts of wealth down a black hole without any idea of what he is doing, of course people will try to hide their money from him.

Now, to address your latest point, I can only reiterate my Weeners to you in this thread:

The tax code is set by?
A) The President
B) Congress

Gee, you're right, I never heard Obama rant about how the rich aren't paying their fair share, or that there needs to be more environmental and financial regulation, or that banks and corporations are evil. It's almost like the president has NO ROLE in creating the economic and regulatory climate of the country. I can't imagine WHY those corporations would get nervous every time he takes the podium

 
2012-07-22 11:12:56 AM  

mark rathburn: Gee, you're right, I never heard Obama rant about how the rich aren't paying their fair share, or that there needs to be more environmental and financial regulation, or that banks and corporations are evil. It's almost like the president has NO ROLE in creating the economic and regulatory climate of the country. I can't imagine WHY those corporations would get nervous every time he takes the podium


That's why he used his influence to set the tax rate at it's lowest point in 60 years!

Where you goin with this again?
 
2012-07-22 11:13:39 AM  

mark rathburn: The tax code is set by?


mark rathburn: Obama rant



Do you see the difference?
 
2012-07-22 11:15:40 AM  

mark rathburn: Gee, you're right, I never heard Obama rant about how the rich aren't paying their fair share, or that there needs to be more environmental and financial regulation, or that banks and corporations are evil. It's almost like the president has NO ROLE in creating the economic and regulatory climate of the country. I can't imagine WHY those corporations would get nervous every time he takes the podium


Oh dear, you've backslid from "both sides are bad" to WHAAARRRGARBL OBAMA. Ah well. Thus ends Sunday "play with trolls" day.

Enjoy.
 
2012-07-22 11:22:05 AM  

Dog Welder: Okay, so we can't tax all that stuff, but here's something I've never understood.

If you have $10 billion in cash just sitting in bank accounts somewhere, WHY?

I'm pretty sure I could live beyond comfortably and not have to brush elbows with society's riffraff like me with only a measly $1 billion in my bank account. Why not do something...anything...productive and good with that money?

Bill Gates has given away more money than most of us would see in 100 lifetimes. I applaud that.

But too many of these people are so concerned about proving they have a bigger bank account than someone else, it's just sickening.


And the "fair tax" wouldn't touch a dime of it.
 
2012-07-22 11:31:23 AM  
I find this number hard to believe. That's the wealth of a thousand Bill Gateses, and the vast majority of ultra-rich don't even come close to Gates.

I mean, total global market capitalization is on the order of $50 trillion.
 
2012-07-22 11:31:28 AM  
1. Both the Democrats and the Republicans write the tax code to favor the rich
2. Both Democrats and Republicans take full advantage of these rules to enrich themselves
3. This is not going to change, no matter how much whining occurs
4. However, Democrats still need to be elected, so they need to keep their base enraged at how evil corporations are and how the rich don't pay their share.
5. Republicans are just as bad (which is to say, they are politicians) but are less hypocritical about it
6. Since the country will never be able collect enough revenue to fully implement the progressive agenda (which will just expand to absorb any increase in revenue anyway) maybe we should try, for the first time in history, spending less money?
 
2012-07-22 11:31:34 AM  
And that money is rightfully mine to spend on my bastard children and a retirement for which I don't want to bother saving.

/why do liberals assume that everybody else's wealth is rightfully theirs?
//highways != social welfare
 
2012-07-22 11:36:46 AM  

beta_plus: And that money is rightfully mine to spend on my bastard children and a retirement for which I don't want to bother saving.

/why do liberals assume that everybody else's wealth is rightfully theirs?
//highways != social welfare


we've all gotta pay our taxes. we might not like it...but we gotta pay it. that includes the 1% - they gotta pay up as well.
 
2012-07-22 11:37:17 AM  
fudiculous.com
 
2012-07-22 11:37:41 AM  

mark rathburn: No, I am saying the progressive ideology was behind the worst atrocities of the last century


You appear to be very wrong and stupid, so allow me to bring you up to speed:

"Progressive" was a social movement that came about in the 1890s and peaked in the 1920s with the rise of the leisure class, the flapper chic and the empowerment of women in areas of finance, politics and law. It was a stark social reaction to the "Gilded Age" of post-Civil War America which saw rapid advancements in manufacturing and industrial productivity but at the expense of standard of living, as extreme inequitable distribution of affluence led to three crushing Depressions (and almost a fourth) and two World Wars.

Progressivism essentially refers to the moral and ethical interactions between groups of people and seeks to improve them (ie: progress). Progressive politics marked the beginning of social righteousness, and while not everyone agrees with all of its activist causes (women's suffrage, prohibition, civil rights, labor laws, etc.), I think everyone can agree that it has effectively made life a little more pleasant for the average person.

While the typical reaction is to paint progressivism as a leftist movement and make the correlation to the totalitarian nation-states of the 20th century as leftist movements and hence just as bad, in truth progressivism is mostly apolitical. You must understand that political, economic and social ideologies describe almost completely separate apparatuses of human organization, each containing a wide spectrum of value sets, and that adherence to one does not automatically entail adherence to others.
 
2012-07-22 11:39:18 AM  
The rich didn't make that money.

Someone else made that happen.
 
2012-07-22 11:44:47 AM  

mark rathburn: 6. Since the country will never be able collect enough revenue to fully implement the progressive agenda (which will just expand to absorb any increase in revenue anyway) maybe we should try, for the first time in history, spending less money?


What would you suggest we cut? I have some ideas, but I'd like to hear yours first.
 
2012-07-22 11:45:07 AM  

Ishkur: You appear to be very wrong and stupid, so allow me to bring you up to speed:

wilfully obtuse bullshiat



Whatever word you want to describe the leftist impulse to confiscate and control, it's the same politics of envy that motivates the left in this country
 
2012-07-22 11:45:44 AM  

pdee: So long as democrats insist on plundering corporate profits earned over seas those profits stay over seas.


But then they wouldn't have been plundered.
 
2012-07-22 11:46:06 AM  

mark rathburn: Both the Democrats and the Republicans write the tax code to favor the rich



So why when they have enough votes do Democrats raise the capital gains and top marginal tax rates?

Oops, that goes against your "both sides are bad" Libertarian propaganda
 
2012-07-22 11:49:24 AM  

mark rathburn: Whatever word you want to describe the leftist impulse to confiscate and control, it's the same politics of envy that motivates the left in this country


Why not just write, "envy motivates the leftist impulse to confiscate and control?" It's still shallow, redundant, and meaningless, but it leaves you less exhausted.
 
2012-07-22 11:49:45 AM  

mark rathburn: Whatever word you want to describe the leftist impulse to confiscate and control, it's the same politics of envy that motivates the left in this country


It seems that you are using technical terminology different than the rest of us and it is creating some confusion. To get everyone on the same page here, can you explain for us what you think a "leftist" actually is, so we can proceed along a more copacetic framework of discussion?
 
2012-07-22 11:53:14 AM  

mark rathburn: Ishkur: You appear to be very wrong and stupid, so allow me to bring you up to speed:

wilfully obtuse bullshiat


Whatever word you want to describe the leftist impulse to confiscate and control, it's the same politics of envy that motivates the left in this country


Confiscate and control, sounds like the impulse in the super rich to think they are entitled to tax free gains and everyone who dares question them is just envious
 
2012-07-22 11:54:21 AM  

thamike: mark rathburn: Whatever word you want to describe the leftist impulse to confiscate and control, it's the same politics of envy that motivates the left in this country

Why not just write, "envy motivates the leftist impulse to confiscate and control?" It's still shallow, redundant, and meaningless, but it leaves you less exhausted.


The words are too big.
 
2012-07-22 11:54:37 AM  

intelligent comment below: Confiscate and control, sounds like the impulse in the super rich to think they are entitled to tax free gains and everyone who dares question them is just envious


Only progressive socialist totalitarian Nazis believe in the "social contract."
 
2012-07-22 11:55:49 AM  

intelligent comment below: Confiscate and control, sounds like the impulse in the super rich to think they are entitled to tax free gains and everyone who dares question them is just envious


You are trying to convince a sycophant.
 
2012-07-22 11:56:26 AM  

mark rathburn: wilfully obtuse bullshiat


Oh, and can you point out which parts of my explanation was willfully obtuse and why? It's pretty accepted in academic circles that progressivism was a Gilded Age social movement that fought for lenient conditions and minority rights in all areas of leisure, politics, the workplace and law. How was any of it bullshiat when it was based on substantial facts and evidence? And can you cite any counter-claims to my assertion?
 
2012-07-22 11:57:07 AM  

rohar: thamike: mark rathburn: Whatever word you want to describe the leftist impulse to confiscate and control, it's the same politics of envy that motivates the left in this country

Why not just write, "envy motivates the leftist impulse to confiscate and control?" It's still shallow, redundant, and meaningless, but it leaves you less exhausted.

The words are too big.


I've found that when people ascribe natural impulses (that is, make the case that certain impulses are a natural result of one's self-identification, not that the impulses fall within a general set of being natural) to an identity, they're full of bullshiat and end up sounding like Nazis talking about Jews. Call Godwin on me, but when you say "leftists" or "progressives" or any singular group doesn't simply disagree with you, but is possessing of a fundamental nature that makes them bad, you're dealing with some very bad rhetorical juju.
 
2012-07-22 11:59:04 AM  
Gotta go to a barbeque- let me know when the Democrats get around to re-writing the tax code so that John Kerry is paying his 'fair share' LOL
 
2012-07-22 11:59:53 AM  

Ishkur: mark rathburn: No, I am saying the progressive ideology was behind the worst atrocities of the last century

You appear to be very wrong and stupid, so allow me to bring you up to speed:

"Progressive" was a social movement that came about in the 1890s and peaked in the 1920s with the rise of the leisure class, the flapper chic and the empowerment of women in areas of finance, politics and law. It was a stark social reaction to the "Gilded Age" of post-Civil War America which saw rapid advancements in manufacturing and industrial productivity but at the expense of standard of living, as extreme inequitable distribution of affluence led to three crushing Depressions (and almost a fourth) and two World Wars.

Progressivism essentially refers to the moral and ethical interactions between groups of people and seeks to improve them (ie: progress). Progressive politics marked the beginning of social righteousness, and while not everyone agrees with all of its activist causes (women's suffrage, prohibition, civil rights, labor laws, etc.), I think everyone can agree that it has effectively made life a little more pleasant for the average person.

While the typical reaction is to paint progressivism as a leftist movement and make the correlation to the totalitarian nation-states of the 20th century as leftist movements and hence just as bad, in truth progressivism is mostly apolitical. You must understand that political, economic and social ideologies describe almost completely separate apparatuses of human organization, each containing a wide spectrum of value sets, and that adherence to one does not automatically entail adherence to others.


you know what the worst part of everything you just typed is? jesus was an extraterrestrial.
/shouldn't be obscure
 
2012-07-22 12:00:12 PM  
Gee, i never would have guessed that......
 
2012-07-22 12:01:31 PM  

batcookie: This is my surprised face.
[2.bp.blogspot.com image 600x600]

Like I always said, it's a load of bull that we don't have the resources to go around. We just don't like to share because human beings are childish little shiats.



a truly democratic republic would prevent these things. course, we no longer have a democratic republic and the wealthy love it that way!
 
2012-07-22 12:02:08 PM  

skinnycatullus: Well, I'm sure they worked harder than the rest of us so they deserve that money, right?




yea....that's it.
 
2012-07-22 12:02:44 PM  
New Farkin User Name
2012-07-22 03:01:23 AM
fusillade762: Pretty soon it's going to be nothing but the super-rich and the poverty stricken with nothing in between. Wonder what will happen then?


If history teaches us anything at all, then THIS:

img.ehowcdn.com

jeffreyhill.typepad.com

4.bp.blogspot.com

frontline-org-za.win03.glodns.net

www.seattlecatholic.com

And Finally, THIS:
static.ddmcdn.com
 
2012-07-22 12:03:02 PM  

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



the other 98% are getting a deluge............of piss.
 
2012-07-22 12:04:04 PM  

mark rathburn: Gotta go to a barbeque- let me know when the Democrats get around to re-writing the tax code so that John Kerry is paying his 'fair share' LOL



Aren't you supposed to be going to the gym first?
 
2012-07-22 12:04:16 PM  

Greil: you know what the worst part of everything you just typed is? jesus was an extraterrestrial.
/shouldn't be obscure


Yeah, I know it falls on deaf ears, but it wasn't for him, it was for everybody else.
 
2012-07-22 12:05:27 PM  

Ishkur: Greil: you know what the worst part of everything you just typed is? jesus was an extraterrestrial.
/shouldn't be obscure

Yeah, I know it falls on deaf ears, but it wasn't for him, it was for everybody else.


just so long as you're aware. thanks for that info, btw, it was new to me at least.
 
2012-07-22 12:06:13 PM  

Bloody William: rohar: thamike: mark rathburn: Whatever word you want to describe the leftist impulse to confiscate and control, it's the same politics of envy that motivates the left in this country

Why not just write, "envy motivates the leftist impulse to confiscate and control?" It's still shallow, redundant, and meaningless, but it leaves you less exhausted.

The words are too big.

I've found that when people ascribe natural impulses (that is, make the case that certain impulses are a natural result of one's self-identification, not that the impulses fall within a general set of being natural) to an identity, they're full of bullshiat and end up sounding like Nazis talking about Jews. Call Godwin on me, but when you say "leftists" or "progressives" or any singular group doesn't simply disagree with you, but is possessing of a fundamental nature that makes them bad, you're dealing with some very bad rhetorical juju.


I'd have to agree and I'm guessing I'm pretty far to the right of you. That's probably why I posted that Chomsky quote. Rhetoric has replaced reason. Well hell, as long as I'm posting quotes, this one seems pertinent to this new troll:

The US system cannot use coercion (well, not at the Soviet level, at any rate, but the way things are going, give it time), so it must rely solely on propaganda, which must be believed. This means it's got to be very subtle and psychologically simple and attractive, rather than blatant and absurd, to be at once unobtrusive and effective. It's no coincidence that the mother of marketing and advertising originates here. If you step out of line, the government does not need to come after you: business, the media, and even the public itself will. They cannot jail, torture, or disappear you (the system is testing the waters, though), but they will try to marginalize you, and make it very difficult to function professionally and socially. And at least insofar as members of the public are concerned, they are enforcers without realizing it. Quite elegant.

--Fabian Pascal
from Lenin, Trotzky and Relief from the Tyranny of Knowledge and Reason
 
2012-07-22 12:07:18 PM  

intelligent comment below: mark rathburn: Gotta go to a barbeque- let me know when the Democrats get around to re-writing the tax code so that John Kerry is paying his 'fair share' LOL


Aren't you supposed to be going to the gym first?


Barbecue indulges him, it never asks questions. Barbecue only loves unconditionally, you heartless bastard.
 
2012-07-22 12:09:26 PM  

mark rathburn: Gotta go to a barbeque


And that's how you chase a troll out of the thread, people.

Simply ask him questions.
 
2012-07-22 12:13:00 PM  

Ishkur: And that's how you chase a troll out of the thread, people.

Simply ask him questions.


Or you could simply ignore the plead for attention...
 
2012-07-22 12:28:06 PM  
Soooo, successful people should give their money away to losers, because....?
 
2012-07-22 12:38:37 PM  

SevenizGud: Soooo, successful people should give their money away to losers, because....?


Tag team trolling.
 
2012-07-22 12:44:24 PM  

SevenizGud: Soooo, successful people should give their money away to losers, because....?


Losers need money? It's your thing, man. I'm just trying to make sense of it.
 
2012-07-22 12:51:56 PM  

beta_plus: And that money is rightfully mine to spend on my bastard children and a retirement for which I don't want to bother saving.

/why do liberals assume that everybody else's wealth is rightfully theirs?
//highways != social welfare


The hell they don't. Do you have any idea how expensive it would be to ship anything without highways? It takes months to get from St. Louis to Los Angeles without highways; with them it takes 2 days. The Federal Highway system is one of the biggest and most successful social welfare programs in human history, and don't even get me started on rail and air travel -both of which were initially public-private partnerships- or freight and maritime standardization which, again, were largely the product of public policy.
 
2012-07-22 12:53:15 PM  
You have to think anyone defending this is either super rich or super stupid.
 
2012-07-22 12:57:16 PM  

fusillade762: Pretty soon it's going to be nothing but the super-rich and the poverty stricken with nothing in between. Wonder what will happen then?



oops, the real power is always with the masses, but only if they decide to take power back.
 
2012-07-22 12:58:57 PM  

rudemix: You have to think anyone defending this is either super rich or super stupid.



or both.
 
2012-07-22 01:00:04 PM  

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



cause Ronnie Raygun said so!
 
2012-07-22 01:01:47 PM  

thamike: SevenizGud: Soooo, successful people should give their money away to losers, because....?

Losers need money? It's your thing, man. I'm just trying to make sense of it.



lol. he's still in diapers.
 
2012-07-22 01:18:58 PM  

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

What exactly are these unsustainable things that should be defunded?


One of the most frequently cited is Social Security, which is ironic because it's self-funded and even ran a surplus until very recently.

Never cited is the military, which has never raised a single dollar to cover its costs.
 
2012-07-22 01:22:30 PM  
Do a one time "repatriation" tax break and watch most of that money pour back into the United States economy.
 
2012-07-22 01:26:08 PM  
It's not about wealth anymore it's about control.

/ Welfare mothers make better lovers
 
2012-07-22 01:29:05 PM  

Spare Me: Do a one time "repatriation" tax break and watch most of that money pour back into the United States economy.


1.bp.blogspot.com
Tried that one beginning of the second term, and the economy has been nothing but awesome since. Oh, wait...
 
2012-07-22 01:33:24 PM  
pdee 2012-07-22 11:39:18 AM

Drop those taxes and that money will come back to the US

c1redgreenandblueorg.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com

We've been trying that at home for what, 30 years?

Why hasn't it worked by now, genius?

And you expect it to work on bringing overseas money back here?

carolbean.files.wordpress.com
 
2012-07-22 01:34:01 PM  

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

What exactly are these unsustainable things that should be defunded?

One of the most frequently cited is Social Security, which is ironic because it's self-funded and even ran a surplus until very recently.

Never cited is the military, which has never raised a single dollar to cover its costs.


Suddenly, NAF funds don't exist!

/kidding, kinda
//agree with your point
 
2012-07-22 01:35:19 PM  

dstrick44: New Farkin User Name
2012-07-22 03:01:23 AM
fusillade762: Pretty soon it's going to be nothing but the super-rich and the poverty stricken with nothing in between. Wonder what will happen then?

If history teaches us anything at all, then THIS:

[img.ehowcdn.com image 400x280]

[jeffreyhill.typepad.com image 597x307]

[4.bp.blogspot.com image 720x540]

[frontline-org-za.win03.glodns.net image 300x323]

[www.seattlecatholic.com image 300x200]

And Finally, THIS:
[static.ddmcdn.com image 200x300]


An American version of this
static.ddmcdn.com
Scares the absolute shiat out of the rest of the world, especially the Russians and the Chinese. Our own system keeps the U.S in check more than anything else, despite what every college student believes when he screams American Imperialism. If America decided to go full blown Brittish style imperialism.....the world would duck and cover, and start praying. You think you have seen it? You haven't seen shiat. You get the %51 angry and hell bent on long term nation taking, look the fark out.

On the plus side the recession would be gone almost overnight.

/before you say it, sure maybe, Iraq and Afghanistan were nation taking, but really holding them would involve removing the current citizens. Almost all of them. and we haven't even killed a percentage.
 
2012-07-22 02:03:02 PM  
OFF WITH THEIR farkING HEADS.
 
2012-07-22 02:36:05 PM  

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:



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 and the private terrorist enterprise he was able to put together.

When individuals have both the means and the will to carry out something of that order, there is a goddamn problem.


Newsletter?
 
2012-07-22 02:58:46 PM  
Wow, I have such an erect Boehner right now. Is there a GOP M on M dating site?
 
2012-07-22 03:25:57 PM  

fusillade762: Pretty soon it's going to be nothing but the super-rich and the poverty stricken with nothing in between. Wonder what will happen then?


Cheap labor?

I could use a masseuse and a cook and a full time driver, if only they didn't cost so much.

India's had this one figured out for thousands of years.

We need more peasants!
 
2012-07-22 03:33:26 PM  
And your point is? If they are legally doing it, the government has no right to it.

/dnrtfa
 
2012-07-22 03:39:40 PM  
You know...I wonder what would happen if we simply invaded bermuda and the cayman islands because they are executing an extreme form of economic warfare.

Failing that, a rogue power of unknown origin could simply nuke them....
 
2012-07-22 03:57:30 PM  

Close2TheEdge: OH PLEASE! Such a worthless statement. Our government spends the majority of it's money on 3 THINGS. Medicare / Medicaid, Social Security and the Military. Everything is barely a drop in the bucket. Are all three of those things irresponsible expenditures by your calculation? Get your head out of your ass. By all means, we should spend money wisely, but it is neigh impossible to do when your revenue streams are being systematically picked away by the rich and powerful.


The issue I have with TFA AND the headline is it assumes that the money belongs to the people, not the "rich."

I'll admit, my original comment was a troll...but the fact of the matter is that you can tax the hell out of the rich and it wouldn't make a difference because rather than cutting spending, governments will end up spending MORE with the windfall. Nobody ever talks about balancing a budget...it's just tax the rich to make up for the budget deficits. This isn't a uniquely American thing...this is a European issue as well. Governments are irresponsible with their spending and we've been negligent in holding them responsible.
 
2012-07-22 04:04:07 PM  

Delay: Wow, I have such an erect Boehner right now. Is there a GOP M on M dating site?


Here.
 
2012-07-22 04:38:43 PM  

slayer199: Close2TheEdge: OH PLEASE! Such a worthless statement. Our government spends the majority of it's money on 3 THINGS. Medicare / Medicaid, Social Security and the Military. Everything is barely a drop in the bucket. Are all three of those things irresponsible expenditures by your calculation? Get your head out of your ass. By all means, we should spend money wisely, but it is neigh impossible to do when your revenue streams are being systematically picked away by the rich and powerful.

The issue I have with TFA AND the headline is it assumes that the money belongs to the people, not the "rich."

I'll admit, my original comment was a troll...but the fact of the matter is that you can tax the hell out of the rich and it wouldn't make a difference because rather than cutting spending, governments will end up spending MORE with the windfall. Nobody ever talks about balancing a budget...it's just tax the rich to make up for the budget deficits. This isn't a uniquely American thing...this is a European issue as well. Governments are irresponsible with their spending and we've been negligent in holding them responsible.


It's not just the taxes. That money sitting in foreign banks is doing absolutely nothing for our economy. It looks better on the balance sheet there instead of it being used to upgrade facilities, hiring people back that were dumped four or five years ago, or paying their people decent wages.

And you can argue that those things don't matter, or they are not the corporations responsibility. But long term this strategy of sitting on that money and not investing it back into their organisations is destined to fail. Not only for the individual organizations, but for the entire country.
 
2012-07-22 04:52:43 PM  

starsrift: mark rathburn: When the president comes out and demonizes you because you're rich, when he tells you flat out he's coming after your money because the government deserves it more than you do, and knows how to spend it more wisely, when he has shown from his record that his intent is to take your wealth and redistribute it to his union cronies and campaign contributors, and when he pours massive amounts of wealth down a black hole without any idea of what he is doing, of course people will try to hide their money from him
.

Federal Tax code is set by?
A) The President
B) Congress


C) Lobbyists working for really rich people.

FTFY
 
2012-07-22 04:55:19 PM  

Tor_Eckman: slayer199: Close2TheEdge: OH PLEASE! Such a worthless statement. Our government spends the majority of it's money on 3 THINGS. Medicare / Medicaid, Social Security and the Military. Everything is barely a drop in the bucket. Are all three of those things irresponsible expenditures by your calculation? Get your head out of your ass. By all means, we should spend money wisely, but it is neigh impossible to do when your revenue streams are being systematically picked away by the rich and powerful.

The issue I have with TFA AND the headline is it assumes that the money belongs to the people, not the "rich."

I'll admit, my original comment was a troll...but the fact of the matter is that you can tax the hell out of the rich and it wouldn't make a difference because rather than cutting spending, governments will end up spending MORE with the windfall. Nobody ever talks about balancing a budget...it's just tax the rich to make up for the budget deficits. This isn't a uniquely American thing...this is a European issue as well. Governments are irresponsible with their spending and we've been negligent in holding them responsible.

It's not just the taxes. That money sitting in foreign banks is doing absolutely nothing for our economy. It looks better on the balance sheet there instead of it being used to upgrade facilities, hiring people back that were dumped four or five years ago, or paying their people decent wages.

And you can argue that those things don't matter, or they are not the corporations responsibility. But long term this strategy of sitting on that money and not investing it back into their organisations is destined to fail. Not only for the individual organizations, but for the entire country.


But, it's not money that belongs to the "people".

Tor_Eckman: That money sitting in foreign banks is doing absolutely nothing for our economy.


So? That may be true, but that $ doesnt belong to the "economy" or the "people". Create an environment with less uncertainty, and it's likely some of that money will begin to get back to good use. If tax rates go up, then, businesses and people who hold that money will look and see if they can get a return better than the higher (or lower) rates that are in place for the LONG term. Not this year-to-year extention bullshiat.

On a smaller level, sane people dont go and buy a new house or a new car if they dont have a reasonable idea of what their income/expenditure situation is gonna be for more than a year out.

Businesses who want to stay in business do the same.
 
2012-07-22 05:55:04 PM  

Death_Poot: Create an environment with less uncertainty, and it's likely some of that money will begin to get back to good use.



False talking point is false. The money wont come back until they get to pay as close to NOTHING on it as possible.

Death_Poot: But, it's not money that belongs to the "people"



Right. It's money "earned" by the "job creators" who worked so hard making it

Death_Poot: If tax rates go up, then, businesses and people who hold that money will look and see if they can get a return better than the higher (or lower) rates that are in place for the LONG term. Not this year-to-year extention bullshiat.


Why are they so worried about a 1-2% increase?

Death_Poot: On a smaller level, sane people dont go and buy a new house or a new car if they dont have a reasonable idea of what their income/expenditure situation is gonna be for more than a year out.


Corporate profits have been consistently higher for years now. What uncertainty?

Death_Poot: Businesses who want to stay in business do the same.


So they're all teetering on the brink of collapse because their taxes might go up a few percentage points? Sounds like a horribly run business in the first place.
 
2012-07-22 05:59:42 PM  

Death_Poot: Tor_Eckman: slayer199: Close2TheEdge: OH PLEASE! Such a worthless statement. Our government spends the majority of it's money on 3 THINGS. Medicare / Medicaid, Social Security and the Military. Everything is barely a drop in the bucket. Are all three of those things irresponsible expenditures by your calculation? Get your head out of your ass. By all means, we should spend money wisely, but it is neigh impossible to do when your revenue streams are being systematically picked away by the rich and powerful.

The issue I have with TFA AND the headline is it assumes that the money belongs to the people, not the "rich."

I'll admit, my original comment was a troll...but the fact of the matter is that you can tax the hell out of the rich and it wouldn't make a difference because rather than cutting spending, governments will end up spending MORE with the windfall. Nobody ever talks about balancing a budget...it's just tax the rich to make up for the budget deficits. This isn't a uniquely American thing...this is a European issue as well. Governments are irresponsible with their spending and we've been negligent in holding them responsible.

It's not just the taxes. That money sitting in foreign banks is doing absolutely nothing for our economy. It looks better on the balance sheet there instead of it being used to upgrade facilities, hiring people back that were dumped four or five years ago, or paying their people decent wages.

And you can argue that those things don't matter, or they are not the corporations responsibility. But long term this strategy of sitting on that money and not investing it back into their organisations is destined to fail. Not only for the individual organizations, but for the entire country.

But, it's not money that belongs to the "people". Tor_Eckman: That money sitting in foreign banks is doing absolutely nothing for our economy.

So? That may be true, but that $ doesnt belong to the "economy" or the "people". Create an environmen ...




Just out of curiosity, do you or anyone else here think that the rich should be required to contribute back to the society they have benefited from?

Assuming they actually earned it rather than inherited it, they did not earn it in a vacuum. That is, their success is in part owed to the rest of society. Whatever their occupation is, they depend on public infrastructure and services like military, police, etc, at the very least. They are likely dependent on their workers/subordinates who likely use much more public services and could not do the job w/o them. At the most, all of the above plus they went to public schools, received federal funding for college, food stamps etc.

Granted it is their money, but they are apart of our society. As the ones who have benefited the most they are the ones who stand to loose the most if things go badly. Considering these two factoids, it would seem appropriate that they contribute the most, proportional to their success.
 
2012-07-22 06:13:00 PM  

Dog Welder: Okay, so we can't tax all that stuff, but here's something I've never understood.

If you have $10 billion in cash just sitting in bank accounts somewhere, WHY?

I'm pretty sure I could live beyond comfortably and not have to brush elbows with society's riffraff like me with only a measly $1 billion in my bank account. Why not do something...anything...productive and good with that money?

Bill Gates has given away more money than most of us would see in 100 lifetimes. I applaud that.

But too many of these people are so concerned about proving they have a bigger bank account than someone else, it's just sickening.


If it's in a bank (or more realistically in market accounts of one sort or another) it's not "just sitting there." It's not like they have dollar bills stashed in their mattresses. That money gets invested in order to provide a return. The money is being used in the economy. Maybe you think it would be more productive to mail every poor person a check for $100, but maybe that wouldn't be all that productive in the long run.
 
2012-07-22 06:17:03 PM  
So what if 32T dollars are in off-shore accounts? If you were to confiscate it to supply the entire American economy for 1 year, bail out the EU, and get Africa on it's feet...It still wouldn't change the fact that governments don't know how to manage money properly, and they would still be in a world of trouble financially.

Overall, it would give a temporary and false sense of security, that it would make the situation worse for everyone. How do you think lottery winners fare after their money runs out?
 
2012-07-22 06:18:31 PM  
As we all know, the most patriotic thing a person can do is hide their money in off shore bank accounts to skirt obligations as an American citizen.
 
2012-07-22 06:19:17 PM  

Noam Chimpsky: Who's money is it, Obama's?

2012-07-22 03:39:38 AM


404 page not found: Who is money is it, Obama's?

2012-07-22 03:40:42 AM


curious
 
2012-07-22 06:26:41 PM  

jigger: It's not like they have dollar bills stashed in their mattresses. That money gets invested in order to provide a return. The money is being used in the economy.



Money in banks is being used in the American economy? You sure about that?


BlueJay206: It still wouldn't change the fact that governments don't know how to manage money properly, and they would still be in a world of trouble financially.


Except the economic troubles these countries have today is because of the bad investments made by the banks in the first place
 
2012-07-22 06:46:34 PM  

fark'emfeed'emfish: Noam Chimpsky: Who's money is it, Obama's?2012-07-22 03:39:38 AM


404 page not found: Who is money is it, Obama's?2012-07-22 03:40:42 AM


curious


Not curious (as in, they must be the same person). Looked like 404 was pointing out that Noam Chimpsky does not realize that "Who's" is a contraction of "who is" (think Noam Chimpsky meant to use "whose").



BlueJay206: It still wouldn't change the fact that governments don't know how to manage money properly, and they would still be in a world of trouble financially.


I never understand this argument. Are "governments" some form or type of static organism?
 
2012-07-22 06:48:43 PM  
Ah, I see at least one person still wants to biatch about public sector union contracts.
 
2012-07-22 07:04:27 PM  

jigger: If it's in a bank (or more realistically in market accounts of one sort or another) it's not "just sitting there." It's not like they have dollar bills stashed in their mattresses. That money gets invested in order to provide a return. The money is being used in the economy.


Technically, no. Most of the money is just being recirculated into capital investments, speculative markets, stocks, bonds and other financial portfolios that guarantee a meaningful return. It mostly exists only on paper, it is purely financial so it depends on nothing concrete or productive, it gets shuffled around from account to account (the CEOs sit on each others Boards), and rarely any of it actually leaves the confines of the 1%. It does not get into general circulation, it does not get used in the economy, and it does not find its way to main street. It's just a swirling money vortex that spirals infinitely upward, out of reach of the general health and well-being of society.

And it's getting larger.
 
2012-07-22 07:12:38 PM  

elchip: I find this number hard to believe. That's the wealth of a thousand Bill Gateses, and the vast majority of ultra-rich don't even come close to Gates.

I mean, total global market capitalization is on the order of $50 trillion.


Well, shiat. That's the fist lefty in the thread actually not talking out of his ass.
 
2012-07-22 07:12:50 PM  

nickelni: fark'emfeed'emfish: Noam Chimpsky: Who's money is it, Obama's?2012-07-22 03:39:38 AM


404 page not found: Who is money is it, Obama's?2012-07-22 03:40:42 AM


curious

Not curious (as in, they must be the same person). Looked like 404 was pointing out that Noam Chimpsky does not realize that "Who's" is a contraction of "who is" (think Noam Chimpsky meant to use "whose").



BlueJay206: It still wouldn't change the fact that governments don't know how to manage money properly, and they would still be in a world of trouble financially.

I never understand this argument. Are "governments" some form or type of static organism?


They are dynamic organizations where the more they change, the more they stay the same. They keep on finding new ways to fark that chicken.

People always rip on California for its financial troubles. Its a situation where one side wants to limit revenue and cut spending while the other wants to keep/increase spending and revenue.

The best financial solution would be a compromise where revenue is increased and spending is cut.

But the best political solution is a compromise to do the exact opposite.

It reminds me of the national problem except on a smaller scale.
 
2012-07-22 07:14:36 PM  

Ishkur: jigger: If it's in a bank (or more realistically in market accounts of one sort or another) it's not "just sitting there." It's not like they have dollar bills stashed in their mattresses. That money gets invested in order to provide a return. The money is being used in the economy.

Technically, no. Most of the money is just being recirculated into capital investments, speculative markets, stocks, bonds and other financial portfolios that guarantee a meaningful return. It mostly exists only on paper, it is purely financial so it depends on nothing concrete or productive, it gets shuffled around from account to account (the CEOs sit on each others Boards), and rarely any of it actually leaves the confines of the 1%. It does not get into general circulation, it does not get used in the economy, and it does not find its way to main street. It's just a swirling money vortex that spirals infinitely upward, out of reach of the general health and well-being of society.

And it's getting larger.


False, in every aspect. This could only be true if the ultra rich needed to borrow from the utlra rich to do nothing.

Idiocy. God damn you people.
 
2012-07-22 07:34:07 PM  

notShryke: False, in every aspect. This could only be true if the ultra rich needed to borrow from the utlra rich to do nothing.


I see that your counter-argument is full of well-researched facts, citations, and evidence supporting its assertions. I bow to your superior skills in logic, reason, and factual analysis.
 
2012-07-22 07:50:30 PM  

Ishkur: notShryke: False, in every aspect. This could only be true if the ultra rich needed to borrow from the utlra rich to do nothing.

I see that your counter-argument is full of well-researched facts, citations, and evidence supporting its assertions. I bow to your superior skills in logic, reason, and factual analysis.


I can't present such things when dealing with pure nonsense. I may as well rebut the claim unicorns are right-handed.

You've contradicted yourself in your own primary claim, and are completely unaware of it. Completely.

I'll give you a hint, because I will enjoy your fumbling. First, the claim:

Most of the money is just being recirculated into capital investments, speculative markets, stocks, bonds and other financial portfolios that guarantee a meaningful return

And then, the pure fail:

it mostly exists only on paper, it is purely financial so it depends on nothing concrete or productive, it gets shuffled around from account to account (the CEOs sit on each others Boards), and rarely any of it actually leaves the confines of the 1%. It does not get into general circulation, it does not get used in the economy, and it does not find its way to main street.

Herp, derp. You've crushed your own argument. You are a cargo cult or, even worse, labor theory of value advocate, without a clue how venture capital works. Not a clue.
 
2012-07-22 08:01:03 PM  

notShryke: I can't present such things when dealing with pure nonsense.


Sure you can. Explain what the money in the banks is being spent on. It should be an easy argument to make if it's so obvious.

notShryke: You've contradicted yourself in your own primary claim


No I haven't. Investing money into money does nothing for the economy.

Truth be told, a roaring stock exchange is not entirely an indicator of overall economic health; it's only an indication of the wealth of its participants, who number comparatively few to the vast majority of Americans who have little to no net worth or savings to speak of.

This is what frequently caused crashes before 1929, and it's what's causing crashes again: Financial speculation, interest upon interest, and specious banking to turn numbers into bigger numbers, based on NOTHING.

notShryke: without a clue how venture capital works


I actually haven't said a single thing about venture capital (because it can be useful and pliable). That's your misinterpretation.

Once again, if you can refute my points, by all means show me the evidence.
 
2012-07-22 08:04:08 PM  

notShryke: elchip: I find this number hard to believe. That's the wealth of a thousand Bill Gateses, and the vast majority of ultra-rich don't even come close to Gates.

I mean, total global market capitalization is on the order of $50 trillion.

Well, shiat. That's the fist lefty in the thread actually not talking out of his ass.



I love it when known trolls gone for weeks or months magically reappear again when their side is getting crushed in a topic unfavorable to their interests.

Why do you find it hard to believe that financial instruments such as derivatives can be worth so much money?

Who's talking out of his ass? You are. Forever

notShryke: You've crushed your own argument.



None of those things listed are necessarily productive. They are merely instruments to create more and more wealth ontop of each other. And in the end if taxes are paid on them, it is at a rock bottom 15% rate. Since corporations are seeing record profits yet continue to lower their workforce and investment in America, your claim of these investments being "productive" crushes YOUR own argument.
 
2012-07-22 08:23:33 PM  

Ishkur: Investing money into money


Wat.

t's only an indication of the wealth of its participants

First, this is false. Second: who are the participants in the US stock market? This common leftist assertion that it is the "rich" is grossly inaccurate.

I actually haven't said a single thing about venture capital (because it can be useful and pliable). That's your misinterpretation.

Oh really?

recirculated into capital investments,

Care to amend your statement?
 
2012-07-22 08:30:48 PM  

intelligent comment below: Why do you find it hard to believe that financial instruments such as derivatives can be worth so much money?


Eh? I am not sure where derivatives came in to play here, but since you've brought them up, why don't you tell me what they are, and perhaps more importantly, who invests in them.


None of those things listed are necessarily productive.


Ugh. I am sure idiocy follows.

hey are merely instruments to create more and more wealth on top of each other.

I was right. Wealth just "creating" more wealth. "Velocity of money" idiocy.

Since corporations are seeing record profits yet continue to lower their workforce and investment in America, your claim of these investments being "productive" crushes YOUR own argument.

I've done nothing of the kind. I am not asserting outsourcing isn't productive. Our current laws encourage it. You can't grasp that.

Seriously. Consider that for a minute. Can you admit, under *any* circumstance, that our laws may actually encourage companies to invest elsewhere? Please do your best to address this. I assume it will be some anti-capitalist screed, but hope springs eternal.
 
2012-07-22 08:31:13 PM  
Jump you farkers!
 
2012-07-22 08:35:02 PM  

notShryke: Seriously. Consider that for a minute. Can you admit, under *any* circumstance, that our laws may actually encourage companies to invest elsewhere? Please do your best to address this. I assume it will be some anti-capitalist screed, but hope springs eternal.



Laws created by multinational corporations benefit multinational corporations. This is shocking. And anyone who dares question why this must be so is obviously just an anti-capitalist.
 
2012-07-22 08:40:42 PM  

intelligent comment below: notShryke: Seriously. Consider that for a minute. Can you admit, under *any* circumstance, that our laws may actually encourage companies to invest elsewhere? Please do your best to address this. I assume it will be some anti-capitalist screed, but hope springs eternal.


Laws created by multinational corporations benefit multinational corporations. This is shocking. And anyone who dares question why this must be so is obviously just an anti-capitalist.


Not to mention that we have been told since Saint Reagan that we must lower taxes on the rich so they can trickle that money they save down to the rest of us. Instead they are socking it away in foreign tax shelters. Yet Republicans continue to double down on this bullshiat.

There are none so blind as those who will not see.
 
2012-07-22 08:41:02 PM  

intelligent comment below: Laws created by multinational corporations benefit multinational corporations.


I was right. You can't fathom the possibility. You can't even address the theoretical argument. Save your OWS crap for the barista you can't to fark, mate. I ain't interested.
 
2012-07-22 08:46:26 PM  

notShryke: I was right. You can't fathom the possibility. You can't even address the theoretical argument. Save your OWS crap for the barista you can't to fark, mate. I ain't interested.



What in the fark

You just went off the derp end because you knew you couldn't back up your productive claim
 
2012-07-22 09:14:29 PM  
Let's get right on reversing this injustice. Right after this next reality tv show.
 
2012-07-22 09:33:32 PM  
Well, why don't we annex the Cayman Islands, then? Oh, wait, they are a UK territory.
Hmmm...so is Bermuda. How odd.
 
2012-07-22 09:37:25 PM  
Per the link in the article, the $21 trillion to $32 trillion number is based on... a report that taxjustice.net, whoever they are, hasn't released yet.

Per Appendix 1 of the report (PDF linked from the above page) what they've actually found is that about 0.5 trillion in American currency seems to have vanished somewhere over the past thirty or forty years, and there is a $2.2 trillion discrepancy over roughly the same period between IMF statements of imports and of exports. All of this seems from the appendix to be from one guy updating work he did in the late Seventies - so, respect for persistence there, but it makes one wonder to what peer review standards to which taxjustice.net adheres.

(There's also a discussion in that appendix of how much American equity is owned from abroad. While there are tax implications to that, that money can hardly be said to be "siphoned off" and hidden abroad, as the article claims - it's not hidden, we can see it perfectly well.)

Not that $2.7 trillion is small money, of course, but there's no way to tell where the number in all the article headlines came from. The headline number is ten times bigger than the figures I'm seeing as potential "hidden money" in the published appendix of the unpublished report.

While the headline number is huger than the annual economy, and thus newsworthy... I have no idea where it comes from, and I looked. Perhaps I wasn't assiduous enough about it.
 
2012-07-22 09:40:18 PM  
I'm not surprised that the right wing trolls can't do anything except project, parrot right wing soundbites, or just go off on people with specious arguments or attacks when they know what they're saying is a crock of lukewarm shiat.

Reality does not play well within the minds of the troll, and they will never react well when a. facts are presented to them and b. they are shown line by line how wrong they are. So don't feel too bad, ICB and Ishkur, notShryke just can't break out of the box he's built for himself and he can't ever admit that he's wrong. Otherwise he might be seen as a heretic.
 
2012-07-22 09:49:57 PM  

Stile4aly:

A tax holiday was granted for repatriation of foreign held profits during the Bush years with the promise that once the money was brought back into the US it could be used to create jobs. It turned out to be BS as the companies that participated instead used the funds to repurchase stock, pay dividends, and pay corporate bonuses and then continue to invest overseas..



^THIS^
, a fact most conveniently forgotten by the anti-tax DERPsquad.
And these idiots want to give corporations a second chance to fark this country out of billions of dollars they owe?
/Fool me once...
 
2012-07-22 10:17:39 PM  

rewind2846: Stile4aly:

A tax holiday was granted for repatriation of foreign held profits during the Bush years with the promise that once the money was brought back into the US it could be used to create jobs. It turned out to be BS as the companies that participated instead used the funds to repurchase stock, pay dividends, and pay corporate bonuses and then continue to invest overseas..


^THIS^, a fact most conveniently forgotten by the anti-tax DERPsquad.
And these idiots want to give corporations a second chance to fark this country out of billions of dollars they owe?
/Fool me once...


Sounds like what governments do all the time not doing what they promise, I.e. social security ious, tobacco settlement money not going to what it was promised, and in my state, the lottery not going to education as promised. I could go on.

Pot, meet kettle. What color were you again?
 
2012-07-22 11:02:05 PM  
Wow, the trolls are really having a bad day on this thread.

If I were a more compassionate individual I might feel sorry for them.

The fact the Mitt Romney is the first American presidential candidate EVAR to utilize Swiss banks and accounts in the Caymans and Bermuda in order to avoid paying taxes in the US will not be *the* factor that sinks Mitt's oval office ambitions this November but it will be *a* factor.

Deservedly so.

Apologists for increased wealth inequity are either paid trolls or historically ignorant.
 
2012-07-22 11:21:30 PM  

Death_Poot:
Pot, meet kettle. What color were you again?


And this has what to do with corporations and the wealthy not paying what they owe in taxes?

US: "You can brink your money back, we'll tax it at either a very reduced rate or not at all, so long as you hire people and help expand the economy with it."
Corps: "Uh, ok"
*money comes back, goes right into shareholders/stockholders/executives/overseas investors pockets*
Corps: "I TROLL UUUUU!!!LOLOLOL TROLLOLOLOLL!!!1!!1!!11!"
US: ...

Yeah.

More like fork, meet ladle. Learn your utensils. And vote republican.
 
2012-07-22 11:55:30 PM  
I missed the part where the EU and Africa have a claim on my money. Please advise.
 
2012-07-23 12:23:53 AM  

intelligent comment below: DrPainMD: Then why did the Progressives give us Jim Crow laws, eugenics laws and drug laws?


You spelled conservative wrong

Nice try though


You really need to take a history class. Those things, and more, were brought to us by the Progressives, who had nothing but disdain for freedom and liberty, and thought that the peons' lives should be dictated to them by the wise, enlightened elite.
 
2012-07-23 12:41:50 AM  

DrPainMD: intelligent comment below: DrPainMD: Then why did the Progressives give us Jim Crow laws, eugenics laws and drug laws?


You spelled conservative wrong

Nice try though

You really need to take a history class. Those things, and more, were brought to us by the Progressives, who had nothing but disdain for freedom and liberty, and thought that the peons' lives should be dictated to them by the wise, enlightened elite.



Yes of course, noted progressives like Nixon who started the drug war, Randolph Hearst who pushed through the first anti-Marijuana laws, Carnegie Rockefeller and the Hariman fortunes who funded Eugenics movements, and here's the icing on the cake:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_crow_laws

These conservative, white, Democratic Redeemer governments legislated Jim Crow laws, segregating black people from the white population.

So remind me again, who really needs to take a history class?

I await your well thought out reply
 
2012-07-23 01:15:01 AM  

DrPainMD: You really need to take a history class. Those things, and more, were brought to us by the Progressives, who had nothing but disdain for freedom and liberty, and thought that the peons' lives should be dictated to them by the wise, enlightened elite.


You spelled conservative wrong.

You should really pay more attention after the last guy got it wrong.
 
2012-07-23 02:19:02 AM  

notShryke: First, this is false.


In what way?

notShryke: Second: who are the participants in the US stock market?


A comparatively small segment of the population.

notShryke: Care to amend your statement?


No.

Now show me how I am wrong. I've been waiting all night.
 
2012-07-23 03:07:30 AM  

Ishkur: notShryke: First, this is false.

In what way?

notShryke: Second: who are the participants in the US stock market?

A comparatively small segment of the population.

notShryke: Care to amend your statement?

No.


Now show me how I am wrong. I've been waiting all night.


Hopefully you're not holding your breath while you wait.

NotShryke is a NotBright troll incapable of honest debate who's probably fled the thread by now.

/Good job on this thread, btw.
 
2012-07-23 04:03:04 AM  

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

4.bp.blogspot.com
 
2012-07-23 09:10:11 AM  
It's what Jesus would have wanted.
 
2012-07-23 09:33:08 AM  
I'm not surprised in the least bit, but that number is a MUCH larger number then I was thinking.

I'm not sure I understand the need to collect that much money. Anything over a certain amount and you're not really saving anything, you just want more of something for ... well ... any variety of reasons someone collects something. The problem is that money appears to be a form of a finite resource. The world is running out because these rich people aren't spending it, they're just looking at it.
 
2012-07-23 10:16:19 AM  
I like this one
i210.photobucket.com
 
Displayed 306 of 306 comments

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