The Rich Are Destroying the Economy

[Guns Guns Guns]

If cutting taxes creates jobs, lifts all boats, and cures all economic ills, how come the economy went in the tank in September 2008?

 

[apple0154]

Oh, I know rich people love money, that's why they aren't going to make any money only to have it confiscated in excessive taxation. Again, I bet I know more rich people than you ever will, and I bet their total net worth is more than you could ever imagine in that pea-brain of yours. But you just keep on trying to denigrate me by insinuating I don't know or understand rich people... you don't know me, punk, you have no idea who I know.

Again (for the slow).... Rich people can live off their wealth for a very long time, they do not need to earn an income, it's not required when you reach a certain amount of wealth. The money takes care of itself, and generates sufficient resources to maintain whatever opulent lifestyle you have become accustomed to. Like I said, you can live pretty large on $100k a year, if your house and debts are paid off, there is no need to earn a large income. When you raise top marginal rates, you effectively stop rich people from earning large incomes, they have no motivation to do so. As you said, they LOVE money, they HATE losing money. Why would they invest a chunk of money only to see it taxed away, when they can keep that money in a tax-free security, or better yet... send it over to China and invest in their economy, where you can't tax any damn thing they earn?

You really are crazy. An "opulent" lifestyle is living on $100k a year?????

Did Momma drop you on your head when you were a baby?

Where the hell do you live, anyway, where $100k is considered an "opulent" lifestyle?

We're losing you, Dix.

 

[Canceled2]

You really are crazy. An "opulent" lifestyle is living on $100k a year?

Where the hell do you live, anyway, where $100k is considered an "opulent" lifestyle?

That's not what he said apple~ He said if your wealthy and you are debt free <no expenses> "you can live pretty large on $100k a year"

 

[Rune]

That's not what he said apple~ He said if your wealthy and you are debt free <no expenses> "you can live pretty large on $100k a year"

Hardly. If you are wealthy and living an opulent lifestyle, property tax, utility bills and insurance alone will make short work of $100K . Dixie is clueless.

 

[apple0154]

On what basis do you state they are not uncertain about the Chinese currency? That defies logic given the currency is one of the most manipulated (by the Chinese government) in the world. There is also a great deal of uncertainty in China with regards to their inflationary environment and real estate bubble. So again, do try to stick to topics on which you have some basic fundamental grasp of. you know.... like.... see spot run or the itsy bitsy spider's journey.

Unfortunately, Dix doesn't have a clue of which he speaks. He's either projecting how he thinks things should be if he ever was wealthy or he's been listening to people bullshit him.

////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

Rich people care about how much they are taxed, which is why they have over the past 50+ years lobbied for tax deductions and loopholes as well as lower marginal tax rates you fucking moron.



Wrong. This is where you show your complete lack of understanding when it comes to economics. We can EASILY raise taxes from where they are today WITHOUT a negative effect on revenue or GDP growth. THAT is a FACT. While there is a threshhold as to how FAR you can go, you are taking it to the absurdity by suggesting that we cannot raise them at all and that we should be EASING up on them.


Wrong again. you truly are a fucking idiot. The UNCERTAINTY comes from HOW much they will raise taxes and HOW they collect (ie... from corps/'the rich'/etc...). The UNCERTAINTY comes from whether or not the idiots in BOTH parties will continue driving up debt or are they serious about spending cuts.... you see... if they CUT spending and stop outspending revenue, then we know that FUTURE tax increases BEYOND what is already needed will not be necessary.

Also, simply stomping your foot and saying 'rich people aren't stupid' is in and of itself fucking retarded. There are a lot of wealthy people who are not intelligent. There are a lot that are brilliant. Blanket statements such as yours simply show how simple minded you are.



On what basis do you state they are not uncertain about the Chinese currency? That defies logic given the currency is one of the most manipulated (by the Chinese government) in the world. There is also a great deal of uncertainty in China with regards to their inflationary environment and real estate bubble. So again, do try to stick to topics on which you have some basic fundamental grasp of. you know.... like.... see spot run or the itsy bitsy spider's journey.



and there you go again saying they don't give a shit. You are 100% WRONG. you fucking halfwit.



The above is quite comical. Every post on here shows you have NO understanding of the Laffer Curve. As for the Flat Tax, it is the ONLY fair and progressive tax system being proposed. Period. The only one being stubborn about that is you... who are too blind or too ignorant to realize the FAIR tax is highly regressive.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

ApplesauceBrain: That's absurd! Rich people like money so they will try to make more regardless of what the conditions are.

Yes, rich people like to make money, and they don't even mind paying 25-30% on the money they make... they don't like losing money, or giving their money to the government in taxes. The more tax burden you put on them, the less money they make, so if they like to make money, why would they want to do it by earning income? Why not do it by investing in foreign currency, or something you can't tax? Why not do it by doing nothing, and leaving their wealth right where it is, in secure trusts and investments? Rich people will still maintain wealth, they don't need to earn an income. They do like to make money, that is precisely why you should find ways to make it encouraging for them to make money... so they will do that! When they make money, the economy flourishes and prosperity rains down on us all, but you want to do the exact opposite, so we have the exact opposite effect.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

You really are crazy. An "opulent" lifestyle is living on $100k a year?????

Did Momma drop you on your head when you were a baby?

Where the hell do you live, anyway, where $100k is considered an "opulent" lifestyle?

We're losing you, Dix.

Well, if all my gold statues and Rembrandt paintings are paid for, my mansion is free and clear, and my garage full of luxury cars are paid off... all I have to really spend money on, is the utility bills and groceries... yeah, I think I could probably live pretty comfortably on $100k a year. But so what if I wanted to spend a million a year? I can afford to pay whatever tax you impose, it doesn't bother me... I just don't have the inclination to spend more than I need to spend to live my lifestyle. That's the point you need to be understanding here, and I don't think you do. For whatever reason, you guys seem to think that rich people have some uncontrollable need to earn incomes, but it defies all rational logic. Rich people are the one group of people on the planet who LEAST need to earn incomes. Most of them pay someone good money to find ways not to claim taxable incomes! If they can make money and never be taxed, that's what they will do to make money... they won't take 10% and let you have 90% of what they make, that's just not something the rich people are interested in doing, because they like to make money.... remember?

 

[apple0154]

That's not what he said apple~ He said if your wealthy and you are debt free <no expenses> "you can live pretty large on $100k a year"

This is what he wrote.

Rich people can live off their wealth for a very long time, they do not need to earn an income, it's not required when you reach a certain amount of wealth. The money takes care of itself, and generates sufficient resources to maintain whatever opulent lifestyle you have become accustomed to. Like I said, you can live pretty large on $100k a year, if your house and debts are paid off, there is no need to earn a large income.

"generates sufficient resources to maintain whatever opulent lifestyle you have become accustomed to. Like I said, you can live pretty large on $100k a year,"

It's reasonable to conclude Dix is referring to $100k a year as income generated from acquired resources and will be sufficient to maintain an "opulent" lifestyle. As Dune explained maintaining anything that resembles an "opulent" lifestyle takes far more than $100k a year.

It's upper middle class. Perhaps an upscale car and the ability to take nice annual vacations. And let's not forget what is the average, healthy, motivated individual going to do all day? If they aren't working Monday to Friday what are they going to do? Most activities take money and being predisposed to "being busy" we can't expect them to be sitting around all week doing nothing.

As I've said before Dixie has no idea about the "inner workings" or day-to-day realities of the well-to-do. His posts are imaginings, how he imagines things are or should be. Once again, that's obvious from his "$100k living large" comment.

 

[apple0154]

Yes, rich people like to make money, and they don't even mind paying 25-30% on the money they make... they don't like losing money, or giving their money to the government in taxes. The more tax burden you put on them, the less money they make, so if they like to make money, why would they want to do it by earning income? Why not do it by investing in foreign currency, or something you can't tax? Why not do it by doing nothing, and leaving their wealth right where it is, in secure trusts and investments? Rich people will still maintain wealth, they don't need to earn an income. They do like to make money, that is precisely why you should find ways to make it encouraging for them to make money... so they will do that! When they make money, the economy flourishes and prosperity rains down on us all, but you want to do the exact opposite, so we have the exact opposite effect.

Nothing rains down, Dix. It's the scraps they throw away.

As for leaving their money where it is, say, in foreign countries how do they pay their land tax here? How do they buy a car here? With what money do they pay their housekeeper and gardener?

As I mentioned before it's the same thing as drug dealers claiming they make minimum wage while driving expensive imported cars or buying expensive houses. The government can just as easily crack down on the wealthy trying to avoid declaring income.

Also, it's time to start taxing all money received as income.

 

[cawacko]

Also, it's time to start taxing all money received as income.

We should start with little kids allowances. Make them pay taxes on that early in their life and they'll grow up to be good tax paying citizens.

 

[apple0154]

Well, if all my gold statues and Rembrandt paintings are paid for, my mansion is free and clear, and my garage full of luxury cars are paid off... all I have to really spend money on, is the utility bills and groceries... yeah, I think I could probably live pretty comfortably on $100k a year. But so what if I wanted to spend a million a year? I can afford to pay whatever tax you impose, it doesn't bother me... I just don't have the inclination to spend more than I need to spend to live my lifestyle. That's the point you need to be understanding here, and I don't think you do. For whatever reason, you guys seem to think that rich people have some uncontrollable need to earn incomes, but it defies all rational logic. Rich people are the one group of people on the planet who LEAST need to earn incomes. Most of them pay someone good money to find ways not to claim taxable incomes! If they can make money and never be taxed, that's what they will do to make money... they won't take 10% and let you have 90% of what they make, that's just not something the rich people are interested in doing, because they like to make money.... remember?

But, but where do they get the money to pay "someone good money to find ways not to claim taxable incomes"? The person finding the ways has to claim where he got the money. When he's audited he has to show who paid him.

And, by the way, check out how much it costs to insure a Rembrandt.

As Dune explained it costs the wealthy money to maintain what they have. Who pays for the maintenance on this modest $5.9M home?

Or on this automobile?

How do they pay for their vacations? I doubt they stay with Tom Bodett.

Here's a true story. It was about 15 years ago and a guy was on trial for drug dealing. The Prosecutor asked him what he did for a living and how much he earned. The guy replied he was an automobile mechanic (trainee) and earned $400/wk. Then the Prosecutor asked him if he took courses on money management/budgeting as he had a car, a motorcycle and a two-seater plane registered in his name. The government seized them all as proceeds from drug sales.

The wealthy don't have an uncontrollable need to earn money, however, they will do their best to make money regardless of the situation. I think it was you who previously said some people are motivated and others aren't. The wealthy are motivated. They will not give up if they have a chance to make money.

Nobody, absolutely nobody having become wealthy, are going to let themselves slide into poverty. We don't have to encourage them to maintain their wealth, I can assure you.

 

[Canceled2]

This is what he wrote.

"generates sufficient resources to maintain whatever opulent lifestyle you have become accustomed to. Like I said, you can live pretty large on $100k a year,"

It's reasonable to conclude Dix is referring to $100k a year as income generated from acquired resources and will be sufficient to maintain an "opulent" lifestyle. As Dune explained maintaining anything that resembles an "opulent" lifestyle takes far more than $100k a year.


It's upper middle class. Perhaps an upscale car and the ability to take nice annual vacations. And let's not forget what is the average, healthy, motivated individual going to do all day? If they aren't working Monday to Friday what are they going to do? Most activities take money and being predisposed to "being busy" we can't expect them to be sitting around all week doing nothing.

As I've said before Dixie has no idea about the "inner workings" or day-to-day realities of the well-to-do. His posts are imaginings, how he imagines things are or should be. Once again, that's obvious from his "$100k living large" comment.

It is also then reasonable to conclude that you ignored the idea that he was conveying- 100k with no expenses- He also conveyed that the truly wealthy have no need to work or do anything other then let their money work for them. That's 2 conveyances, not one.

 

[apple0154]

We should start with little kids allowances. Make them pay taxes on that early in their life and they'll grow up to be good tax paying citizens.

Good point. Just as we encourage them to save or raise funds for a charity.

It's teaching them to consider other people.

 

[apple0154]

It is also then reasonable to conclude that you ignored the idea that he was conveying- 100k with no expenses- He also conveyed that the truly wealthy have no need to work or do anything other then let their money work for them. That's 2 conveyances, not one.

And they should pay tax on the money their money makes. What justifies paying taxes on money earned from working but lower or non-existent taxes other money received? And, again, $100k would not be sufficient to maintain their lifestyle.

Simply put they couldn't clean their house and wash their windows and cut their lawn and clean their pool and hose down their driveway and....all the while maintaining a wealthy lifestyle. They'd be living the life of a domestic worker.

 

[Canceled2]

And they should pay tax on the money their money makes. What justifies paying taxes on money earned from working but lower or non-existent taxes other money received? And, again, $100k would not be sufficient to maintain their lifestyle.

Simply put they couldn't clean their house and wash their windows and cut their lawn and clean their pool and hose down their driveway and....all the while maintaining a wealthy lifestyle. They'd be living the life of a domestic worker.

Again, apple, he was was making two statements. 1. The truly wealthy can allow their money to earn enough for them to enjoy their opulent lifestyles. 2. You can live pretty large on a 100k with no expenses. Both are true statements, both are options afforded the truly wealthy.

 

[christiefan915]

Unfortunately, Dix doesn't have a clue of which he speaks. He's either projecting how he thinks things should be if he ever was wealthy or he's been listening to people bullshit him.

////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

And what about tax shelters? The tax rate may be high on paper but how much do they actually end up paying?

I'd be happy to earn $1 million a year and pay the taxes on it; I'd still be better off and living large on the remainder.

 

[Rune]

Again, apple, he was was making two statements. 1. The truly wealthy can allow their money to earn enough for them to enjoy their opulent lifestyles. 2. You can live pretty large on a 100k with no expenses. Both are true statements, both are options afforded the truly wealthy.

Again, he and you are both wrong. Money earning interest is income. 2. No you can't. Property tax and utility bills and insurance for mansions cost a lot more than either of the idiot patrol seem to realize.

 

[apple0154]

Again, apple, he was was making two statements. 1. The truly wealthy can allow their money to earn enough for them to enjoy their opulent lifestyles. 2. You can live pretty large on a 100k with no expenses. Both are true statements, both are options afforded the truly wealthy.

If they are two distinct, separate statements, not connected, they should not be in the same paragraph immediately following each other.

Also, while both may be true statements and both options afforded the truly wealthy very few truly wealthy would desire to live on $100k a year.

And you're a Sweety.

 

[NOVA]

If they are two distinct, separate statements, not connected, they should not be in the same paragraph immediately following each other.

Also, while both may be true statements and both options afforded the truly wealthy very few truly wealthy would desire to live on $100k a year.

And you're a Sweety.

\
Don't play the moron and don't the rest of us are morons....learn to read, learn to comprehend what you read, ....are you really that stupid that your completely confused because two statements follow one another in a paragraph.....
It reminds me of Bush talking about 9/11 and Saddam in the same speech and suddenly idiots were claiming that Bush was blaming Saddam for the WTC ......and idiots not only bought that shit but still believe it today....

 

[apple0154]

\
Don't play the moron and don't the rest of us are morons....learn to read, learn to comprehend what you read, ....are you really that stupid that your completely confused because two statements follow one another in a paragraph.....
It reminds me of Bush talking about 9/11 and Saddam in the same speech and suddenly idiots were claiming that Bush was blaming Saddam for the WTC ......and idiots not only bought that shit but still believe it today....

Go back to school.