Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Good thing no one here suggested otherwise. No one being fooled by your lame attempt to save face.
I need to save face by pointing out you dont know the difference between income, and net worth? Haha.. oh my god, and you were a teacher at a university you say?
Quote:
Originally Posted by bUU
No, you just are desperate to try to make it seem like you knew what you were talking about when the reality is that you did not. The best advice you can take now is to quit before you dig yourself in deeper.
Is that really an intelligent response, worthy of a former university teacher? The old, na na na na, I'm rubber and your glue childish game?
Quote:
Originally Posted by bUU
Lying about what I wrote isn't going to help you.
Hell, you not only wrote it, but you started a thread using sources that didnt know the difference either
I need to save face by pointing out you dont know the difference between income, and net worth?
You need to save face because anyone in the thread can scroll back up and see that I never said any such thing; that you made that up; that you're lying and lying and lying to try to defend your indefensible perspective.
bUU, When you file your taxes what do they base what you owe on? Income or assets (wealth)
The government is taxing income, not wealth.
The first government assault on w2 wage earners (income earners) was back in 1943 when they plugged up tax loopholes increasing the tax burden on w2 wage earners. Take note, they left the real estate deduction and by investing in real estate you can build "wealth". When you paid down a mortgage you decreased liability and increased you're wealth.
As always the government is never happy so in 1986 they closed deductions for self employed people like doctors, layers, sm business owners. These people, typically s-corp flow through entities now had less money due to higher taxes which does effect employment. Note, the real estate deduction remained.
Obama again went after higher "income" individuals and at $250K. Obama said they were rich but that is not true, they are high income earners. Someone who is middle income can rise to make that kind of money. The problem is not making good money, it is being able to keep it.
That is 3 government assaults (taking away money) from wage earners.
The rich build wealth by keeping income down and building up assets. Imagine if the government would stop attacking income through taxation. You would have more money to spend, the wealthy would spend more all to the benefit to everyone including the government. The government is simply bypassing you, the economy, states and siphoning it off to send straight to them and as we see they are the worst at handling money.
Sorry but Obama sold you a fake bill of goods. $250K is not rich, it is high income.
If you are an employee you sell your manual labor to a company in exchange for a paycheck (income) and the government takes some of that income before you get it. The gap between the rich and poor does indeed grow larger with each passing year, but not because of inequalities or any other such injustices. Instead, it is because the rich understand money and how to use it.
You need to save face because anyone in the thread can scroll back up and see that I never said any such thing; that you made that up; that you're lying and lying and lying to try to defend your indefensible perspective.
One doesnt need to look further than the title of your thread to show that you did say such a thing.
Rich = wealth
And the OP thread you quoted says INCOME.
Those in the US in the top 20% income bracket give, "on average", 1.3% of their income to charity.
bUU, When you file your taxes what do they base what you owe on? Income or assets (wealth)
So you didn't like the fairness/economic equity/morality argument, so you thought you'd take another desperate crack at trying to distract attention away from it? Did you really think that that would work? That I would actually fall for your silly ploy and let you dictate the parameters of the discussion, and be so dazzled by your typing that I would agree to leave fairness out of the mix? Really? That's - really quite remarkable of you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by petch751
The government is taxing income, not wealth.
And the metric is assessing percent of donations is against income, not wealth. It's - really quite interesting that you "forgot" that fact.
Quote:
Originally Posted by petch751
Sorry but Obama sold you a fake bill of goods.
Sorry but the promoters of self-centered greed sold you a fake bill of goods. So now that we're "even", can we dispense with posting pointlessly vacuous nonsense, now?
And the metric is assessing percent of donations is against income, not wealth. It's - really quite interesting that you "forgot" that fact.
I dont think he forgot that part, I think he realized how stupid it was to make such a metric.
Tell me BUU, when the billionaires that are donating their wealth to the Gates Foundation die, and the total is HUNDREDS OF BILLIONS, how will that donation be computed into the equation because they will be dead and have no income..
So you didn't like the fairness/economic equity/morality argument, so you thought you'd take another desperate crack at trying to distract attention away from it? Did you really think that that would work? That I would actually fall for your silly ploy and let you dictate the parameters of the discussion, and be so dazzled by your typing that I would agree to leave fairness out of the mix? Really? That's - really quite remarkable of you.
And the metric is assessing percent of donations is against income, not wealth. It's - really quite interesting that you "forgot" that fact.
Sorry but the promoters of self-centered greed sold you a fake bill of goods. So now that we're "even", can we dispense with posting pointlessly vacuous nonsense, now?
I am not arguing about fairness. It is what it is and you have a choice. Continue to begrudge what it is and go nowhere and accomplish nothing or learn the differences between how a poor man views money as apposed to how a rich man does. They live, spend and invest very differently. Notice they do not sell their labor for w2 wages.
You are not going to change fairness no matter how much you argue.
I dont think he forgot that part, I think he realized how stupid it was to make such a metric.
Tell me BUU, when the billionaires that are donating their wealth to the Gates Foundation die, and the total is HUNDREDS OF BILLIONS, how will that donation be computed into the equation because they will be dead and have no income..
Yea if you are dead and have no income then even if you contribute 100% it still ends up $0
I dont think he forgot that part, I think he realized how stupid it was to make such a metric.
Which is nothing more than self-defining nonsense. You don't like the point, cannot refute it, and so you ignore it. No wonder your points don't warrant merit.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest
Tell me BUU, when the billionaires that are donating their wealth to the Gates Foundation die, and the total is HUNDREDS OF BILLIONS, how will that donation be computed into the equation because they will be dead and have no income..
So what you're trying to say, but didn't find a constructive way to express yourself, is that there are some exceptions. What an interesting thought you've had. If you added up all the wealth (and remember, now you've switch from talking about income to wealth - you did it, so don't think to try to whine about someone else doing it later) that is pledged to the Gates Foundation, how much does it amount to, and if you amortized it over the period between now and the final bequeathing, how would that change the metric? What? You don't know? So you really don't have any idea how much significance there might be to these isolated exceptions that you're hanging your whole rebuttal on now.
Quote:
Originally Posted by petch751
I am not arguing about fairness.
Okay but I am. You choose to ignore half the discussion - that's your prerogative - but it just means that your assertions are based on an incomplete understanding of the situation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by petch751
You are not going to change fairness no matter how much you argue.
Of course, but pointing out distinctions like this can foster those who have drunk the right-wing greed-mongering Kool-Aid to some day break free of their indoctrination and realize that there is more to life than just one's own comfort and luxury. Last summer I offered a sermon on the value of service. I mentioned that the value of service isn't only a reflection of how appreciated the service was by those who received it - but that a good portion of the value of service is how helping others is an expression of being human. This multifaceted view of such things is critical to a fair and equitable perspective on the worth and dignity all of us are inherently vested with. You cannot comprehensively discuss matters of society and justice without reflecting on all the various facets of the matter.
Last edited by bUU; 04-08-2013 at 11:14 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
