little green box?

[Cdubyah]

agreed

[Vulcan_Rider]

if some one gets more than 250 rep points are some taken away and redistributed to everyone with less than 250 rep points?

(sorry I had to)

[Disclaimer]

If I had 250 rep points, I'd be more than happy to redistribute some of them to you less reputable folks. I don't need 250 rep points to live comfortably on this board, considering the 99% of others have less than 15 rep points. I'd be ok with 150 or so.

[SchmuckGirl]

:lol:

[Todd#43]

If I had 250 rep points, I'd be more than happy to redistribute some of them to you less reputable folks. I don't need 250 rep points to live comfortably on this board, considering the 99% of others have less than 15 rep points. I'd be ok with 150 or so.

If you choose to give yours away, great. Just don't force everyone else to make the same choice.

[Disclaimer]

Force everyone else to be less greedy?

More often that not, people with that kind of "reputation" go the philanthropic route anyway because they realize they have more "reputation" than they know what to do with.

[Todd#43]

Force everyone else to be less greedy?

More often that not, people with that kind of "reputation" go the philanthropic route anyway because they realize they have more "reputation" than they know what to do with.

Why do people like you equate success, or the fact that one has more than another, with greed?

There's winners and losers in every "game". There are "haves" and "have nots" in every country.

Even the Marxists can see that doesn't work. Look at the abject poverty in Korea, Cuba, Venezula. They "spread the wealth". Everyone doesn't have an equal amount.

Who decides how much is "enough" for one person to have? Isn't that an individual choice? I certainly don't want anyone deciding how much is enough for me.

You have how many motorcycles? Two?? Jesus, I think that's way too many. You should only have one. I'll give the other one to someone on the board that doesn't have any. Sound fair?

The bottom line is if you want to give away what you have, do it. Good for you. Just don't force everyone else to subscribe to your theory.

[Disclaimer]

Well, if the median income for the US is around $45-55k, then I think once you're making 100x that or more... that's a large enough spread to sit back and reflect on how much you really NEED to live comfortably.

I agree that in any game, you'll have the haves and have-nots, but how much do the "haves" need to show that they're clearly the winners? We're not talking about motorcycles here, we're talking about a GROSSLY disproportionate amount of income above and beyond average. I have less invested in my two bikes, my truck, and my GN than many have invested in ONE automobile. That's got nothing to do with "spreading the wealth" because I have two of something and others might not have one, that has everything to do with resource allocation based on the choices people make.

Its not about making everyone equal, it's making the delta of the incomes between the average and the "haves" more closely aligned with realistic expectations.

[Todd#43]

Well, if the median income for the US is around $45-55k, then I think once you're making 100x that or more... that's a large enough spread to sit back and reflect on how much you really NEED to live comfortably.

I agree that in any game, you'll have the haves and have-nots, but how much do the "haves" need to show that they're clearly the winners? We're not talking about motorcycles here, we're talking about a GROSSLY disproportionate amount of income above and beyond average. I have less invested in my two bikes, my truck, and my GN than many have invested in ONE automobile. That's got nothing to do with "spreading the wealth" because I have two of something and others might not have one, that has everything to do with resource allocation based on the choices people make.

Its not about making everyone equal, it's making the delta of the incomes between the average and the "haves" more closely aligned with realistic expectations.

You can't be serious, can you?

You have two bikes, a truck, a car when there are people that dont have any transportation? How the fuck do you sleep at night?

Our country was built on the premise that everyone has an opportunity, and its up to the individual to decide what they will do. Hard work is rewarded (financially - so you can buy things), and laziness isn't. Its simple.

There are plenty of people that have more than me. Do I want what they have, some of it. Should they have to give it to me? Hell no.

[Disclaimer]

You're still comparing my meager income to someone with less. I'm not making 100x more than your average income. It's the GAP between the highest and the least, not the simple fact that someone has more or less, that has no realistic basis.

Ask someone like Gates or Buffett how they can sleep at night.

And your premise that Hard Work reaps rewards doesn't always hold true. How hard is it to buy a lottery ticket? What lessons of 'rewarding hard work and opportunity vs. laziness' does that teach?

Edited November 4, 2008 by JRMMiii

[Todd#43]

You're still comparing my meager income to someone with less. I'm not making 100x more than your average income. It's the GAP between the highest and the least, not the simple fact that someone has more or less, that has no realistic basis.

Ask someone like Gates or Buffett how they can sleep at night.

And your premise that Hard Work reaps rewards doesn't always hold true. How hard is it to buy a lottery ticket? What lessons of 'rewarding hard work and opportunity vs. laziness' does that teach?

Yes, and what YOU have is more than someone else. It's all relative. It doesn't matter if its 100x, 500x or 1,000,0000x as much.

I'm sure that Buffett and Gates both sleep very well every night.

The lottery has nothing to do with it. I'm talking about taking what I've made through hard work, intelligence and luck and forcing me to give it to someone else.

Tell you what. Line everyone up...one line of people who feel that they have too much, and one line of people that feel like they don't have enough, but want some from the folks that think they have too much. Play matchmaker with them, and bring some sunshine to their world.

What line are you getting in?

[Disclaimer]

Yes, and what YOU have is more than someone else. It's all relative. It doesn't matter if its 100x, 500x or 1,000,0000x as much.

You just contradicted yourself.

It's relative, or it doesn't matter - pick one.

My whole premise is that its relative so it does matter whether we're talking 10x or 200x or orders of magnitude even beyond that. Your argument is/was (as I understand it) that scale doesn't matter, its more or less no matter the magnitude.

Again, and I don't know how many different ways to state this: For me it's not whether you have more or less, its HOW MUCH more or less you have that I have certain issues with. I can't really define a set threshold, but when you're on the scale of 100x or more of the national average - it's time to evaluate, honestly, what your life is about.

[Todd#43]

You just contradicted yourself.

It's relative, or it doesn't matter - pick one.

My whole premise is that its relative so it does matter whether we're talking 10x or 200x or orders of magnitude even beyond that. Your argument is/was (as I understand it) that scale doesn't matter, its more or less no matter the magnitude.

Again, and I don't know how many different ways to state this: For me it's not whether you have more or less, its HOW MUCH more or less you have that I have certain issues with. I can't really define a set threshold, but when you're on the scale of 100x or more of the national average - it's time to evaluate, honestly, what your life is about.

I think you're misunderstanding me.

The gap doesn't matter because its all relative...

You have more than someone....I have more than you....some else has more than me....and someone else has more than him. There will always be someone who has more. As long as they got it legally, what difference does it make?

For example, what has Bill Gates or Warren Buffet done that you or I couldn't have done? Are those two smarter? Probably. Better connected? Definitely. Do they work harder? Maybe. So because they've done so well they should be punished by having some of there's taken away and given to someone who isn't as smart, wasn't as well connected or didn't work as hard? That's bullshit, and I think at some level you realize that.

You've said yourself that 100x the "national average" is more than enough. If that's $50,000.00 annually, anyone that makes more than $50,000,000.00 a year is making too much. How many fucking people in this country make more than $50,000,000.00 a year? How much do you take from them? Who do you give it to? Everyone that makes 1/100th of the national average? How much do you give to them? Do you divide the total taken and give an equal amount to each of them?

Taking something that someone worked for and giving it to someone else just because the have a certain percentage less is wrong. Period.

[Disclaimer]

Your math is wrong.

100 x $50k = $5M, not $50M. Let's say 0.001% of Americans earn that, so 0.001% of 300M is 3k people in the US making over $5M a year. Which, according to McCain himself, is a good definition of rich (http://crooksandliars.com/2008/08/18/mccain-jokes-5-million-a-year-is-a-good-definition-of-rich/)

So, now lets say we put a hypothetical cap on personal income at this $5M mark. You can generate as much wealth as you want, but you can only keep $5M of it each year in your personal savings/piggybank, the rest has to be donated, burned, spent on candy, cars, vacations to Aruba or any other way you choose as long as it's SPENT. This spending would force the superrich to spend frivolously - which would create jobs in other sectors of the economy, force them to invest in new startups and technology or "sports" (Nascar, Football, F1, FIM), or get rid of the money in some other means that generate wealth to the general populace. Even if they burn it, it generates wealth through scarcity.

3k people that make in excess of $5M, the excess going to various facets of America (which for simplification purposes, lets consider an an average because some might barely make $5M, while others make $100M - so lets say the average 'overage' is $5M)... $5M x 3,000 = is a whopping 15 Billion dollars that, if distributed to everyone making poverty level income (which, according to the census in 2006 was 12.3% or 36.5M households) each would get an extra $411/yr, that I'm sure they could stretch a LONG way.

I'm just daydreaming stuff here, and a few of my assumptions are pretty off, but you get the idea.

[Todd#43]

Your math is wrong.

100 x $50k = $5M, not $50M. Let's say 0.001% of Americans earn that, so 0.001% of 300M is 3k people in the US making over $5M a year. Which, according to McCain himself, is a good definition of rich (http://crooksandliars.com/2008/08/18/mccain-jokes-5-million-a-year-is-a-good-definition-of-rich/)

So, now lets say we put a hypothetical cap on personal income at this $5M mark. You can generate as much wealth as you want, but you can only keep $5M of it each year in your personal savings/piggybank, the rest has to be donated, burned, spent on candy, cars, vacations to Aruba or any other way you choose as long as it's SPENT. This spending would force the superrich to spend frivolously - which would create jobs in other sectors of the economy, force them to invest in new startups and technology or "sports" (Nascar, Football, F1, FIM), or get rid of the money in some other means that generate wealth to the general populace. Even if they burn it, it generates wealth through scarcity.

3k people that make in excess of $5M, the excess going to various facets of America (which for simplification purposes, lets consider an an average because some might barely make $5M, while others make $100M - so lets say the average 'overage' is $5M)... $5M x 3,000 = is a whopping 15 Billion dollars that, if distributed to everyone making poverty level income (which, according to the census in 2006 was 12.3% or 36.5M households) each would get an extra $411/yr, that I'm sure they could stretch a LONG way.

I'm just daydreaming stuff here, and a few of my assumptions are pretty off, but you get the idea.

My math is off...so sue me. I've got the flu.

Wow....$411.00 to 36.5 million people. That isn't even $40.00 per month. When the gov't gave the stimulus checks for roughly the same amount, socialists like you whined and cried..."its not enough" or "what should I do with that".

You don't have to force the rich to spend their money. For chrissakes, you were bitching about what they spend it on two posts ago. Providing money to the economy in that manner is inflationary. When people HAVE to spend the money, or when there is a flood of money put into the economy prices will go up - not just for the rich, but for EVERYONE.

You're pissing in the wind dude. No matter how you slice it, taking money away from people that have earned it and giving it to people that didn't is socialist. Its not what this country was built on.

[Disclaimer]

It's NOT socialist.

Hell, the progressive tax was introduced by a Republican...

And the stimulus check isn't the same, not even close. So, who's pissing in the wind?

[Todd#43]

It's NOT socialist.

Hell, the progressive tax was introduced by a Republican...

And the stimulus check isn't the same, not even close. So, who's pissing in the wind?

The redistribution of wealth as you proposed it IS socialist. I'm not going to argue that point any further.

How is the stimulus check not the same? Oh wait, I know. It was only for people that paid fucking taxes. All those shitbirds that didnt pay, didn't get.

Why no answer regarding the inflationary aspects of your proposal? If you can't continue a cohesive, intelligent argument, take a hike.

[Disclaimer]

Whatever dude. We couldn't function in a purely 100% capitalistic society, so I guess you're again lost on the issue of socialism, and RELATIVE socialism. Apparently ANY redistribution of wealth is socialism and cannot be tolerated in your mind -- which is a really ignorant view on economics.

Socialism is trying to make the society egalitarian. Never, anywhere, did I say that's the solution -- in fact, I argued against egalitarianism. So, you're wrong that ANY redistribution of wealth is socialism, because we're not making it equal, we're just helping the "have-nots".

Inflationary how? $15B is what percentage of our $14 Trillion dollar GDP? Less than 0.002% -- so wtf are you talking about inflation?

I can't put together an intelligent argument if you don't know your facts, terms, and math.

[Todd#43]

Whatever dude. We couldn't function in a purely 100% capitalistic society, so I guess you're again lost on the issue of socialism, and RELATIVE socialism. Apparently ANY redistribution of wealth is socialism and cannot be tolerated in your mind -- which is a really ignorant view on economics.

Socialism is trying to make the society egalitarian. Never, anywhere, did I say that's the solution -- in fact, I argued against egalitarianism. So, you're wrong that ANY redistribution of wealth is socialism, because we're not making it equal, we're just helping the "have-nots".

Inflationary how? $15B is what percentage of our $14 Trillion dollar GDP? Less than 0.002% -- so wtf are you talking about inflation?

I can't put together an intelligent argument if you don't know your facts, terms, and math.

Package it up anyway you want. Taking money from someone to give it to someone else as a direct cash payment is bullshit. Call it Socialism, Relative socialism, Marxism, whatever you want.

You're not "helping the havenots" by giving them $400.00 per year. Your punishing the "haves" by taking money from them solely on the basis that they HAVE MORE MONEY THAN OTHER PEOPLE.

You requirement for everyone making anything over $5,000,000.00 per year SPEND it is inflationary. I believe that the total into the economy would be well over your "estimated" $15B annually. It doesn't take a large percentage of the GDP to be flooded into the economy to cause inflation.

Looks like your guy has a good chance to win today. Lets look at this in a year, and see where we're at. My guess is anyone with a job is going to be worse off twelve months from now.

[Dweezel]

Holy fuck, this shit again? seriously guys, agree to disagree, what the hell do you think your going to prove to each other? Welcome to America, you can do that, not agree with each other, ya know? holy fuck it's getting old. Every post I wonder into is political BS, if I wanted that I'd go to, I don't know, PoliticalBS.com?

[Disclaimer]

Looks like your guy has a good chance to win today. Lets look at this in a year, and see where we're at. My guess is anyone with a job is going to be worse off twelve months from now.

Well shall see, but methinks you'll have a taste for crow by then.

[dustinsn3485]

...because we're not making it equal, we're just helping the "have-nots"...

Why help the "have-nots" if they don't want to help themselves?

There's gonna be special circumstances in any situation, but generally those people that have no money have created that situation on their own. Why take money from the people that work hard for it from them and give to people who are begging for a hand-out?

I'm not going to debate, just felt the need to say this...

[Todd#43]

Well shall see, but methinks you'll have a taste for crow by then.

I highly doubt that.

We already know that Obama intends to repeal the Bush era tax cuts. That in and of its self puts me (and you) worse off. That is, if you have a job.

[Disclaimer]

I'm an engineer, but I def. don't fall into the pay scale where the tax cuts are being repealed. In fact, if Obama has his way, I'll be getting a lot more back.

[Todd#43]

I'm an engineer, but I def. don't fall into the pay scale where the tax cuts are being repealed. In fact, if Obama has his way, I'll be getting a lot more back.

Really? Obama has proposed repealing the ALL of the Bush tax cuts. If you make more than $30,000 a year (and if you're any kind of engineer, you should be) your taxes are going back up. The Dem's dont look at that as an increase in your taxes, just adjusting them back to where they were.

For example, before Bush's tax cuts a single person making $30,000.00 a year was taxed at the base rate of 28% or $8,400.00 (1999). Under the tax cuts by Bush that rate was reduced to 15%, or $4,500.00 per year. In addition, the income ranges for the various brackets also changed. Oddly enough under Bush, the highest tax bracket got LESS of a break than the lowest bracket.

http://www.taxfoundation.org/files/federalindividualratehistory-20080107.swf

When the cuts are repealed, we'll see where you are.

It'll be interesting to see how the "have nots" are gonna spend your money.

Edited November 5, 2008 by Todd#43