Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > What do you define as "rich"?

What do you define as "rich"? (Page 2)
Thread Tools
The Final Shortcut
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Mar 2012
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 5, 2012, 05:50 PM
 
That was supposed to be humour in return.......

Perhaps so, it seems
     
lpkmckenna
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Toronto
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 5, 2012, 06:06 PM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
Why are you guys arguing with a Canadian socialist regarding US federal taxes? At least US socialists can vote and have an impact, he's just... useless.
I'm not a socialist. I've voted conservative in every election I've ever voted in. As I've said before, I'm a "blue liberal." Besides, at the time of your post, no one had responded to my complaint, and you only did because you were suckered by someone's sock puppet.

Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
Hate to burst your bubble, but the whole world is financially going down the shitter, not just the USA.
The entire world is not going down the shitter. Some nations, like Canada and Germany, are doing fantastic.

If you plunder the incomes of the "rich" at obnoxious rates, as high as 90%+, it isn't going to fix the problem, not even close. You can bitch all you want about how some people have so much, but that's just jealousy, not a logical solution.
That's nice, but no one here is advocating that. Your war on straw men is a wasted effort.

The fix is to slash government spending and cut off career welfare addicts.
Sure, that will save, what, a few million at most? How much money do you think this actually is?

Entitlements, pork, and an over-stuffed military budget are the main fiscal problems in the USA.
The US welfare state is very small, so that can't be it. "Pork," i.e. public works spending is so small that the US infrastructure is in terrible decline. But we agree the US military is bloated.

as well as taxation on a progressive yet linear scale is the key. I'm not averse to a ~35-40% federal tax on all income for the wealthiest 1%
That's all I'm recommending too.

It's ridiculous that billionaire Romney pays a lower federal tax rate than millionaire Gingrich. The idle rich are fncking America like a whore. It's obscene. And I have yet to hear a single conservative on MacNN agree, even though I've posted that same fact at least 4 times in the last month.

The problem is that Americans have no civil pride anymore. They're rather curry favour with the rich than demand basic fairness for themselves.
     
olePigeon
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 1999
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 5, 2012, 06:31 PM
 
If I had to define a person as rich, I'd say a person who makes enough back in capital gains that it lowers their effective income tax from from the top bracket to a lower bracket.

I think that comes down to about $800,000 a year or somewhere around there, assuming you have a good investment broker. If I were writing a law, I'd just make it an even $1 million. Nice round number, and gives some leeway if you own some investment properties or have a crappy broker.

In my opinion, I think the income taxes are too agressive for middle and upper middle class, but not agressive enough for rich.
"…I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than
you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods,
you will understand why I dismiss yours." - Stephen F. Roberts
     
lpkmckenna
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Toronto
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 5, 2012, 06:56 PM
 
Originally Posted by turtle777 View Post
They do in some sense. "idle rich" as well as "working rich" both pay the same rate on investment income.
Another pathetic dodge.

Many "idle rich" are just that because they deferred spending for a long time (called saving and investing), so that they build up enough capital to later live of off that.
Does that sound like how Mitt Romney lives to you? That he deferred spending and didn't buy more homes than he could remember?

If you want, make the tax system more fair by just taxing consumption (I'm all for it). Because then I can save money upfront from my gross income. But taxing BOTH income upfront (income tax), and then later the income from investment (savings coming out of NET income) again at the same high rate is bullshit.
No, that's fairness. Income is income. And "taxing consumption" is class warfare, since the poor need to spend most of their income, and the rich do not.
     
turtle777
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 5, 2012, 06:59 PM
 
Originally Posted by lpkmckenna View Post
Another pathetic dodge.
Why do you complain ? Anything pathetic is just good enough for you.

-t
     
BLAZE_MkIV
Professional Poster
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Nashua NH, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 5, 2012, 08:11 PM
 
To me the problem with investment income compares to earned income is it isn't taxed quarterly, but whenever you feel like it so unlike earned income it can compound pre-tax till you can strategically withdraw it.
     
Wiskedjak
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Calgary
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 6, 2012, 12:44 AM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
... an over-stuffed military budget are the main fiscal problems in the USA.
This is one of the few times I've seen a conservative even dare refer to military expenditure as anything other than *under* funded.
     
Wiskedjak
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Calgary
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 6, 2012, 12:45 AM
 
Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
I don't define it for anyone but myself, because it's none of my business what someone else makes unless I'm responsible for paying them.
And that's the problem with these terms. There is really no way that they can be defined in a way that isn't highly subjective.
     
hyteckit
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 6, 2012, 07:21 AM
 
Ann Romney, wife of Mitt Romney, doesn't think she is rich or wealthy. She doesn't believe she is wealthy because it could be gone tomorrow.

Here's how Ann Romney define being 'rich':

"I don't even consider myself wealthy, which is an interesting thing. It can be here today gone tomorrow."

Ann Romney Is Talking Awkwardly About Money Now Too - Yahoo! News
Bush Tax Cuts == Job Killer
June 2001: 132,047,000 employed
June 2003: 129,839,000 employed
2.21 million jobs were LOST after 2 years of Bush Tax Cuts.
     
hyteckit
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 6, 2012, 07:25 AM
 
Rich: Making 10 times the standard of living in the area.
Super Rich: Making 100 times the standard of living in the area
Mega Rich: Making 1000 times the standard of living in the area

Standard of living: $40,000/yr
Rich: Making $400,000/yr or more
Super Rich: Making $4,000,000/yr or more
Mega Rich: Making $40,000,000/yr or more
Bush Tax Cuts == Job Killer
June 2001: 132,047,000 employed
June 2003: 129,839,000 employed
2.21 million jobs were LOST after 2 years of Bush Tax Cuts.
     
ghporter
Administrator
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: San Antonio TX USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 6, 2012, 07:26 AM
 
"Gone tomorrow," but does she have debt? Does Mitt have enough debt to worry about if he suddenly didn't have a huge investment income rolling in? This may actually be a better measure of wealth (richness) than income. Lots of stuff (Ann drives "a couple of Cadillacs") and no real debt seriously puts such people in a completely different stratum than the rest of us.

Glenn -----OTR/L, MOT, Tx
     
stupendousman
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 6, 2012, 07:35 AM
 
Who cares? As long as someone isn't breaking the law and is engaging in their own "pursuit of happiness" as is guaranteed by our Constitution, what business is it anyone else?
     
hyteckit
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 6, 2012, 08:00 AM
 
Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
Who cares? As long as someone isn't breaking the law and is engaging in their own "pursuit of happiness" as is guaranteed by our Constitution, what business is it anyone else?
Coming from a guy who is against gays in the military and gay marriages.

Hey, you are anti-gay.

I'm anti-mega rich.

I think allowing people to be mega rich at the expense of millions who are struggling to put food on the table is bad for society.
Bush Tax Cuts == Job Killer
June 2001: 132,047,000 employed
June 2003: 129,839,000 employed
2.21 million jobs were LOST after 2 years of Bush Tax Cuts.
     
stupendousman
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 6, 2012, 08:14 AM
 
Originally Posted by hyteckit View Post
Coming from a guy who is against gays in the military and gay marriages.

Hey, you are anti-gay.
I'm NOT any gay. I could care less who people want to have sex with if it has no effect on me. The problem lies in what some gay people want OTHER PEOPLE to do in response to who they want to have sex with.[/quote]

I'm anti-mega rich.
No surprise there.

I think allowing people to be mega rich at the expense of millions who are struggling to put food on the table is bad for society.
Your problem isn't the "mega rich," it's your inability at processing rational thought. The "mega rich" do nothing to stop people from putting food on the table. Most do it with no problem. Typically those who don't have problems not because the mega rich are doing something to stop them, but rather due to extremely poor choices in life or never developing valuable skills that they can market. Even before governments existed, there has always been huge gaps in the rewards between skilled high achievers and those who simply are not equals in their value to others. Also, having a society that sits around and looks for scapegoats to explain their failures, attribute to low standards of living every bit as much as some other guy getting more.
     
The Final Shortcut
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Mar 2012
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 6, 2012, 08:53 AM
 
Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
I'm NOT any gay.
Had to quote


(Flashbacks to token Republican anti-gay politician-who-turns-out-to-be-secretly-gay...Freudian slip much? )
( Last edited by The Final Shortcut; Mar 6, 2012 at 09:12 AM. )
     
Wiskedjak
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Calgary
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 6, 2012, 09:16 AM
 
Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
The problem lies in what some gay people want OTHER PEOPLE to do in response to who they want to have sex with.

...

The "mega rich" do nothing to stop people from putting food on the table.
What is it you think gay people want other people to do in response to who they want to have sex with? Do they stop people from putting food on the table?

Are you certain that the "mega rich" don't also expect OTHER PEOPLE to do things in response to the amount of wealth they have?
( Last edited by Wiskedjak; Mar 6, 2012 at 09:29 AM. )
     
stupendousman
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 6, 2012, 09:52 AM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Shortcut View Post
Had to quote


(Flashbacks to token Republican anti-gay politician-who-turns-out-to-be-secretly-gay...Freudian slip much? )
Hey, if pointing out a humorous typo is all you can contribute, bless you!
     
stupendousman
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 6, 2012, 09:55 AM
 
Originally Posted by Wiskedjak View Post
What is it you think gay people want other people to do in response to who they want to have sex with?
DId I miss something and there were laws now that stopped people (gay or straight) from privately doing whatever they want to do in the bedroom? Otherwise, there would be no need for legislation, laws or court rulings unless it where to force OTHERS to comply with the wishes of gay people.

Are you certain that the "mega rich" don't also expect OTHER PEOPLE to do things in response to the amount of wealth they have?
Not unless they can convince those other people that it's in their best interest, or pay them to do so.
     
Wiskedjak
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Calgary
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 6, 2012, 10:14 AM
 
Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
DId I miss something and there were laws now that stopped people (gay or straight) from privately doing whatever they want to do in the bedroom? Otherwise, there would be no need for legislation, laws or court rulings unless it where to force OTHERS to comply with the wishes of gay people.
So, again I ask, what is it that some gays are asking for that you seem to think imposes on OTHERS? Are they preventing people from putting food on the table?

Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
Not unless they can convince those other people that it's in their best interest, or pay them to do so.
At least one of the "mega rich" seems to think that the "mega rich" are already receiving special treatment from OTHERS in response to their wealth and that the discontinuation of that special treatment would help the economy (ie: ensure that people continue to be able to put food on the table). I've also seen some in here suggest that the "mega rich" should be taxed less because they spend more.
Warren Buffett calls for higher taxes for US super-rich | Business | The Guardian
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 6, 2012, 10:16 AM
 
Can we not derail this thread with previous posters stances on homosexuality and its rights?
     
Wiskedjak
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Calgary
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 6, 2012, 10:25 AM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
Can we not derail this thread with previous posters stances on homosexuality and its rights?
I don't think it's a derail at all. I think it's entirely fair to investigate possible inconsistencies in someone's position when the argument is based on "As long as someone isn't breaking the law and is engaging in their own "pursuit of happiness" as is guaranteed by our Constitution, what business is it anyone else?"
( Last edited by Wiskedjak; Mar 6, 2012 at 10:38 AM. )
     
Uncle Skeleton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 6, 2012, 12:39 PM
 
Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
"pursuit of happiness" as is guaranteed by our Constitution
No it's not
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 6, 2012, 12:43 PM
 
Originally Posted by Wiskedjak View Post
I don't think it's a derail at all. I think it's entirely fair to investigate possible inconsistencies in someone's position when the argument is based on "As long as someone isn't breaking the law and is engaging in their own "pursuit of happiness" as is guaranteed by our Constitution, what business is it anyone else?"
Hypocrisy doesn't invalidate a stance in and of itself, it merely serves to invalidate the poster.

To which I say, can we not derail this and make it about someone when it's about something.
     
stupendousman
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 6, 2012, 01:03 PM
 
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
No it's not
So the Constitution doesn't act to protect the stuff our founders said was "unalienable?"

Most experts I've read have stated that such is the role of the Constitution - to spell out in detail and protect the standards enumerated at the onset of our nation's creation.

But I understand you're just trying to pick nits here.
     
stupendousman
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 6, 2012, 01:06 PM
 
Originally Posted by Wiskedjak View Post
So, again I ask, what is it that some gays are asking for that you seem to think imposes on OTHERS? Are they preventing people from putting food on the table?
No. If they do not expect me to act in some way, then they really are free to do whatever they like. There's nothing me or the government can do to stop them. There are no laws or legislation necessary. It's only when an expectation that OTHERS react to what they choose to do, is when something like that necessary.

We are dealing with apples and oranges here, and it really is getting off topic.
     
lpkmckenna
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Toronto
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 6, 2012, 01:29 PM
 
Originally Posted by Wiskedjak View Post
This is one of the few times I've seen a conservative even dare refer to military expenditure as anything other than *under* funded.
I don't know if Shaddim really thinks of himself as a conservative; his view are pretty idiosyncratic. And I've seen him criticize the bloated American military before.
     
Shaddim
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 6, 2012, 02:13 PM
 
Originally Posted by Wiskedjak View Post
This is one of the few times I've seen a conservative even dare refer to military expenditure as anything other than *under* funded.
I'm not a traditional conservative, I figured most around here would know that by now.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
Uncle Skeleton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 6, 2012, 05:39 PM
 
Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
So the Constitution doesn't act to protect the stuff our founders said was "unalienable?"
It's downright weird to phrase it like that, but if you insist, a subset of that "stuff" only. For example, depriving someone of "life" or "liberty" is not necessarily outlawed by the constitution, otherwise there would be no prisons or executions. If you can't rephrase your quip using the rights described in the actual constitution, rather than using the DOI as a proxy, then your quip is simply false. That's why people say things like the DOI is not law or is not binding, because it's not.

But I understand you're just trying to pick nits here.
*high five* You keep saying things that are false, and I'll keep pointing them out. We make a great team.
     
stupendousman
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 6, 2012, 05:43 PM
 
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
That's why people say things like the DOI is not law or is not binding, because it's not.
The DOI is not "binding?" I'd like to see you have it invalidated. It's the document that all other that follows is based upon. Every one that came after it further detailed and outlined the concepts that it forwarded. That's not just MY view, but one forwarded by experts. One guy who strenuously made this connection was named Abrahram Lincoln. He argued that the DOI is the ultimate source from which the Consitution much be interpreted.

So, I guess me and Abe are wrong and you are right.

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
*high five* You keep saying things that are false, and I'll keep pointing them out. We make a great team.
Not really. It's like a lawyer who is trying to get a guilty guy out of jail because an "i" wasn't dotted or a "t" wasn't crossed. I'm not sure trying to press these sorts of technicalities is helpful to anyone who isn't trying to obscure the truth.
( Last edited by stupendousman; Mar 6, 2012 at 05:56 PM. )
     
olePigeon
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 1999
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 6, 2012, 05:51 PM
 
Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
So the Constitution doesn't act to protect the stuff our founders said was "unalienable?"
You're once again confusing the Constitution with the Declaration of Independence.
"…I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than
you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods,
you will understand why I dismiss yours." - Stephen F. Roberts
     
stupendousman
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 6, 2012, 05:55 PM
 
Double post
     
stupendousman
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 6, 2012, 05:55 PM
 
Originally Posted by olePigeon View Post
You're once again confusing the Constitution with the Declaration of Independence.
Go tell it to Abe Lincoln.
     
Uncle Skeleton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 6, 2012, 06:39 PM
 
Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
The DOI is not "binding?" I'd like to see you have it invalidated. It's the document that all other that follows is based upon. Every one that came after it further detailed and outlined the concepts that it forwarded. That's not just MY view, but one forwarded by experts. One guy who strenuously made this connection was named Abrahram Lincoln. He argued that the DOI is the ultimate source from which the Consitution much be interpreted.
Citation please. If the DOI was "binding," then why did they have to work so hard to pass the 13th amendment? Wouldn't that have been automatic, if what you claim is true? And when has a law ever been declared "undeclarational" by the courts? We know that the Constitution is "binding," because many laws have been found "unconstitutional," thus solidifying the idea that laws are "bound" to follow the constitution. When has the Declaration's alleged "bindingness" been put to practice?

Color me skeptical. I am open to being proven wrong, but it will have to be by more than the unsupported claims of a guy who can't even remember the difference between the constitution and the declaration of independence.

Not really. It's like a lawyer who is trying to get a guilty guy out of jail because an "i" wasn't dotted or a "t" wasn't crossed. I'm not sure trying to press these sorts of technicalities is helpful to anyone who isn't trying to obscure the truth.
It certainly is helpful, it forces the police to do their jobs without cutting corners. In the same way, it forces debaters like you and me to read our sources with a critical eye instead of simply hearing what we'd like to hear and then taking it as gospel for the rest of our lives. I hope you point it out to me the next time I accidentally say something that is objectively false, if it ever happens.
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 6, 2012, 11:17 PM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
It's simple, if I spend $5M /year on toys, I'll be in trouble before too long. $2M I can keep up indefinitely.

I still find it amusing that you seem to insist on regular reminders to us that you are rich. Why should we care how much money you make? Just say you are rich and make your point.
     
lpkmckenna
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Toronto
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 6, 2012, 11:35 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
I still find it amusing that you seem to insist on regular reminders to us that you are rich. Why should we care how much money you make? Just say you are rich and make your point.
You never need to guess if someone is rich. They will tell you, often.
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 6, 2012, 11:38 PM
 
Originally Posted by lpkmckenna View Post
You never need to guess if someone is rich. They will tell you, often.

And I don't mind being told this in a vague way when context is necessary, but this just seems a little pathetic and insecure, and I know that Shaddim is a prideful dude and probably doesn't want to come across that way.
     
Shaddim
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 6, 2012, 11:54 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
I still find it amusing that you seem to insist on regular reminders to us that you are rich. Why should we care how much money you make? Just say you are rich and make your point.
No, I just don't hide it. I'm not ashamed of what I've worked for and have no issues talking about it. Isn't that a good thing? Shouldn't everyone feel free to talk about their lives on this forum without having to filter everything for a few small-minded boobs?

Edit: I guess I could say. "How do I define rich? ME, motherf***er!"

But that's just crass. I'd rather talk normally and share some insights. Just think, you have a sub-1%er on the forum, and I converse with everyone. That's uncommon.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 6, 2012, 11:58 PM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
No, I just don't hide it. I'm not ashamed of what I've worked for and have no issues talking about it. Isn't that a good thing? Shouldn't everyone feel free to just talk about their lives on this forum without having to filter everything for a few small-minded boobs?

Whatever floats your boat, but it's kind of like the kid in school that would brag about his grades, the athlete that would go on about whatever thing he accomplished, whatever. You don't have to impress us, you are very impressive to me, I love you! I mean, I'm better than you, but you're still pretty good.
     
Shaddim
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 7, 2012, 12:07 AM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
Whatever floats your boat, but it's kind of like the kid in school that would brag about his grades, the athlete that would go on about whatever thing he accomplished, whatever. You don't have to impress us, you are very impressive to me, I love you! I mean, I'm better than you, but you're still pretty good.
I'm not bragging, I simply don't give a **** what people think with regards to my finances, or much of anything, really. I'm not going to tip-toe or beat around the bush, and when someone posts a thread about "rich folks" don't you think it's more interesting when one of them actually responds?
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
gradient
Mac Elite
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Vancouver, BC
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 7, 2012, 04:27 AM
 
Anyone who genuinely doesn't have to worry about budgeting or their income in general to survive comfortably could be defined as reach, from my perspective. It does seem to have more to to with net worth than income to me.

I know that's vague, but everything's relative.

Based on that, if you don't have to worry about your income to survive comfortably, then paying higher tax shouldn't have much of an impact, so suck it up. As far as I'm concerned, anyone who can define themselves as rich and still complain about paying into the public purse to help support the rest of society should be ashamed of themselves. No matter how hard they've worked for their fortune, I will never be convinced that there aren't millions, if not billions, of others who have worked just as hard for the tiniest proportion of their wealth. But hey, I'm a fairly pure socialist, myself.
     
Shaddim
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 7, 2012, 06:49 AM
 
Originally Posted by gradient View Post
Anyone who genuinely doesn't have to worry about budgeting or their income in general to survive comfortably could be defined as reach, from my perspective. It does seem to have more to to with net worth than income to me.

I know that's vague, but everything's relative.

Based on that, if you don't have to worry about your income to survive comfortably, then paying higher tax shouldn't have much of an impact, so suck it up. As far as I'm concerned, anyone who can define themselves as rich and still complain about paying into the public purse to help support the rest of society should be ashamed of themselves. No matter how hard they've worked for their fortune, I will never be convinced that there aren't millions, if not billions, of others who have worked just as hard for the tiniest proportion of their wealth. But hey, I'm a fairly pure socialist, myself.
I'm hardly selfish, I donate large sums to charity. See, the problem is, the people who control the "public purse" are incompetent dipshits, and I see no reason to give more of my money to idiots who can't even balance a checkbook.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
stupendousman
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 7, 2012, 07:17 AM
 
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
Citation please. If the DOI was "binding," then why did they have to work so hard to pass the 13th amendment?
Further clarification.

Wouldn't that have been automatic, if what you claim is true? And when has a law ever been declared "undeclarational" by the courts?
It hasn't. The Declaration sets out the basic principles, from which very smart men like Lincoln have pointed out that should be where we go back to when we a question arises in regards to interpreting the Constitution, which clarifies and further enumerates the exact rights that we have that were passed down from God and can not be abridged.

Color me skeptical. I am open to being proven wrong, but it will have to be by more than the unsupported claims of a guy who can't even remember the difference between the constitution and the declaration of independence.
Don't blame me for your lack of understanding of the founding documents. Like I said, if you don't like what I've said, take it up with Lincoln. He apparently didn't get it either.
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 7, 2012, 10:09 AM
 
Originally Posted by gradient View Post
Anyone who genuinely doesn't have to worry about budgeting or their income in general to survive comfortably could be defined as reach, from my perspective.
Problem is, the way this country has gone the past couple decades, we've reached a point where there are people making $150,000+ living paycheck to paycheck because they feel have their sense of entitlement as well (See: Big Mac's "Things they're accustomed to")
     
Uncle Skeleton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 7, 2012, 10:21 AM
 
Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
It hasn't. The Declaration sets out the basic principles, from which very smart men like Lincoln have pointed out that should be where we go back to when we a question arises in regards to interpreting the Constitution, which clarifies and further enumerates the exact rights that we have that were passed down from God and can not be abridged.
I don't think he said that. Can you provide a link now? I have searched, and didn't find anything.
     
Uncle Skeleton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 7, 2012, 10:30 AM
 
Originally Posted by gradient View Post
if you don't have to worry about your income to survive comfortably, then paying higher tax shouldn't have much of an impact
If you don't have to worry about income to survive, then you can afford to stop working when you realize taxes are being taken advantage of for punitive childish games. Then nobody wins. Is the government better off with 35% of a large amount or 0% of an even larger amount that never was?
     
stupendousman
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 7, 2012, 11:24 AM
 
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
I don't think he said that. Can you provide a link now? I have searched, and didn't find anything.
Here's a quick snippet from the Wikipedia page on the DOI, but it links to books, speeches, and other content which supports it's contention:

United States Declaration of Independence - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
This has been called "one of the best-known sentences in the English language"[4], containing "the most potent and consequential words in American history."[5] The passage came to represent a moral standard to which the United States should strive. This view was notably promoted by Abraham Lincoln, who considered the Declaration to be the foundation of his political philosophy, and argued that the Declaration is a statement of principles through which the United States Constitution should be interpreted.[6] It has inspired work for the rights of marginalized people throughout the world.
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 7, 2012, 11:27 AM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
I'm not bragging, I simply don't give a **** what people think with regards to my finances, or much of anything, really. I'm not going to tip-toe or beat around the bush, and when someone posts a thread about "rich folks" don't you think it's more interesting when one of them actually responds?
It is, but it makes no difference whether that person makes 2M or 5M a year. Not being specific about your precise annual income is not tip-toeing or beating around the bush. You've made it clear that you are in that wealthy income bracket.
     
Uncle Skeleton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 7, 2012, 01:14 PM
 
Come on besson3c, definite numbers are way clearer than vague, obviously PC jibber jabber. No contest. Easier to write and easier to read.
     
Uncle Skeleton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 7, 2012, 01:34 PM
 
Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
argued that the Declaration is a statement of principles through which the United States Constitution should be interpreted
That's hardly the same thing as "law" or "binding." When has it "bound" anyone or any thing, ever? Quite the contrary, we deprive people of their life and liberty every day, and we do it with pride.

If the Obama administration proposed something you distrust, like let's say they give themselves the power to arbitrarily raise taxes or close churches or something, but they declared a "statement of principles" that they would never use this ability except under emergency circumstances, would you consider this "statement of principles" to be "binding?" Or more like a literal "statement" of their feelings on the matter?

Like I said yesterday, it's only human nature to see what you want to see. Supporters of the administration would probably take that statement at its word, while critics would realize that a "statement of principles" is anything but binding.
     
stupendousman
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 7, 2012, 11:17 PM
 
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
That's hardly the same thing as "law" or "binding." When has it "bound" anyone or any thing, ever?
I'd ask the British that. Oh yeah, and Lincoln too.

If the Obama administration proposed something you distrust, like let's say they give themselves the power to arbitrarily raise taxes or close churches or something, but they declared a "statement of principles" that they would never use this ability except under emergency circumstances, would you consider this "statement of principles" to be "binding?" Or more like a literal "statement" of their feelings on the matter?
I guess if this "statement of principles' were what the people who CREATED THIS NATION IN THE FIRST PLACE had decided where it's founding principles, I'd assume it was binding. However, if a few guys who got elected decided on their own to just put into place what they thought where good ideas (what often happens in high court), it REALLY wouldn't be "binding" in the end as it could be easily overturned. Unless you are totally dishonest, it's pretty tough to argue against the prime principles used by our founding fathers as justification for a nation's existence, as a "binding" resolution in regards to our country's policies. I know however that such things haven't stopped irrational left-wingers from trying to impose their will on the rest of the nation. Logical and a deep understanding of human nature has never been their strong suite.
     
 
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 07:30 AM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,