The Rich Paying Fair Share?

[Horwood Beer-Master]

...I never called anyone dependent.

Seth did. I was replying to Seth.

[Svartalf]

...is fucking stupid. After tax they are still getting vastly more than the majority below them...

Exactly.

These people claim that the amount of tax they have to pay shows they are unappreciated for their efforts and contributions (whatever the hell those may be), but if they're measuring "appreciation" in monetary terms then even after tax they are massively more "appreciated" then all those "scrounging" nurses and teachers - which is exactly the way they supposedly want it. So what the fuck are they complaining about?

They are complaining about having the fruits of their labor stolen from them to serve the needs of useless, dependent class fuckwads who contribute nothing to the economy but demand largess from the government because they think someone owes them a living.

If everyone you consider "dependent" on the super-rich were to disappear tomorrow, you'd learn a fairly hard sharp lesson on who's really the "dependent" ones...

C'mon, Prestige brands like Louis Vuitton, most haute couture, and champagne makers would go into brankruptcy within the year if the 1% were to disappear

[Audley Strange]

Rich people whine about money, poor people whine about money. Why is one set of humans whining justified and another not?

[Coito ergo sum]

...is fucking stupid. After tax they are still getting vastly more than the majority below them...

Exactly.

These people claim that the amount of tax they have to pay shows they are unappreciated for their efforts and contributions (whatever the hell those may be), but if they're measuring "appreciation" in monetary terms then even after tax they are massively more "appreciated" then all those "scrounging" nurses and teachers - which is exactly the way they supposedly want it. So what the fuck are they complaining about?

They aren't worried about whether anyone "appreciates" them. They're worried about earning money and/or taking risks with their capital, and having the proceeds taken away at confiscatory rates.

The point is, they're clearly still reaping in (far) more than enough proceeds to make it (highly) worth their while to continue doing what they're doing regardless of taxation.

And yet taxation "worries" them? What a bunch of self-absorbed pricks.

LOL - sounds like you never tried to make money. You don't think an 80% taxation rate would be a disincentive?

Nobody is talking about giving them a tax cut here. The question was -- are they paying their fair share NOW when the top 5% pay more than 50% of the entire tax burden? If not, how much of the entire tax burden SHOULD the top 5% pay? I mean -- 60%? 70% 100% of the tax burden so the top 5% would be the only taxpayers?

Why is this question so hard for folks in the "they're not paying their fair share" camp to answer? Nobody has yet answered it.

Someone said "80% of their income if they make over $200,000" -- but, that's still not answering the question -- is it fucking their fair share to pay more than 50% of the taxes paid? Or, should they fucking pay more? If so, HOW MUCH MORE? What percentage of the total tax burden SHOULD the top 5% pay?

[Svartalf]

Rich people whine about money, poor people whine about money. Why is one set of humans whining justified and another not?

Because one set has more money than they can actually use, and the other actually needs extra money to live comfortably?

[Audley Strange]

Rich people whine about money, poor people whine about money. Why is one set of humans whining justified and another not?

Because one set has more money than they can actually use, and the other actually needs extra money to live comfortably?

Well I'm afraid those who have less money need to alter their perceptions of what living comfortably means. It just seems like one side have no empathy and the others are jealous cunts.

[Svartalf]

Well, I sure have no empathy for the rich, and envious cunts will enventually messily massacre the jealous ones who're hoarding the riches they can't use anyway.

[Audley Strange]

Well, I sure have no empathy for the rich, and envious cunts will enventually messily massacre the jealous ones who're hoarding the riches they can't use anyway.

Yup creating a new class of Rich cunts and a new class of poor cunts. Hooray for revolution!!!

[Coito ergo sum]

Rich people whine about money, poor people whine about money. Why is one set of humans whining justified and another not?

Because one set has more money than they can actually use, and the other actually needs extra money to live comfortably?

And, we have apparently raised a generation of people who sincerely think that that statement entitles the latter group to be given money. I find this a disturbing trend.

It used to be that the "needy" were supposed to be helped. Now, everyone is supposed to be just given whatever they need to "live comfortably." Not sure when this happened, but it is very unattractive to see this attitude in a person. It's just distasteful.

There is a scene in the movie "Cindarella Man" where the destitute fighter James J. Braddock went very broke, to the point where the power company was cutting off the power and he could not afford to feed his family. He went and applied for public assistance, and got the assistance. With that he was able to get through his tough time and get back on his feet. When he made some extra money, he paid the public assistance back to the government. Supposedly, the real James J. Braddock actually did that.

Now, we have a whole generation of self-entitled pussies who don't have the brains, drive or ambition to go make a few dollars, and instead they'd prefer to break windows, shit on cop cars and/or whine that other people are making money -- and not only that, they claim an entitlement to some of that money as their birthright. Shameful.

[Svartalf]

You seem to forget old time when evergetism was a recognized virtue, and when the patricians literally patronized their clientele by making sure they could get by without problems.

Since the wealthy no longer have such a personal relationship with their parent state and its less well off, it behooves the state remind them of it, and take what's needed to ensure the less favore citizenry still can keep a shred of its dignity and is not pushed into violence and riotry.

[Horwood Beer-Master]

Rich people whine about money, poor people whine about money. Why is one set of humans whining justified and another not?

Starving Africans whine about food, obese westerners whine about food. Why is one set of humans whining justified and another not?

...You don't think an 80% taxation rate would be a disincentive?..

Depends what they took home afterwards.

It's not the money you don't end up with that determines whether something is worth your while doing, it's the money you do.

...Well I'm afraid those who have less money need to alter their perceptions of what living comfortably means. It just seems like one side have no empathy and the others are jealous cunts.

Genuinely believing you're being unjustly let down by the system is not always the same thing as simply being "jealous". Or maybe to put it another way being jealous is not always the same as being wrong.

Certain politicians are very fond of condemning certain proposed policies as "the politics of envy", but if you think about it, that's not really a criticism in-and-of-itself. At the very best it might be called an observation - but if so it just leads one to say "and? So what?".

What the phrase "the politics of envy" really is is simply a thought-terminating cliché - "Oh we mustn't do that, it's the politics of envy" - OK. So now tell me why we mustn't do it.

[Coito ergo sum]

You seem to forget old time when evergetism was a recognized virtue, and when the patricians literally patronized their clientele by making sure they could get by without problems.

When and where was this?

Since the wealthy no longer have such a personal relationship with their parent state and its less well off, it behooves the state remind them of it, and take what's needed to ensure the less favore citizenry still can keep a shred of its dignity and is not pushed into violence and riotry.

Nonsense. The poor are taken better care of today in western countries, including the US, than ever before in the history of mankind, yet we have more bitching about it than ever in the history of mankind.

[Audley Strange]

Rich people whine about money, poor people whine about money. Why is one set of humans whining justified and another not?

Starving Africans whine about food, obese westerners whine about food. Why is one set of humans whining justified and another not?

No idea, that's why I'm asking. Any clue? No one stuffed them with burgers and no one forced them to live and breed in famine zones.

Genuinely believing you're being unjustly let down by the system is not always the same thing as simply being "jealous". Or maybe to put it another way being jealous is not always the same as being wrong.

Yeah people genuinely believe all sorts of crap, that doesn't make them right either.

Certain politicians are very fond of condemning certain proposed policies as "the politics of envy", but if you think about it, that's not really a criticism in-and-of-itself. At the very best it might be called an observation - but if so it just leads one to say "and? So what?".

What the phrase "the politics of envy" really is is simply a thought-terminating cliché - "Oh we mustn't do that, it's the politics of envy" - OK. So now tell me why we mustn't do it.

No idea, can you tell me why we should?

[Sean Hayden]

I don't know anything about these things, so let me annoy you with some stupid questions. How can anyone possibly determine what is a fair tax rate without examining the things bought with their taxes?

I mean, everyone in Syria is paying too much -right?

Isn't it weird that people think they can tease out an appropriate rate solely by comparing who's paying what? It seems weird to me.

[Coito ergo sum]

Rich people whine about money, poor people whine about money. Why is one set of humans whining justified and another not?

Starving Africans whine about food, obese westerners whine about food. Why is one set of humans whining justified and another not?

Nobody is talking about allowing starving people to starve, are they? There is a difference between people who are needy, and suggesting that people ought to be guaranteed comfort on other people's dime. Mainly, it's unsustainable, because it incentivizes just living off others. Why bother taking a risk, if you're already guaranteed a comfortable life? Eventually, who is left to foot the bill?

Answer - not enough people. So, the State is forced to compel people to work to support other people. That is Marxist socialism -- from each according to ability to give (not willingness..."ability.").

...You don't think an 80% taxation rate would be a disincentive?..

Depends what they took home afterwards.

Well, someone making $200,000 would take home $40k. I tell ya -- I can make $40k with one hand wrapped around my dick. It's fucking hard to make $200K. The people making $200k aren't working 8 hour days, and keeping up on episodes of Survivor. This is what some folks don't seem to get. People who make that kind of money have to produce to earn it. Someone else in the private sector is writing that check, and they damn fucking skippy don't pay $200k salaries for the fun of it or because they're pals.

It's not the money you don't end up with that determines whether something is worth your while doing, it's the money you do.

This isn't rocket science. If someone says "anyone making over $200k should pay 80%" then that 200k person takes home $40k. A $300k earner takes home $60k, and a $400k earner takes home $80k.

Now, to make $200k to $400k, you're generally either an executive officer of a corporation, a really good doctor/lawyer, or an investor of some kind, etc. Those that are executive officers/owners of corporations and really good doctors/lawyers break their fucking balls to make that money. They DO work harder than 95% of the rest of the population. The investor puts his own money at risk and could wind up with nothing.

That's the reality for most folks in that range. They do not do the same thing as the person with a 9 to 5-er who watches 4 hours of t.v. a day. Not even close. To suggest that the only reason the $200k to $400k range (aka the vast majority of "the rich") get there by being just as lazy as everyone else is just plain wrong.