Pages

2/24/11

Will you ever get rich?

It used to be an easy question to answer if you were headed to Wall Street.

Not so much today...

Yet another look at America's growing wealth gap doesn't instill confidence.

In fact, if you stop to actually read the article you may wind up looking in the mirror and asking yourself some difficult questions with regards to your goals, aspirations and ambitions.

Proceed... with caution.

Very disturbingly the poorest 90 % of Americans make an average of $31,244 a year. While the richest 1% make a hardly inspiring $1.1 million plus.

Two Very Disturbing Extrapolations

1) $31,244 is a very humble amount of money. It is a very humble amount of money if you are a single person in their 20's living in a studio apartment in a not-so-terrific urban neighborhood. Taking into account this must read Zero Hedge article, (assist to VTech Forever on that one) we can safely say that the majority of today's middle class...really is poor. For an average of ~$30K to apply to 90% of the population (i.e. ~270,000,000 people) there has to be an anchor of dead weight pulling down the honest hardworking sub-six figure crowd subsidizing them.

But who cares...we are the elite,right?

Let us examine...

2) $1.1 million dollars is a nice chunk of change. Let's be clear. A mil definitely does not buy you what it once did. But it's still a nice number...

However...

If the top %1 of Americans (i.e. 3,000,000) make a mil...how discrepant is that figure, really?

Considering how many F50-1000 bosses make a lot more, considering the billionaires and media megastars involved...how many people are actually making that much?

Isn't it highly likely that the "typical Wall Street stiff making $400K/year" is the caboose pulling down this party wagon?

Isn't it actually becoming a reality that in the top 1%, the monkeys and the chimps are the anchor babies making the disgusting discrepancy seem more paletteable in this sort of analysis?

Tell me, monkeys...

What do these figures tell you?

Then think about it and answer honestly...

Will you ever really be rich or will you be paying someone else's free lunch so the real %1 do not have to?

Comments (353)

In reply to monkeysama
2/26/11

monkeysama:
There's implicit distribution of property and explicit distribution of property. The rich typically bend laws and regulation to implicitly benefit from everyone else, while progressive taxation is an explicit distribution. Neither of those is theft as theft implies an illegal taking. Both are legal, so by definition you are wrong.

Ever hear of a logical fallacy entitled "appeal to law?" You just committed it. He is talking "theft" as it applies to ethics not formal law itself.

2/26/11

Yeah right. My argument could suck cock on the corner and not be cheaper than the socialist, theft by force crap you continue to parrot.

The Buffet argument is stupid on many levels. Your comparing income tax with capital gains tax. Completely different.

50% of the US population pay no Federal tax. Of the 50% who pay, the rich pay most of it. How much less than zero do you want the poor to pay?

How about this. Poor people can walk around with a card that allows them to take whatever they want? Would that make you happy?

"The rich typically bend laws and regulation to implicitly benefit from everyone else"

Where are you getting your facts? Jesus Christ. Not every rich person is Paris Hilton. Many of them are hard working people who do way more for this country than they take.

Sorry dude. Stealing from people because they are successful doesn't make it any less wrong. And yes, jacking the tax rate on rich people with the sole purpose to "redistribute" to the poor is theft. Instead of a gun you have an angry, ignorant to right and wrong, mass of voters who will authorize this shake down and use the IRS and imprisonment or mandatory taking the property as the force to ensure compliance.

In reply to rebelcross
2/26/11

rebelcross:
monkeysama:
There's implicit distribution of property and explicit distribution of property. The rich typically bend laws and regulation to implicitly benefit from everyone else, while progressive taxation is an explicit distribution. Neither of those is theft as theft implies an illegal taking. Both are legal, so by definition you are wrong.

Ever hear of a logical fallacy entitled "appeal to law?" You just committed it. He is talking "theft" as it applies to ethics not formal law itself.

Ok, then the rich are 'morally' stealing from the poor by bending laws to their favor. What's your point?

2/26/11

OK, so we have a this country where all the people have exactly $100 each, there are a total of 30 people and that $100 is their entire net worth. They don't live great but they all eat fine, they have shelter, etc. All pay 15% in taxes and the government makes do with what it has, it's enough to protect hem.

Perfect world right?

OK, so a month goes by (inflation is 0%), and something miraculous takes place...now 28 of the people still have $100, but 2 of the people now have 4 billion dollars each. Nothing else has changed, everybody still pays 15% in taxes and the ones with $100 still have the exact same quality of life that they did before. The one's with the 4 billion live a better life obviously. Now 99% of the wealth is concentrated in the hands of a very small fraction of the people.

This is a terrible world right? The fact that two of the people are rich is inherently harmful to the other 28 people right? So they need to have their wealth redistributed to an amount that "seems" fair, right? Or, are we just dealing with envy here?

2/26/11

How are the "rich" bending laws? Who are these "rich" people.

Do rich people have magical powers to influence the flip or a coin also?

Invest in tampons and tissues boys. Lot of crying pussies in this country.

In reply to monkeysama
2/26/11

monkeysama:
rebelcross:
monkeysama:
There's implicit distribution of property and explicit distribution of property. The rich typically bend laws and regulation to implicitly benefit from everyone else, while progressive taxation is an explicit distribution. Neither of those is theft as theft implies an illegal taking. Both are legal, so by definition you are wrong.

Ever hear of a logical fallacy entitled "appeal to law?" You just committed it. He is talking "theft" as it applies to ethics not formal law itself.

Ok, then the rich are 'morally' stealing from the poor by bending laws to their favor. What's your point?

I'm saying you're defending government theft by suggesting it isn't "illegal" as a valid excuse. No, it's still theft, the law itself is inherently wrong to allow for such theft.

2/26/11

Rebel, give it up. Rich people are criminals and because they are rich, all crimes committed on them are ok. Rape is only wrong if you make less than 100K a year.

Welcome to socialistic thinking. Steal, kill, whatever you want. The evil rich is holding the people down.

Blah Blah Blah.

Booooooo hoooooooooooo

Meano Rich people

gimmie gimmie, I WANNNNNTTTT what you have

In reply to TNA
2/26/11

ANT:
Rebel, give it up. Rich people are criminals and because they are rich, all crimes committed on them are ok. Rape is only wrong if you make less than 100K a year.

Welcome to socialistic thinking. Steal, kill, whatever you want. The evil rich is holding the people down.

Blah Blah Blah.

Booooooo hoooooooooooo

Meano Rich people

gimmie gimmie, I WANNNNNTTTT what you have

The sad thing is, I want to say that this is rhetoric on your part...but I fail to see any reasoning coming from the other side that, in the end, simply doesn't boil down to this perverse mindset.

In reply to TNA
2/26/11

Argument: The Buffet argument is stupid on many levels. Your comparing income tax with capital gains tax. Completely different.

Rebuttal: How so? Money is money. The gardener does not make enough money to make a living through investment return, but a trustfundian can smoke weed all day and do so. If the both make 60k in earned interest why should the trustfundian pay less than the gardener?

Argument: 50% of the US population pay no Federal tax. Of the 50% who pay, the rich pay most of it. How much less than zero do you want the poor to pay?

Rebuttal: The poor pay by living in a system that is implicitly designed with laws that benefit the rich at their expense. Government supported monopolies, anti-union policies, a broken tax code, military adventurism. That's the implicit expense.

Argument: Where are you getting your facts? Jesus Christ. Not every rich person is Paris Hilton. Many of them are hard working people who do way more for this country than they take.

Rebuttal: I don't doubt it. But there are enough people like the Koch brothers with billions and billions who spend their time playing politics and hurting everyone else that the sum result is that the rich get richer and everyone else eats grass.

Argument: Stealing from people because they are successful doesn't make it any less wrong.

Rebuttal: You're still conflating theft with distribution, but you're still wrong. If I'm starving to death and someone is eating bread in front of me I will take some and eat it. I have to for survival. If I am obese and I take bread from someone who is starving that is a clear ethical violation.

Argument: And yes, jacking the tax rate on rich people with the sole purpose to "redistribute" to the poor is theft.

Rebuttal: Yes it is. Here is the definition from Merriam-Webster:

Definition of THEFT

1
a : the act of stealing; specifically : the felonious taking and removing of personal property with intent to deprive the rightful owner of it
b : an unlawful taking (as by embezzlement or burglary) of property

Emphasis on felonious and unlawful. If we can't agree on what words mean there is no point in us talking.

Argument: Instead of a gun you have an angry, ignorant to right and wrong, mass of voters who will authorize this shake down and use the IRS and imprisonment or mandatory taking the property as the force to ensure compliance.

Rebuttal: Laws are created for the advancement of the social welfare. I'm sorry you don't like paying taxes. Pretty much everyone has to pay taxes. Governments are created and run because without the use of force to collect payments and run society it wouldn't get done. The reason that no libertarian bastion of no taxes and laisse faire policy doesn't exist is that it is untenable. People are greedy to the point that such a society cannot be run.

2/26/11

Just by the definition of theft you posted (which is dumb because we're not speaking formally, we're speaking interpretive spoken English), definition A proves my point exactly so...yeah

act of stealing, taking of personal property = yes

In reply to rebelcross
2/27/11

^^^Ignore this, I missed the felonious, but here is another definition of theft:

noun
1. the act of stealing; the wrongful taking and carrying away of the personal goods or property of another

And it's pretty obvious that that is what is implied here when both parties are using this. Illegal is not inherently assumed by theft, "wrongful taking" was the obvious meaning here.

In reply to TNA
2/27/11

ANT:
Rebel, give it up. Rich people are criminals and because they are rich, all crimes committed on them are ok. Rape is only wrong if you make less than 100K a year.

You're kidding right? "Political sex scandal" has its own category on wikipedia.

Here's a good one too! http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=3977702&page=1

It's still a crime ANT, they just have that much more in resources to get away with it. Just like everything else.

In reply to rebelcross
2/27/11

rebelcross:
^^^Ignore this, I missed the felonious, but here is another definition of theft:

noun
1. the act of stealing; the wrongful taking and carrying away of the personal goods or property of another

And it's pretty obvious that that is what is implied here when both parties are using this. Illegal is not inherently assumed by theft, "wrongful taking" was the obvious meaning here.

Fine, then I think it's wrong that the gardener has a lower marginal tax rate than the trustfundian. So that's stealing too then.

2/27/11

The poor in this country live a fine life as compared to poor elsewhere. If you are starving, yes, take some bread. The poor here are not starving. They are simply jealous.

The poor pay no federal tax. The federal budget goes to wars overseas. The poor do not fund these.

The rich provide the poor with free health care, low priced state universities, food stamps, heating subsidies, reduced cost housing, etc. The rich pay for the roads the poor use, the free public schools the poor use, on and on.

Taxes at a reasonable level are not theft. We all pay into the system and benefit from the collective good.

Then you reach a point when taxes are more than necessary. Where taxes are used to manipulate and benefit people who have not earned it. When taxes become punitive. That is when taxes become theft.

I love how you bring the Koch brothers into things. The unions and poor have the Democrats by the balls. Social Security is a lightning rod because of old people. You make it sound like only rich are represented in this political system. Pretty foolish statement on your part.

Bottom line, this is a victim mentality. Immigrants thrive in the USA. People who have always had our benefits fail. We have a work ethic and culture issue.

My suggestion : Fuck them

Plenty of people from around the world who will take our wonderful country and its benefits and succeed. They will also do more for this country.

Monkey -- When are you starting your 40 hour a week volunteering schedule??

In reply to monkeysama
2/27/11

monkeysama:
rebelcross:
^^^Ignore this, I missed the felonious, but here is another definition of theft:

noun
1. the act of stealing; the wrongful taking and carrying away of the personal goods or property of another

And it's pretty obvious that that is what is implied here when both parties are using this. Illegal is not inherently assumed by theft, "wrongful taking" was the obvious meaning here.

Fine, then I think it's wrong that the gardener has a lower marginal tax rate than the trustfundian. So that's stealing too then.

Capital gains stimulates investments. Sorry dude, but Buffet has done more for the world and the poor than the gardener. Also, why not lower all taxes.

Your always free to pay the gardener more. Naaa. Lets just increase taxes on the evil rich mean-o's.

In reply to monkeysama
2/27/11

monkeysama:
rebelcross:
^^^Ignore this, I missed the felonious, but here is another definition of theft:

noun
1. the act of stealing; the wrongful taking and carrying away of the personal goods or property of another

And it's pretty obvious that that is what is implied here when both parties are using this. Illegal is not inherently assumed by theft, "wrongful taking" was the obvious meaning here.

Fine, then I think it's wrong that the gardener has a lower marginal tax rate than the trustfundian. So that's stealing too then.

Typical monkeysama nonsense. So the trustfundian is stealing from the gardener because a third party stole less than what you wanted to be taken from him than they stole from somebody worse off than him? Try again.

In reply to TNA
2/27/11

ANT:

Taxes at a reasonable level are not theft. We all pay into the system and benefit from the collective good.

Question for you, just to see how you think. Let's replace taxes with another word and see how you feel.

"Health care payments at a reasonable level are not theft. We all pay into the system and benefit from the collective good."

Health care providers and their parent companies are government protected monopolies that charge more than a free market would probably dictate. So are they stealing?

In reply to rebelcross
2/27/11

rebelcross:
monkeysama:
rebelcross:
^^^Ignore this, I missed the felonious, but here is another definition of theft:

noun
1. the act of stealing; the wrongful taking and carrying away of the personal goods or property of another

And it's pretty obvious that that is what is implied here when both parties are using this. Illegal is not inherently assumed by theft, "wrongful taking" was the obvious meaning here.

Fine, then I think it's wrong that the gardener has a lower marginal tax rate than the trustfundian. So that's stealing too then.

Typical monkeysama nonsense. So the trustfundian is stealing from the gardener because a third party stole less from him than they stole from somebody worse off than him? Try again.

It's not theft, I was saying that if you're assumption on what it means for theft to exist is true then so is mine. If your p then my q. Since I believe not p that would imply I believe not q. However, it is an implicit taking of capital from a standpoint of an equitable society.

Your also using the word "stole" for a taking of property that YOU don't believe in. The definition you gave is a "wrongful" taking. We clearly disagree on what constitutes a wrongful taking so it is unfair of you to assume that I would subscribe to your basis of value.

In reply to monkeysama
2/27/11

monkeysama:
rebelcross:
monkeysama:
rebelcross:
^^^Ignore this, I missed the felonious, but here is another definition of theft:

noun
1. the act of stealing; the wrongful taking and carrying away of the personal goods or property of another

And it's pretty obvious that that is what is implied here when both parties are using this. Illegal is not inherently assumed by theft, "wrongful taking" was the obvious meaning here.

Fine, then I think it's wrong that the gardener has a lower marginal tax rate than the trustfundian. So that's stealing too then.

Typical monkeysama nonsense. So the trustfundian is stealing from the gardener because a third party stole less from him than they stole from somebody worse off than him? Try again.

It's not theft, I was saying that if you're assumption on what it means for theft to exist is true then so is mine. If your p then my q. Since I believe not p that would imply I believe not q. However, it is an implicit taking of capital from a standpoint of an equitable society.

Your also using the word "stole" for a taking of property that YOU don't believe in. The definition you gave is a "wrongful" taking. We clearly disagree on what constitutes a wrongful taking so it is unfair of you to assume that I would subscribe to your basis of value.

Forget p and q...yes, my example was my definition of a "wrongful" taking (based on philosophy concerning the government's use of coercion which you are very familiar with by now and has been laid out ad nauseum). You can disagree on the wrongful or not (and that comes down to that coercion philosophy.) However, I am pointing out that your example had no taking in it, so forget the wrongful, agent A never took anything from agent B, there was only some agent in common that took from both. There's a reasoning gap there.

2/27/11

1) Are we debating tax policy of heathcare?

2)The poor, old, young all have free health care currently

3) I agree that healthcare should be made more affordable. I think this can be achieved through a variety of ways.

I personally have not delved too deep into the subject. IMO, off the cuff, I think insurance companies should be regulated like power utilities. They are in essence, a monopoly. By regulating them as a utility you would cap profits and change the investor profile. Instead of growth and price increase, you would see dividend investors, etc.

Listen, government in a developed nation should provide a safety net for people. We already fucking do this. It blows my mind who the left tries to make it sound like this is the land of the dinosaur where people are being ripped apart and ate. The poor have healthcare, welfare and a myriad list of benefits. Yeah, life sucks. But being poor fucking sucks.

Monkey, please answer me this. You tax the rich as much as you want, ok. What the fuck are you going to do with that money? Simply give it to the poor? Free healthcare? Then what. How are you going to make the poor study, do well in school, show up on time, save their money, have kids when you can afford them, etc?

People do not magically become well off. They do things that help them. You keep bringing up the super rich. I am talking about people who work hard, get a good education and make 100-200-300K per year. You want to punish them or tax them because they dont need that money. These people employ others, invest, spend, pay all the taxes.

In reply to rebelcross
2/27/11

rebelcross:
monkeysama:
rebelcross:
monkeysama:
rebelcross:
^^^Ignore this, I missed the felonious, but here is another definition of theft:

noun
1. the act of stealing; the wrongful taking and carrying away of the personal goods or property of another

And it's pretty obvious that that is what is implied here when both parties are using this. Illegal is not inherently assumed by theft, "wrongful taking" was the obvious meaning here.

Fine, then I think it's wrong that the gardener has a lower marginal tax rate than the trustfundian. So that's stealing too then.

Typical monkeysama nonsense. So the trustfundian is stealing from the gardener because a third party stole less from him than they stole from somebody worse off than him? Try again.

It's not theft, I was saying that if you're assumption on what it means for theft to exist is true then so is mine. If your p then my q. Since I believe not p that would imply I believe not q. However, it is an implicit taking of capital from a standpoint of an equitable society.

Your also using the word "stole" for a taking of property that YOU don't believe in. The definition you gave is a "wrongful" taking. We clearly disagree on what constitutes a wrongful taking so it is unfair of you to assume that I would subscribe to your basis of value.

Forget p and q...yes, my example was my definition of a "wrongful" taking (based on philosophy concerning the government's use of coercion which you are very familiar with by now and has been laid out ad nauseum). You can disagree on the wrongful or not (and that comes down to that philosophy.) I am pointing out that your example had no taking in it, so forget the wrongful, agent A never took anything from agent B, there was only some agent in common that took from both. There's a reasoning gap there.

Reread what I said about an implicit versus explicit taking. Writing the rules of the game so that your tax burden is less than someone else is a taking, just not explicit.

In reply to monkeysama
2/27/11

monkeysama:
Reread what I said about an implicit versus explicit taking. Writing the rules of the game so that your tax burden is less than someone else is a taking, just not explicit.

No it is clearly not taking. Without getting into whether or not they did unfairly rewrite the rules, even assuming they did, that is not the concept of "taking." Taking is the following: "to get into one's hands, possession, control, etc., by force or artifice." What you have just laid out fulfills the second portion of this "by force or artifice" however you have not satisfied the idea that the rich have gotten any property from the poor into their possession through an "unfair" tax burden. The "implicit" gains from this could be defined as many things, wrongful "taking" or "theft" is not one of them.

2/27/11

Man oh man, if the rich are so smart and powerful, why on earth do they pay most of the taxes and allow half this country to pay nothing?

I still dont get it. The poor pay NOTHING in fed taxes. How can you fucking complain about that?

ZERO
NADA
ZILCH

How are rich people screwing the poor when the poor dont have to pay a dime? Sounds pretty damn generous to me. Rich people pay for the poor so they can have free health care, free K-12, food stamps, section 8, heating subsidies, etc.

2/27/11

If anything, this argument should be about sales tax or state taxes. These are the only taxes poor people pay.

Only in America can you complain about people not paying enough taxes when you dont pay any yourself.

In reply to TNA
2/27/11

Healthcare was simply an example of a sector of the economy that I must participate in, whose prices are artificially inflated through government mandate, and what you might consider theft. I'm just trying to suss out if you believe that theft, what I think you mean by that is a price that is unfair, can exist in the private sector as well as government taxation.

Argument: Monkey, please answer me this. You tax the rich as much as you want, ok. What the fuck are you going to do with that money? Simply give it to the poor? Free healthcare?

Rebuttal: I won't simply give it to the poor (if by poor you mean the 90 percent of us). Health care should be reformed so that there is a national pool of individuals that pay into a pot which private companies can choose to service or not (like companies bid on the radio spectrum). Individuals can choose to be in the national pool or not, and companies will compete to offer the lowest price to pay into the spectrum. If you don't do this, or something similar, then moral hazard and low variable costs lead to monopolization and skyrocketing costs.

Argument: How are you going to make the poor study, do well in school, show up on time, save their money, have kids when you can afford them, etc?

Rebuttal: 90 percent of the population is making 30k or less a year. It's a little tired to imply that it's because we're all lazy welfare single mothers or are somehow just not trying hard enough.

Argument: People do not magically become well off

Rebuttal: You obviously haven't heard of inheritance.

Argument: You want to punish them or tax them because they dont need that money.

Rebuttal: Taxation is not a punishment, it's the necessary evil to maintain society.

In reply to rebelcross
2/27/11

rebelcross:
monkeysama:
Reread what I said about an implicit versus explicit taking. Writing the rules of the game so that your tax burden is less than someone else is a taking, just not explicit.

No it is clearly not taking. Without getting into whether or not they did unfairly rewrite the rules, even assuming they did, that is not the concept of "taking." Taking is the following: "to get into one's hands, possession, control, etc., by force or artifice." What you have just laid out fulfills the second portion of this "by force or artifice" however you have not satisfied the idea that the rich have gotten any property from the poor into their possession through an "unfair" tax burden. The "implicit" gains from this could be defined as many things, wrongful "taking" or "theft" is not one of them.

I disagree with you on the nature of what is unfair. I think the current system that gives all the gains in society to the rich and where 90 percent of people make 30k or less a year is unfair. So it seems we are at an impasse.

In reply to TNA
2/27/11

ANT:
If anything, this argument should be about sales tax or state taxes. These are the only taxes poor people pay.

Only in America can you complain about people not paying enough taxes when you dont pay any yourself.

You haven't read any of what I have said about implicit takings or are intentionally ignoring it. Or don't understand it.

2/27/11

Oh man, inheritance. The red herring of the left. FYI, many rich people are first generation or self made. Also, I didnt realize it was wrong to pass money to your family. Insurance can be used for this also and it very affordable.

Taxation for the sole purpose of redistributing wealth because rich people have too much of it is punitive. Calling it anything else is factious.
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=200802...

No way 90% of Americans make 30K or less dude. Sorry.

In reply to TNA
2/27/11

ANT:

No way 90% of Americans make 30K or less dude. Sorry.

Wow, that's a little embarrassing. I'm sorry, I should have said AVERAGE 30k a year.

In reply to monkeysama
2/27/11

monkeysama:
rebelcross:
monkeysama:
Reread what I said about an implicit versus explicit taking. Writing the rules of the game so that your tax burden is less than someone else is a taking, just not explicit.

No it is clearly not taking. Without getting into whether or not they did unfairly rewrite the rules, even assuming they did, that is not the concept of "taking." Taking is the following: "to get into one's hands, possession, control, etc., by force or artifice." What you have just laid out fulfills the second portion of this "by force or artifice" however you have not satisfied the idea that the rich have gotten any property from the poor into their possession through an "unfair" tax burden. The "implicit" gains from this could be defined as many things, wrongful "taking" or "theft" is not one of them.

I disagree with you on the nature of what is unfair. I think the current system that gives all the gains in society to the rich and where 90 percent of people make 30k or less a year is unfair. So it seems we are at an impasse.

We're talking about the concept theft here, not fair or unfair ("unfair" and "theft" are two very different concepts.) Clearly what you have described is not "theft," whether fair or unfair. As to how I feel about the issue you are addressing here, refer to all the rest of my posts on this thread not related to abortion or theft, and any posts that are to follow.

In reply to rebelcross
2/27/11

rebelcross:
monkeysama:
rebelcross:
monkeysama:
Reread what I said about an implicit versus explicit taking. Writing the rules of the game so that your tax burden is less than someone else is a taking, just not explicit.

No it is clearly not taking. Without getting into whether or not they did unfairly rewrite the rules, even assuming they did, that is not the concept of "taking." Taking is the following: "to get into one's hands, possession, control, etc., by force or artifice." What you have just laid out fulfills the second portion of this "by force or artifice" however you have not satisfied the idea that the rich have gotten any property from the poor into their possession through an "unfair" tax burden. The "implicit" gains from this could be defined as many things, wrongful "taking" or "theft" is not one of them.

I disagree with you on the nature of what is unfair. I think the current system that gives all the gains in society to the rich and where 90 percent of people make 30k or less a year is unfair. So it seems we are at an impasse.

We're talking about the concept theft here, not fair or unfair ("unfair" and "theft" are two very different concepts.) Clearly what you have described is not "theft," whether fair or unfair. As to how I feel about the issue you are addressing here, refer to all the rest of my posts on this thread not related to abortion or theft, and any posts that are to follow.

We have already disagreed on the definition of theft. Go back and read through our conversation.

2/27/11

90% of Americans average 30K per year? Why the fuck are we averaging things.

Break it down by income, no average.

Who the fuck averages this shit ? Wow.

Once again. 50% of people in this country pay zero tax. How can you complain when you get tons of benefits and pay nothing for them. Zero.

2/27/11

Rebel, Monkey things taking from rich people is cool.

He THINKS

He FEELS

Blah Blah. I am so glad I live in a country not run by what one guy thinks or feels is right.

I am still waiting to hear about your 40 hour a week volunteering schedule.

In reply to monkeysama
2/27/11

monkeysama:
rebelcross:
monkeysama:
rebelcross:
monkeysama:
Reread what I said about an implicit versus explicit taking. Writing the rules of the game so that your tax burden is less than someone else is a taking, just not explicit.

No it is clearly not taking. Without getting into whether or not they did unfairly rewrite the rules, even assuming they did, that is not the concept of "taking." Taking is the following: "to get into one's hands, possession, control, etc., by force or artifice." What you have just laid out fulfills the second portion of this "by force or artifice" however you have not satisfied the idea that the rich have gotten any property from the poor into their possession through an "unfair" tax burden. The "implicit" gains from this could be defined as many things, wrongful "taking" or "theft" is not one of them.

I disagree with you on the nature of what is unfair. I think the current system that gives all the gains in society to the rich and where 90 percent of people make 30k or less a year is unfair. So it seems we are at an impasse.

We're talking about the concept theft here, not fair or unfair ("unfair" and "theft" are two very different concepts.) Clearly what you have described is not "theft," whether fair or unfair. As to how I feel about the issue you are addressing here, refer to all the rest of my posts on this thread not related to abortion or theft, and any posts that are to follow.

We have already disagreed on the definition of theft. Go back and read through our conversation.

Actually we were trying to establish a concept of theft and you provided an example that by no definition could possibly be construed as theft, whether fair or unfair. You then answered this by saying we are at an impasse over what is "fair" and "unfair." Which was irrelevant to what we were talking about at the time. Go back and read through our conversation.

In reply to TNA
2/27/11

ANT:
90% of Americans average 30K per year? Why the fuck are we averaging things.

You know what I'd like to see. What the TOP 90% of income earners in this country average per year. It would be interesting to know just how well off most people in this country really are.

In reply to TNA
2/27/11

To unlock this content for free, please login / register below.

  • Facebook
  • Google Plus
  • LinkeIn
  • Twitter
Connecting helps us build a vibrant community. We'll never share your info without your permission. Sign up with email or if you are already a member, login here Bonus: Also get 6 free financial modeling lessons for free ($200+ value) when you register!
In reply to rebelcross
2/27/11
2/27/11
In reply to monkeysama
2/27/11
In reply to TNA
2/27/11
2/27/11
2/27/11
In reply to rebelcross
2/27/11
In reply to TNA
2/27/11
In reply to monkeysama
2/27/11
2/27/11
In reply to TNA
2/27/11
In reply to rebelcross
2/27/11
2/27/11
2/27/11

Pages

WallStreet Prep Master Financial Modeling