- This topic has 220 replies, 18 voices, and was last updated 15 years, 10 months ago by
CA renter.
-
AuthorPosts
-
July 21, 2008 at 9:17 AM #243869July 21, 2008 at 9:19 AM #243663
Allan from Fallbrook
ParticipantBorat: You consider “musicians” to be productive workers?!? How come every girl’s mother warns against dating them?
Oh…
July 21, 2008 at 9:19 AM #243804ParticipantBorat: You consider “musicians” to be productive workers?!? How come every girl’s mother warns against dating them?
Oh…
July 21, 2008 at 9:19 AM #243813ParticipantBorat: You consider “musicians” to be productive workers?!? How come every girl’s mother warns against dating them?
Oh…
July 21, 2008 at 9:19 AM #243867ParticipantBorat: You consider “musicians” to be productive workers?!? How come every girl’s mother warns against dating them?
Oh…
July 21, 2008 at 9:19 AM #243874ParticipantBorat: You consider “musicians” to be productive workers?!? How come every girl’s mother warns against dating them?
Oh…
July 21, 2008 at 9:24 AM #243668jficquette
Participant[quote=Borat]The data clearly shows the rich get raped. How you could see the opposite is interesting.
John, see my earlier post about the way the definition of “rich” changes depending on who you’re talking to. You’re using definition 2 of “rich” which actually means middle-class to upper-middle-class. By that definition we are in agreement, those people are getting raped with taxes (and I’m in that group!) However, the people that run the show, the people who engineered the Bush tax cuts and the financial institution bailouts and on and on don’t define “rich” in the same way, they use definition 1 (most if not all income earned through passive investment). They are saving tons of money with these tax cuts and we know that for sure by the fact that they’re funding articles like this in the WSJ.
Oh, and here are some examples of what I would consider productive jobs:
* Entrepeneur/business owner
* Attorney
* Doctor
* Engineer
* Sanitation worker
* Welder
* Truck driver
* Soldier
* Waitress
* Professional athlete
* Artist/Musician
* Firefighter/Policeman
* Biotech scientist
* House rehabber/flipper/real estate investor
* PlumberBasically, any actual job or profession I would consider to be productive work. [/quote]
The more jobs you create the productive your work is. Jobs that don’t creat other jobs are not the ones that make people rich nor to they help grow the economy.
People who are the risk takers deserve what they get and paying 40 times their share in tax is not something they deserve.
Perhaps we shouldn’t tax income, only assets. That way all the “old money” like John Kerry who only paid 10% income tax would be forced to pay their “fair share”.
John
July 21, 2008 at 9:24 AM #243809Participant[quote=Borat]The data clearly shows the rich get raped. How you could see the opposite is interesting.
John, see my earlier post about the way the definition of “rich” changes depending on who you’re talking to. You’re using definition 2 of “rich” which actually means middle-class to upper-middle-class. By that definition we are in agreement, those people are getting raped with taxes (and I’m in that group!) However, the people that run the show, the people who engineered the Bush tax cuts and the financial institution bailouts and on and on don’t define “rich” in the same way, they use definition 1 (most if not all income earned through passive investment). They are saving tons of money with these tax cuts and we know that for sure by the fact that they’re funding articles like this in the WSJ.
Oh, and here are some examples of what I would consider productive jobs:
* Entrepeneur/business owner
* Attorney
* Doctor
* Engineer
* Sanitation worker
* Welder
* Truck driver
* Soldier
* Waitress
* Professional athlete
* Artist/Musician
* Firefighter/Policeman
* Biotech scientist
* House rehabber/flipper/real estate investor
* PlumberBasically, any actual job or profession I would consider to be productive work. [/quote]
The more jobs you create the productive your work is. Jobs that don’t creat other jobs are not the ones that make people rich nor to they help grow the economy.
People who are the risk takers deserve what they get and paying 40 times their share in tax is not something they deserve.
Perhaps we shouldn’t tax income, only assets. That way all the “old money” like John Kerry who only paid 10% income tax would be forced to pay their “fair share”.
John
July 21, 2008 at 9:24 AM #243818Participant[quote=Borat]The data clearly shows the rich get raped. How you could see the opposite is interesting.
John, see my earlier post about the way the definition of “rich” changes depending on who you’re talking to. You’re using definition 2 of “rich” which actually means middle-class to upper-middle-class. By that definition we are in agreement, those people are getting raped with taxes (and I’m in that group!) However, the people that run the show, the people who engineered the Bush tax cuts and the financial institution bailouts and on and on don’t define “rich” in the same way, they use definition 1 (most if not all income earned through passive investment). They are saving tons of money with these tax cuts and we know that for sure by the fact that they’re funding articles like this in the WSJ.
Oh, and here are some examples of what I would consider productive jobs:
* Entrepeneur/business owner
* Attorney
* Doctor
* Engineer
* Sanitation worker
* Welder
* Truck driver
* Soldier
* Waitress
* Professional athlete
* Artist/Musician
* Firefighter/Policeman
* Biotech scientist
* House rehabber/flipper/real estate investor
* PlumberBasically, any actual job or profession I would consider to be productive work. [/quote]
The more jobs you create the productive your work is. Jobs that don’t creat other jobs are not the ones that make people rich nor to they help grow the economy.
People who are the risk takers deserve what they get and paying 40 times their share in tax is not something they deserve.
Perhaps we shouldn’t tax income, only assets. That way all the “old money” like John Kerry who only paid 10% income tax would be forced to pay their “fair share”.
John
July 21, 2008 at 9:24 AM #243872Participant[quote=Borat]The data clearly shows the rich get raped. How you could see the opposite is interesting.
John, see my earlier post about the way the definition of “rich” changes depending on who you’re talking to. You’re using definition 2 of “rich” which actually means middle-class to upper-middle-class. By that definition we are in agreement, those people are getting raped with taxes (and I’m in that group!) However, the people that run the show, the people who engineered the Bush tax cuts and the financial institution bailouts and on and on don’t define “rich” in the same way, they use definition 1 (most if not all income earned through passive investment). They are saving tons of money with these tax cuts and we know that for sure by the fact that they’re funding articles like this in the WSJ.
Oh, and here are some examples of what I would consider productive jobs:
* Entrepeneur/business owner
* Attorney
* Doctor
* Engineer
* Sanitation worker
* Welder
* Truck driver
* Soldier
* Waitress
* Professional athlete
* Artist/Musician
* Firefighter/Policeman
* Biotech scientist
* House rehabber/flipper/real estate investor
* PlumberBasically, any actual job or profession I would consider to be productive work. [/quote]
The more jobs you create the productive your work is. Jobs that don’t creat other jobs are not the ones that make people rich nor to they help grow the economy.
People who are the risk takers deserve what they get and paying 40 times their share in tax is not something they deserve.
Perhaps we shouldn’t tax income, only assets. That way all the “old money” like John Kerry who only paid 10% income tax would be forced to pay their “fair share”.
John
July 21, 2008 at 9:24 AM #243879Participant[quote=Borat]The data clearly shows the rich get raped. How you could see the opposite is interesting.
John, see my earlier post about the way the definition of “rich” changes depending on who you’re talking to. You’re using definition 2 of “rich” which actually means middle-class to upper-middle-class. By that definition we are in agreement, those people are getting raped with taxes (and I’m in that group!) However, the people that run the show, the people who engineered the Bush tax cuts and the financial institution bailouts and on and on don’t define “rich” in the same way, they use definition 1 (most if not all income earned through passive investment). They are saving tons of money with these tax cuts and we know that for sure by the fact that they’re funding articles like this in the WSJ.
Oh, and here are some examples of what I would consider productive jobs:
* Entrepeneur/business owner
* Attorney
* Doctor
* Engineer
* Sanitation worker
* Welder
* Truck driver
* Soldier
* Waitress
* Professional athlete
* Artist/Musician
* Firefighter/Policeman
* Biotech scientist
* House rehabber/flipper/real estate investor
* PlumberBasically, any actual job or profession I would consider to be productive work. [/quote]
The more jobs you create the productive your work is. Jobs that don’t creat other jobs are not the ones that make people rich nor to they help grow the economy.
People who are the risk takers deserve what they get and paying 40 times their share in tax is not something they deserve.
Perhaps we shouldn’t tax income, only assets. That way all the “old money” like John Kerry who only paid 10% income tax would be forced to pay their “fair share”.
John
July 21, 2008 at 9:31 AM #243673Participant[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]Borat: I think what is being missed here is what we in accounting call the weighted average. The top 1% of earners in this country earn (or, more importantly, control) a staggering percentage of the wealth.
You very correctly point out that while the WSJ article discusses various earning brackets, it conspicuously avoids mentioning the very top percentage or percentages. Breaking the data into quartiles allows for some deft manipulation of the numbers.
I am an avowed conservative, but even I will admit to being infuriated when I see how those that occupy that stratum have ginned the system ruthlessly. Or as the Golden Rule says: “Those with the gold, make the rules”.[/quote]
Allan, please explain how it avoids mentioning the very top percentage since it speaks to the top 1%.
Thanks
John
July 21, 2008 at 9:31 AM #243815Participant[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]Borat: I think what is being missed here is what we in accounting call the weighted average. The top 1% of earners in this country earn (or, more importantly, control) a staggering percentage of the wealth.
You very correctly point out that while the WSJ article discusses various earning brackets, it conspicuously avoids mentioning the very top percentage or percentages. Breaking the data into quartiles allows for some deft manipulation of the numbers.
I am an avowed conservative, but even I will admit to being infuriated when I see how those that occupy that stratum have ginned the system ruthlessly. Or as the Golden Rule says: “Those with the gold, make the rules”.[/quote]
Allan, please explain how it avoids mentioning the very top percentage since it speaks to the top 1%.
Thanks
John
July 21, 2008 at 9:31 AM #243823Participant[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]Borat: I think what is being missed here is what we in accounting call the weighted average. The top 1% of earners in this country earn (or, more importantly, control) a staggering percentage of the wealth.
You very correctly point out that while the WSJ article discusses various earning brackets, it conspicuously avoids mentioning the very top percentage or percentages. Breaking the data into quartiles allows for some deft manipulation of the numbers.
I am an avowed conservative, but even I will admit to being infuriated when I see how those that occupy that stratum have ginned the system ruthlessly. Or as the Golden Rule says: “Those with the gold, make the rules”.[/quote]
Allan, please explain how it avoids mentioning the very top percentage since it speaks to the top 1%.
Thanks
John
July 21, 2008 at 9:31 AM #243877Participant[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]Borat: I think what is being missed here is what we in accounting call the weighted average. The top 1% of earners in this country earn (or, more importantly, control) a staggering percentage of the wealth.
You very correctly point out that while the WSJ article discusses various earning brackets, it conspicuously avoids mentioning the very top percentage or percentages. Breaking the data into quartiles allows for some deft manipulation of the numbers.
I am an avowed conservative, but even I will admit to being infuriated when I see how those that occupy that stratum have ginned the system ruthlessly. Or as the Golden Rule says: “Those with the gold, make the rules”.[/quote]
Allan, please explain how it avoids mentioning the very top percentage since it speaks to the top 1%.
Thanks
John
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.