Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Great graphic of why capital gains are the real tax issue

Collapse

Google Ads

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    yep, pretty much. raising cap gains to be taxed as income may even offset some deficit issues while not deeply effecting your average person's primary source of income. Most of your low to middle class folks have the majority of their retirement assets in tax sheltered 401ks/ira's anyway.

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by Snidde22 View Post
      yep, pretty much. raising cap gains to be taxed as income may even offset some deficit issues while not deeply effecting your average person's primary source of income. Most of your low to middle class folks have the majority of their retirement assets in tax sheltered 401ks/ira's anyway.
      I have mine in coffee cans buried around my yard.

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by FuqMizzou View Post

        I have mine in coffee cans buried around my yard.
        solid investment strategy, I'd say. Until those damned gophers get to it.

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by Pollaski View Post

          How fucking greedy do you have to be to think you're entitled to over half of someone's labor or risk dividends?
          Is this where Pollaski calls the lower and middle class "greedy" in defense of people who have more money than they can ever possibly spend and use that money to buy politicians to keep their tax rates low and bail them out of bad decisions using public money rather than their own?

          There is no such thing as an ethical billionaire. Every billionaire got their way to the top via either inheriting massive amounts of wealth or by cutthroat business practices that screwed thousands of people over.

          Just look at Zuck. He fucked his friends over early on. Then he betrayed his users's trust by selling our private info and behaviors to marketing firms without our permission. You think he's going to be penalized for this? Why would you go to bat for such a shitbag?

          If we're being truly honest, we'd cut taxes even more on the rich and, in turn, cut services such as police and military. Then rich folks with tons of money can spend a vast sum on a private army to keep the starving populace from storming their gates and stealing their property.

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by DPR View Post

            Is this where Pollaski calls the lower and middle class "greedy" in defense of people who have more money than they can ever possibly spend and use that money to buy politicians to keep their tax rates low and bail them out of bad decisions using public money rather than their own?

            There is no such thing as an ethical billionaire. Every billionaire got their way to the top via either inheriting massive amounts of wealth or by cutthroat business practices that screwed thousands of people over.

            Just look at Zuck. He fucked his friends over early on. Then he betrayed his users's trust by selling our private info and behaviors to marketing firms without our permission. You think he's going to be penalized for this? Why would you go to bat for such a shitbag?

            If we're being truly honest, we'd cut taxes even more on the rich and, in turn, cut services such as police and military. Then rich folks with tons of money can spend a vast sum on a private army to keep the starving populace from storming their gates and stealing their property.
            LMFAO. Just... LMFAO.

            "Theyre big meanies and we have to punish them!"

            Im sorry youre not smart enough to devise a product that millions of people want and figured out how to make money on it. But spare me the petulant tantrum.

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by Pollaski View Post

              LMFAO. Just... LMFAO.

              "Theyre big meanies and we have to punish them!"

              Im sorry youre not smart enough to devise a product that millions of people want and figured out how to make money on it. But spare me the petulant tantrum.
              Wait, so are you saying we shouldn't punish businessmen who lie to their consumers about the products they are using?

              I'm somewhat expecting Pollaski to say rich people with enough money should be allowed to hunt poor people for sport.

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by DPR View Post

                Wait, so are you saying we shouldn't punish businessmen who lie to their consumers about the products they are using?

                I'm somewhat expecting Pollaski to say rich people with enough money should be allowed to hunt poor people for sport.
                And now comes the strawmanning. False advertising is already illegal. Now, if you want to argue for stricter laws and harsher penalties on that front, go ahead. Id probably agree with you. But this blanket "businessmen are by nature unethical therefore we should tax them over half" is just economic guillotining.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by Pollaski View Post

                  And now comes the strawmanning. False advertising is already illegal. Now, if you want to argue for stricter laws and harsher penalties on that front, go ahead. Id probably agree with you. But this blanket "businessmen are by nature unethical therefore we should tax them over half" is just economic guillotining.
                  If false advertising and privacy theft are illegal, why isn't Zuck in jail?

                  A business can illegally dump chemicals into a river if it knows the fine is cheaper than the cost of safely removing those chemicals. Is that ethical behavior or cutthroat business practice?

                  And it's not really strawmanning considering you are someone who has said, in the past, that you admire Vlades Tepes.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by DPR View Post

                    If false advertising and privacy theft are illegal, why isn't Zuck in jail?

                    A business can illegally dump chemicals into a river if it knows the fine is cheaper than the cost of safely removing those chemicals. Is that ethical behavior or cutthroat business practice?

                    And it's not really strawmanning considering you are someone who has said, in the past, that you admire Vlades Tepes.
                    You'll have to ask the justice department. Did Zuckerberg false advertise? Does he steal info? Everyone knew from day freaking one that Facebook (along with a ton of others) was a data mining site. It was in the terms of agreement. Is Zuckerberg really responsible because people weren't smart enough to read and figure it out?

                    And here's a better question- if Zuckerberg's screwing over his customers, why does he still have them? If people would abandon him in droves, his revenue stream dries up.

                    And if the fine is cheaper than the cost of removing the chemicals, then increase the fine. SImple.

                    And its hilarious that you're still so hung up on the Vlad Tepes things, despite me explaining it twenty times. Shows what a dishonest shill you really are.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by Pollaski View Post

                      You'll have to ask the justice department. Did Zuckerberg false advertise? Does he steal info? Everyone knew from day freaking one that Facebook (along with a ton of others) was a data mining site. It was in the terms of agreement. Is Zuckerberg really responsible because people weren't smart enough to read and figure it out?

                      And here's a better question- if Zuckerberg's screwing over his customers, why does he still have them? If people would abandon him in droves, his revenue stream dries up.

                      And if the fine is cheaper than the cost of removing the chemicals, then increase the fine. SImple.

                      And its hilarious that you're still so hung up on the Vlad Tepes things, despite me explaining it twenty times. Shows what a dishonest shill you really are.
                      Yes, he did. There's not really much debate about that, and some of the information that was taken is protected by laws that supersede Facebook's silly TOS. By the way, for those of you who don't know, TOS agreements get routinely fucked raw dog in court worse than pre-nups. They exist to prevent people from trying to sue, not to eliminate fault or liability.

                      Facebook has lost a lot of users and their stock is way down as a result. Empires don't fall overnight.

                      You're asking the government to react to market fluctuations? Don't be retarded, these people can't sharpen their pencils without sending 50 memos.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by tOSUfanboi2 View Post

                        Yes, he did. There's not really much debate about that, and some of the information that was taken is protected by laws that supersede Facebook's silly TOS. By the way, for those of you who don't know, TOS agreements get routinely fucked raw dog in court worse than pre-nups. They exist to prevent people from trying to sue, not to eliminate fault or liability.

                        Facebook has lost a lot of users and their stock is way down as a result. Empires don't fall overnight.

                        You're asking the government to react to market fluctuations? Don't be retarded, these people can't sharpen their pencils without sending 50 memos.
                        Y'know, its funny, because there's actually someone who's fighting a tech giant over their terms of service and their failures to live up to it. You'd think someone like DPR would support it. But its Dennis Prager, so instead its "lol butthurt conservative snowflakes", because he's a shill.

                        And good. Hopefully he'll continue to lose them. Won't sadden me at all if Facebook dies. My account there is the very definition of perfunctory.

                        And considering the nature of this thread, "we need more taxes because the government sucks" is probably the most hilarious argument I've ever heard.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by Pollaski View Post

                          Y'know, its funny, because there's actually someone who's fighting a tech giant over their terms of service and their failures to live up to it. You'd think someone like DPR would support it. But its Dennis Prager, so instead its "lol butthurt conservative snowflakes", because he's a shill.

                          And good. Hopefully he'll continue to lose them. Won't sadden me at all if Facebook dies. My account there is the very definition of perfunctory.

                          And considering the nature of this thread, "we need more taxes because the government sucks" is probably the most hilarious argument I've ever heard.
                          Prager has a good case, I hope he wins.

                          Yeah it's terrible, but so are most social media platforms.

                          I'm just saying in this particular instance, you might as well be asking an offensive lineman to throw a 60 yard touchdown pass.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            So a government whose power has gotten out of the control of it's average citizens should be awarded more money to fix the problem....

                            I'm struggling to find the logic behind this. I need more info from those who support this notion.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by daCat View Post
                              So a government whose power has gotten out of the control of it's average citizens should be awarded more money to fix the problem....

                              I'm struggling to find the logic behind this. I need more info from those who support this notion.
                              And you think Trump isn't out of control?

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by sctrojan View Post

                                And you think Trump isn't out of control?
                                Trump is but a pea in a cauldron of soup.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X