| ctrl+f noblesse oblige No results found |
| @omfgplzstop Let me keep it simple. Rich people pay more taxes ~>government has more income ~>More resources on poor people=good for society But it depends on the government,if the government use the money for other unnecessary things,it doesn't work. |
 Life is empty without anime |
omfgplzstop said: Why do you think the government incentivizing unproductivity is good for society? Did you know lower taxes on rich people lead to higher revenues in the long term? Don't you think investments from money the government doesn't take result in more new products and a higher standard of living for everyone? Can't poor people be helped via voluntary charity, as opposed to forcefully stealing rich people's money? I'll answer your questions one by one here. 1.This is just giving supports to poor people,they worked so hard,but still can't support their livings,so eventually it's to maintain poor people's living. I guess you're meaning about people who don't work.Yes,they don't deserve government finical supports,but we can't just let these people suffer,as they still have job abilities,but somehow they may have difficulties. There'll bring a lot of consequences as well,if the government didn't support citizens. 2.Are you talking about rich people or the government or the poor? 3.Therefore,I told you,it depends on the government. 4.Government is another route to help poor people,as all the policies and rights are mainly depends on the government,so taxes is a necessary income,without tax,government can't do anything. Besides,where did the charity get finical supports from?Ofc,the people who donate and government While not many people will willing to donate,again charities had to get supports from government. |
TokumiaSep 19, 2017 9:55 AM
Life is empty without anime |
isekai said: >Well, there are many charity institutions who make better than welfare programs. The goverment is very unneficient in handling these things.Frag- said: Just a question, how do you expect to end the drug cartel? Would you make things like crack illegal? If drugs were legal, cartels would just not exist as the whole of the goverment is to protect it. On the other things you've mentioned I can tell much about it. But people shouldn't be forced to do things against their will or without contracts. As I said, I don't support really "extremist Libertarianism/Liberalism" or if that's you call pure capitalism. to reduce drug use if not end it do what Portugal did like they did not consider drug use as a crime anymore but rather as a public health concern and its rooted with poverty so they give poor people some sort of basic income Portugal said: At the turn of the millennium, Portugal shifted drug control from the Justice Department to the Ministry of Health and instituted a robust public health model for treating hard drug addiction. It also expanded the welfare system in the form of a guaranteed minimum income. Changes in the material and health resources for at-risk populations for the past decade are a major factor in evaluating the evolution of Portugal's drug situation. https://mic.com/articles/110344/14-years-after-portugal-decriminalized-all-drugs-here-s-what-s-happening#.LAdJXepAk and ok i thought you want all governments remove for the sake of making a true free market I'm saying that making drugs illegal does just more harm, it's unfortunate but necessery. >I'm sitll a little neutral on this, as my opinion can change from time to time. A govement is unevitable anyways... |
| Today they say you're crazy, tomorrow they will say you're a genious. |
0v33t1 said: Even with equal tax percentage Michael would already pay 10 times more taxes than John does, so no they shouldn't. That's because he earns 10 times more. If you don't think he should pay 10 times more, then you should not think he should earn 10 times more... Is your idea of fairness really to let poor people starve while rich people buy islands and mansions made out of pure diamond? |
omfgplzstop said: TheBrainintheJar said: If I plant a tree somewhere and cut it when it grows so I can sell the wood, does the wood belong to the state the tree is in because I was unfortunate enough to be born within it? The point I was originally making, by the way, is that you already make an exchange with members of that society when you start your business. You provide a service, they provide funds or recognition. Is there a way to measure influence? It was already given with no money demanded in return--how are you going to measure the exact amount of taxes a person should pay in return for the varying amounts of influence they've already received? Like I said, you're charging me twice. I'd appreciate it if you answered my earlier questions.The only way a business can start is by the people first existing in a society and state with enough resources. Tell me, how many business came out of nowhere, with no relation to their environment? Could Zuckerberg invent Facebook without being in Harvard? You plant a tree? Who touched the ground until then? Who gave you the seed? Did you do it all on your own, just popped into the world? |
| WEAPONS - My blog, for reviews of music, anime, books, and other things |
omfgplzstop said: No, pig (pork) barrelling is something you should google, I guess. @code Both. The so-called endless pig barrels tend to be things like social security or welfare, as well as bureaucracies in various areas like education. No, not really. If you set limits on the government, shrink it and stop letting it freely create new regulations, you don't end up with corporatism. The US suffered from much, much less corporatism a century ago. Over time, after more and more harmful legislation passed, the government had so many ways to grow that new legislature wasn't even needed. It's people allowing governments to take such actions that results in corporatism. To say that "it's the logical conclusion" is fallacious. You mean over a century ago when the railroad trusts existed, right? And trust busts were actually necessary. Because prices of trade were ridiculous. The end goal of any business entity is to make as much money as possible, which requires either a monopoly or a trust, which is essentially the same thing from a profit standpoint. That's the win condition, obviously. You either have no regulations and that will inevitably happen, or you have regulations and risk the opposite problem. Either way, there will be barriers in the market, through artificial means (gov) or by the "winners" lowering prices so much that it's impossible to compete. Basic economic models always show that there will ideally be the competition that prevents this when no regulation, but those are just models. In reality, no two companies really produce the same, much like no two people act the same. So there's a winner in the long run. No real equilibrium. The problem with any theory is that it ignores the human element. Which is why capitalism (pure, of course) can't really exist. Because of the human element. Greed. Businessmen will do what it takes to get to those barriers into the market, and the easiest way is through divine intervention (government). And the government is composed of people, so it's not impervious to greed. Which is why the logical end is for government actions to be swayed by this greed. Which is a government being controlled by the interests of groups within, which is a corporatism. Thinking otherwise means you place too much faith in theory and people in general. |
| Heavy taxes is a jew scheme, they want to take 1/4 to 1/3 of your hard earned money for themselves. |
 |
TheBrainintheJar said: I don't know what's your point. People build their own wealth, it's not that it necesserily was made from a third party.The only way a business can start is by the people first existing in a society and state with enough resources. Tell me, how many business came out of nowhere, with no relation to their environment? Could Zuckerberg invent Facebook without being in Harvard? Yes, Zuckerberg could have been to any good university and yet made FaceBook. |
| Today they say you're crazy, tomorrow they will say you're a genious. |
| A thread about economics and not one person in here actually answers it with economics. I now know why econ. grad students are so smug and hateful towards laymen. Can't blame them. |
| They mostly didn't work for it. Most wealth is inherited from their parents or taken from the people that do the work for them so the people doing the work aren't profiting the full value of their work. Out of the few ones that actually do all the work they are just celebrities and athletes and the amount they make far exceeds what they actually do. No job on the planet is worth that much proportional to the work done. Although I guess it depends on what your idea of rich is. A progressive tax is beneficial to the economy and helps stimulate it by putting more money too the consumers and the building of infastructor increases jobs |
traedSep 19, 2017 8:33 PM
| ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⣸⠋⠀⠀⠀⡄⠀⠀⡔⠀⢀⠀⢸⠀⠀⠀⡘⡰⠁⠘⡀⠀⠀⢠⠀⠀⠀⢸⠀⠀⢸⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠁⠀⣀⠀⠀⡇⠀⡜⠈⠁⠀⢸⡈⢇⠀⠀⢣⠑⠢⢄⣇⠀⠀⠸⠀⠀⠀⢸⠀⠀⢸⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⢰⡟⡀⠀⡇⡜⠀⠀⠀⠀⠘⡇⠈⢆⢰⠁⠀⠀⠀⠘⣆⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠸⠀⠀⡄⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠤⢄⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⡼⠀⣧⠀⢿⢠⣤⣤⣬⣥⠀⠁⠀⠀⠛⢀⡒⠀⠀⠀⠘⡆⡆⠀⠀⠀⡇⠀⠀⠇⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⢵⡀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⡰⠀⢠⠃⠱⣼⡀⣀⡀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠈⠛⠳⠶⠶⠆⡸⢀⡀⣀⢰⠀⠀⢸ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⣀⣀⣀⠄⠀⠉⠁⠀⠀⢠⠃⢀⠎⠀⠀⣼⠋⠉⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠴⠢⢄⡔⣕⡍⠣⣱⢸⠀⠀⢷⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⡰⠃⢀⠎⠀⠀⡜⡨⢢⡀⠀⠀⠀⠐⣄⠀⠀⣠⠀⠀⠀⠐⢛⠽⠗⠁⠀⠁⠊⠀⡜⠸⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⢀⠔⣁⡴⠃⠀⡠⡪⠊⣠⣾⣟⣷⡦⠤⣀⡈⠁⠉⢀⣀⡠⢔⠊⠁⠀⠀⠀⠀⢀⡤⡗⢀⠇⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⢀⣠⠴⢑⡨⠊⡀⠤⠚⢉⣴⣾⣿⡿⣾⣿⡇⠀⠹⣻⠛⠉⠉⢀⠠⠺⠀⠀⡀⢄⣴⣾⣧⣞⠀⡜⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠐⠒⣉⠠⠄⡂⠅⠊⠁⠀⠀⣴⣿⣿⣿⣿⣻⣿⣿⡇⠀⠀⢠⣷⣮⡍⡠⠔⢉⡇⡠⠋⠁⠀⣿⣿⣿⣿⣄⠀⠀⠀⠀ |
Swordarc said: omfgplzstop said: Why do you think the government incentivizing unproductivity is good for society? Did you know lower taxes on rich people lead to higher revenues in the long term? Don't you think investments from money the government doesn't take result in more new products and a higher standard of living for everyone? Can't poor people be helped via voluntary charity, as opposed to forcefully stealing rich people's money? I'll answer your questions one by one here. 1.This is just giving supports to poor people,they worked so hard,but still can't support their livings,so eventually it's to maintain poor people's living. I guess you're meaning about people who don't work.Yes,they don't deserve government finical supports,but we can't just let these people suffer,as they still have job abilities,but somehow they may have difficulties. There'll bring a lot of consequences as well,if the government didn't support citizens. 2.Are you talking about rich people or the government or the poor? 3.Therefore,I told you,it depends on the government. 4.Government is another route to help poor people,as all the policies and rights are mainly depends on the government,so taxes is a necessary income,without tax,government can't do anything. Besides,where did the charity get finical supports from?Ofc,the people who donate and government While not many people will willing to donate,again charities had to get supports from government. Just also going to point out that Military and Veterans pay depends on taxes. Sooo this isn't just non-working folk who depend on it. It is working folk too. Like Teachers, Police officers, Fire fighters, any government worker at all. Costs money. And if you need help in a flood or a fire... ummm kinda need taxes to help with that stuff too not only for the workers, but for the relief effort too. There are people who cannot work. And honestly, if we just you know, prevented people from being homeless in the first place, would be a lot cheaper than letting them be homeless. Granted it just depends where you live and how your government is dealing with it. A red state is actually making the biggest headway with it's homeless program. But would it work in every state? Probably not. Because not every state is so religious as Utah. Nope, not even southern ones. Especially not in the same way Mormons are. There needs to be better systems in place for a path off government programs. |
Energetic-NovaSep 19, 2017 9:39 PM
The anime community in a nutshell.  |
Swordarc said: The government has more income the larger the economy is. Lower taxes = larger economy. Also, more resources for the impoverished don't necessarily better society. The welfare state hasn't been great.@omfgplzstop Let me keep it simple. Rich people pay more taxes ~>government has more income ~>More resources on poor people=good for society But it depends on the government,if the government use the money for other unnecessary things,it doesn't work. |
| I'm not really considered "rich" at the moment, but I still say no! Some people worked so hard to get to that point. It would be awful when you finally hit that 1 million mark and you have to pay 500,000 dollars worth of taxes. That's not right at all!!! I'm striving for that right now!! |
 |
0v33t1 said: Depending on their income, rich people may already have a tax percentage of over 50% in some countries, so basically I'm asking why in the fucking hell should they pay more than they already do, when even with equal tax percentage they'd possibly pay as much as the average person does in 10 years. World is not fair, nor will it ever be, but I'm talking about equality here, not fairness. Yet rich people are only getting richer and the poor are getting poorer. 1% of the worlds population are wealthier than the remaining 99% are combined. This is neither equality, justice nor fairness. |
Frag- said: TheBrainintheJar said: I don't know what's your point. People build their own wealth, it's not that it necesserily was made from a third party.The only way a business can start is by the people first existing in a society and state with enough resources. Tell me, how many business came out of nowhere, with no relation to their environment? Could Zuckerberg invent Facebook without being in Harvard? Yes, Zuckerberg could have been to any good university and yet made FaceBook. People create wealth out of their environment. Without universities, Zuckerberg wouldn't be able to invent Facebook. You don't come out of nowhere. How you got your wealth is directly related to your environment, your surroundings. We don't exist in isolation. deadprez said: 0v33t1 said: Depending on their income, rich people may already have a tax percentage of over 50% in some countries, so basically I'm asking why in the fucking hell should they pay more than they already do, when even with equal tax percentage they'd possibly pay as much as the average person does in 10 years. World is not fair, nor will it ever be, but I'm talking about equality here, not fairness. Yet rich people are only getting richer and the poor are getting poorer. 1% of the worlds population are wealthier than the remaining 99% are combined. This is neither equality, justice nor fairness. I seriously wonder if libertarians think that the 1% are some exceptional beings that deserve to be there. SatoshiX said: I'm not really considered "rich" at the moment, but I still say no! Some people worked so hard to get to that point. It would be awful when you finally hit that 1 million mark and you have to pay 500,000 dollars worth of taxes. That's not right at all!!! I'm striving for that right now!! What do you think is stopping you from getting to that million? NudeBear said: A thread about economics and not one person in here actually answers it with economics. I now know why econ. grad students are so smug and hateful towards laymen. Can't blame them. Isn't there the joke about how when talking about freeing the slaves, an economy student will answer its effects on GDP? |
| WEAPONS - My blog, for reviews of music, anime, books, and other things |
| @TheBrainintheJar You're not wrong that people are externally influenced, but it's not necesserily true that you need a Degree or something to make a social media.. |
| Today they say you're crazy, tomorrow they will say you're a genious. |
TheBrainintheJar said: I seriously wonder if libertarians think that the 1% are some exceptional beings that deserve to be there. Made me think of this Berserk-quote: A libertarian would answer: hell yeah! |
| @TheBrainintheJar Time is essentially what's holding me back. I just started working toward that goal and I wasn't 100% focused on it(Business). I'm about to quit my other full time job and focus on it. It's definitely going to happen, but it might take a bit of time before I get to that 1 million(2-3 years). |
|
deadprez said: TheBrainintheJar said: I seriously wonder if libertarians think that the 1% are some exceptional beings that deserve to be there. Made me think of this Berserk-quote: A libertarian would answer: hell yeah! Born into wealth? Well, you deserve it, duh! Those who doubt the freedom of the market will be shot in the name of freedom. SatoshiX said: @TheBrainintheJar Time is essentially what's holding me back. I just started working toward that goal and I wasn't 100% focused on it(Business). I'm about to quit my other full time job and focus on it. It's definitely going to happen, but it might take a bit of time before I get to that 1 million(2-3 years). I just wonder whether we'd all have more opportunities if most of the wealth wasn't in the hands of a tiny minority. Frag- said: @TheBrainintheJar You're not wrong that people are externally influenced, but it's not necesserily true that you need a Degree or something to make a social media.. You don't understand. Zuckerberg didn't invent Facebook solely on his own merits and got his money because JUSTICE OF MARKET. He invented Facebook also because his environment allowed him to do it, he was born with enough wealth to do it. Nobody makes it on their own. |
| WEAPONS - My blog, for reviews of music, anime, books, and other things |
| @TheBrainintheJar Mate, you're not understanding. I'm saying that people will always be influenced by their eviroment, I'm just saying you don't need to be rich to do something big. |
| Today they say you're crazy, tomorrow they will say you're a genious. |
| @TheBrainintheJar That's kinda true... The thing is, you can start off with nothing and easily become rich if you have great ideas and actually put in effort into realizing them. AND you don't really need that much money!! Someone I personally know only invested 20k into his business and after 1 year he already made 400k in profit. You have to make a lot of sacrifices and work maybe 16 hours a day but it's definitely worth it in the long run. |
|
SatoshiX said: @TheBrainintheJar That's kinda true... The thing is, you can start off with nothing and easily become rich if you have great ideas and actually put in effort into realizing them. AND you don't really need that much money!! Someone I personally know only invested 20k into his business and after 1 year he already made 400k in profit. You have to make a lot of sacrifices and work maybe 16 hours a day but it's definitely worth it in the long run. So the only way to get out of poverty is to be an enterpenaur one? You imply here that only those who start a business deserve to climb and become rich. Everyone else is lower. I'm not saying we need 100% equal wealth among everyone, but it does seem kind of odd that most of the wealth is in the hands of 1%. Frag- said: @TheBrainintheJar Mate, you're not understanding. I'm saying that people will always be influenced by their eviroment, I'm just saying you don't need to be rich to do something big. I'm no claiming Zuckerberg started rich. Rather, that rich people don't start from zero. They lived in an environment that enabled them to do it. Notice how a lot of musicians already start in environments surrounded by music. |
| WEAPONS - My blog, for reviews of music, anime, books, and other things |
| @omfgplzstop Imma skip over thefirst paragraph since it's more an intro than anything else. A lot of taxes get eaten up by bureaucracies. I don't actually think there's a need for a minimum wage, and I'm morally opposed to it too (also my bad for using "increasing" rather than "improving"). Bureaucracies are typically something that doesn't produce shit but costs tons. You're not going to find me praising them, and paying taxes that go into this kills me too. The middle class today lives better than the top earners a few decades ago. You can afford more with less. Without minimum wage accelerating automation, there'd still be a comparative advantage to humans over machines for a while (as in, it'd still be profitable to hire humans), and low wages would be enough when automation makes everything significantly cheaper (provided government doesn't harm competition). Huh, I don't know where you leave, but this just isn't true here. Sure, you can buy a iPhone, and people 50 years ago couldn't, for obvious reasons. I told you already, but my grandfather bought a house and sustained a family of 7 persons, working alone in a factory. Nowadays, a couple can't buy a house here with a single salary, and even with two, the credit can go up to 30 or 40 years (^: If people weren't willing to buy those fridges, they wouldn't have produced them. It's like anime--a lot of people are dissatisfied with generic light novel adaptations, but people want them and are willing to pay for them. The reason we don't have more, say, Kill la Kills, is that not enough people are willing to pay for Kill la Kills, which makes their production risky (luckily Trigger's actually doing pretty well). Would you call me a mafia if I put up human shit for sale after seeing people were willing to buy it? You're over-simplifying the problem. People aren't willing to buy fridges that last 6 years, they're just willing to buy fridges, and can't buy fridges that don't die after 6-10 years. If you told them the product you're selling them is made to stop working after barely 10% of the lifespan it could have, do you think they'd still throw their money at you? If the market, and the consumers' habits hadn't been shaped by fridges that used to last 50 years and be a good investment, do you think every household would have a fridge now? The supermarkets that don't end up throwing half of their products are the most successful ones. Finding ways to increase your efficiency, and thus profits, is what capitalism's all about. Also, what's "our common capital"? How are they taking from anyone by producing something? I worked for every big supermarket brand in France, all very succesful (including Carrefour wich as far as I know is number 1 in many countries around the world). Their whole business revolves around wasting half their products. How do you think they manage to avoid looking like soviet supermarkets? Also, lots of products are actually lost in transport or in the hangars because supermarkets don't give a fuck about the products. They buy a liter of milk 16 cents to the producer and sell it more than 1€ to the public. They're also again a case of shit parasite that doesn't produce anything, like the overinflated bureaucracy. Literally all they do is invest some money into products to make a shitload more with it, strangling the producers, polluting the planet with their shit freight trucks , and killing concurrence and jobs. Our common capital is the air your breath and the forest that get leveled to build parkings and all the fuel that could serve a better purpose than carrying chinese plastic toys around the world. All the stuff that could increase our chances to take off to the stars instead of suffocating to death on this rock. |
Prophetess of the Golden Era  |
| @TheBrainintheJar Did I ever say that the person's eviroment doesn't influence on their lives? ... |
| Today they say you're crazy, tomorrow they will say you're a genious. |
SinisterOne said: Just because they work harder and earn more doesn´t mean they should be paying more taxes then the rest. What makes you think rich people work harder than the rest? Do you think Kim Kardashian is rich because she works hard? Do you think someone working 13 hours per day as a dishwasher at a restaurant is lazy and doesn't work hard? Since 1% of the Earths population is wealther than the other 99% is combined, you think that 1% work harder than the other 99% does combined? |
SinisterOne said: I am speaking in general, I referred more to part of society in high positions, professors, directors, businessmen, etc. Those who have studied and worked their way up to such positions. Most of them are there because they belong to the upper class. They haven't worked any harder than the middle or lower class. Rich people are getting richer and poor people are getting poorer. By not properly taxing the rich, you work for 1% of the society instead of the other 99%... Rich peoples reward for "working hard" is being rich in the first place, they should be happy with that and not demand that they pay less taxes as well... |
TheBrainintheJar said: SatoshiX said: @TheBrainintheJar That's kinda true... The thing is, you can start off with nothing and easily become rich if you have great ideas and actually put in effort into realizing them. AND you don't really need that much money!! Someone I personally know only invested 20k into his business and after 1 year he already made 400k in profit. You have to make a lot of sacrifices and work maybe 16 hours a day but it's definitely worth it in the long run. So the only way to get out of poverty is to be an enterpenaur one? You imply here that only those who start a business deserve to climb and become rich. Everyone else is lower. I'm not saying we need 100% equal wealth among everyone, but it does seem kind of odd that most of the wealth is in the hands of 1%. Sorry, that's just one of the quicker ways if you know how to execute it properly. I wasn't implying that it's the only way. I guess it did kind of sound that way though lol. You could also join a good company or a trade and move up within the company. You could also become an investor etc etc. Their is a lot of ways to become rich if you actually put in the time and effort and are willing to sacrifice a lot of things in order to achieve it. A lot of people don't have the ability/guts to do that which is why they stay where they're at forever. Also connections are another important factor which is definitely essential in moving up the ladder. Anyway, I do agree that it is kinda odd that most of the wealth are in the hands of 1% of the world, but some of them actually worked really hard to get to that point and I don't think it's fair if we tax them more than others. |
|
| Everyone should pay the same percent of taxes out of their income. For example, rich people should not be paying 15% while poor people are paying 8%. Increased taxes for rich people is not only unfair, but it's like punishing a person for his/her success. If the taxes on the rich are too high, it discourages people from being ambitious and productive, because they won't get to enjoy the fruits of their hard work. |
| You are now breathing manually. |
sobanoodle said: Everyone should pay the same percent of taxes out of their income. For example, rich people should not be paying 15% while poor people are paying 8%. Increased taxes for rich people is not only unfair, but it's like punishing a person for his/her success. If the taxes on the rich are too high, it discourages people from being ambitious and productive, because they won't get to enjoy the fruits of their hard work. You don't think being rich is a privilege? You don't think billionaires can enjoy being billionaires if they pay more percentage than poor people? You think it's more important for rich people to be able to buy half the planet rather than for poor people to get healthcare and social security? |
| I don't think much trinkles down, so yeah make 'em pay. Fuck capitalism. Fuck the company as a legal entity. |
 |
sobanoodle said: Everyone should pay the same percent of taxes out of their income. For example, rich people should not be paying 15% while poor people are paying 8%. Increased taxes for rich people is not only unfair, but it's like punishing a person for his/her success. If the taxes on the rich are too high, it discourages people from being ambitious and productive, because they won't get to enjoy the fruits of their hard work. +1 for this. Exactly this is what most people don't understand. I could not have said it any better |
  |
dvbx_073 said: +1 for this. Exactly this is what most people don't understand. I could not have said it any better So you would rather be homeless and jobless to pay less taxes than be a multibillionaire who owns islands and mansions paying more taxes.............? What you don't understand is that being rich is already enough of a reward for your "success"... |
| Not sure what the deal is when people think rich people are rich because they're smart and 'worked hard' for it. Inheriting something isn't exactly hard work, nor is doing anything to deserve all that wealth. Nobody even needs millions or billions of dollars. We're not talking about doctors or lawyers. We're talking about the top 1% that holds almost all of the wealth. Do you think that by defending these people they will someday decide to share their wealth? By this logic, do you put your arms up and give 'em a big hip hip hurray because they found out yet another new way to avoid paying their taxes? |
HiasSep 24, 2017 5:22 AM
 |
| b-but they already pay higher taxes... like you expect people to give up half or more their earnings? Yeah let's fund a welfare state so trashy weebs can just watch shit tier animu ! |
deadprez said: dvbx_073 said: +1 for this. Exactly this is what most people don't understand. I could not have said it any better So you would rather be homeless and jobless to pay less taxes than be a multibillionaire who owns islands and mansions paying more taxes? What you don't understand is that being rich is already enough of a reward for your "success"... Sorry if the english is a bit cracked -> I dont know which country your coming from, but when you have to pay 1/2 or 2/3 of the money you worked for, because you either work harder or take chances to earn money it is punishment. And if we talk REAL rich people yes they can pay more taxes, but countries are not making a new higher tax. In my country you only have to earn about 5500 a month to pay the top % and 67.000 a year is not rich. I would rather see everyone pay the same amount of tax then seeing people who want to work and TRY to make more money pay the same amount as REAL rich people and pay more then people who don't try to make more money. And yes the title says rich people. In a big amount of the countries like in mine people get affected by raising the taxes for "rich people", because people who are not rich fall under the tax. Also next time use a better things then "So you would rather be homeless and jobless to pay less taxes than be a multibillionaire who owns islands and mansions paying more taxes?" & "being rich is already enough of a reward for your "success" People should understand that taxes are not different for 17 different earnings and talking about raising taxes affects not only rich people. And you can say we are talking about rich people here in this thread, but logically people who are not rich fall under it and are getting punished for making money. -------------------------------------- Mefke said: b-but they already pay higher taxes... like you expect people to give up half or more their earnings? Yeah let's fund a welfare state so trashy weebs can just watch shit tier animu ! You dont have to expect it, because There are plenty of countries where you pay 40% to 2/3 of your money :p |
|
dvbx_073 said: I dont know which country your coming from, but when you have to pay 1/2 or 2/3 of the money you worked for, because you either work harder or take chances to earn money it is punishment. I come from Planet Earth. A place were 1% of the population is richer than the remaining 99% are combined. A place were rich people are getting richer and poor people are getting poorer. You would call that fairness? dvbx_073 said: People should understand that taxes are not different for 17 different earnings and talking about raising taxes affects not only rich people. And you can say we are talking about rich people here in this thread, but logically people who are not rich fall under it and are getting punished for making money. The topic is about rich people paying more so that poor people can have food, homes, education and medicine. Free education and universal healthcare is not "punishment"... |
| Just fake your death and go to Cuba.... |
Zodd0 said: You don't think being rich is a privilege? You don't think billionaires can enjoy being billionaires if they pay more percentage than poor people? You think it's more important for rich people to be able to buy half the planet rather than for poor people to get healthcare and social security?[/quote] Most rich people are business people who provide jobs for the poor; that's their way of giving back in addition to taxes. I don't think they should be punished for their success with higher tax rates, and poor people aren't entitled to their cuts. Of course it's important that the poor can get healthcare and social security. 10% out of a billionaire's salary is obviously already going to be much more money than out of a poor person's. Equal percentages ensure that everyone pays their fair share. |
| You are now breathing manually. |
Valium said: I don't think much trinkles down, so yeah make 'em pay. Fuck capitalism. Fuck the company as a legal entity. "Fuck capitalism"? Yeah, fuck a system that rewards hard working and productive people. Also, fuck privacy and an individual's rights. The thing that I like most about capitalism is that it gives people the most freedom to either climb the ladder of success, or be entitled, jealous lazies who sit on the ground and bitch. The rich will still pay significantly large amounts of money in taxes even at the same rate as the poor, like 8-10%. If properly handled, that amount of money should still be able to support sick/poor people who really need welfare. It should be kept in mind that taxes are somebody's rightfully earned money, and it should not be thrown carelessly to leeches. |
| You are now breathing manually. |
sobanoodle said: Most rich people are business people who provide jobs for the poor; that's their way of giving back in addition to taxes. I don't think they should be punished for their success with higher tax rates, and poor people aren't entitled to their cuts. Lol what? What the hell do you get that from? The poor are getting poorer, so please explain that if the top 1% are "creating jobs" for them? Being born into the upper class is not success. Truth is that the rich are sucking the life out of the poor. No country has more billionaires than the US, yet the country has around 15 million children living in poverty. Nearly every other child in the country lives in low-income families. This could change, starting with proper taxation of the rich... sobanoodle said: Of course it's important that the poor can get healthcare and social security. 10% out of a billionaire's salary is obviously already going to be much more money than out of a poor person's. So then you agree that the rich should pay more and not get tax breaks like the ones Trump are trying to implement? sobanoodle said: Equal percentages ensure that everyone pays their fair share. This would only apply if everyone had equal income... |
Zoldra0Sep 24, 2017 1:57 PM
| Well they sure shouldn't pay less... yeah man they gotta take a bigger hit than everyone else... that's just social responsibility. Seems like its the poor that bleed money in modern society, and yes there is something wrong with that. So one solution is to tax the rich at higher rates... let them know they aren't going to run away with the bank. |
| I CELEBRATE myself, And what I assume you shall assume, For every atom belonging to me as good belongs to you. |
sobanoodle said: I don't see what capitalism has to do with privacy or individual freedoms ... it's an economic system. And everything non-capitalistic doesn't have to be totalitarian, ya know.Valium said: I don't think much trinkles down, so yeah make 'em pay. Fuck capitalism. Fuck the company as a legal entity. "Fuck capitalism"? Yeah, fuck a system that rewards hard working and productive people. Also, fuck privacy and an individual's rights. The thing that I like most about capitalism is that it gives people the most freedom to either climb the ladder of success, or be entitled, jealous lazies who sit on the ground and bitch. The rich will still pay significantly large amounts of money in taxes even at the same rate as the poor, like 8-10%. If properly handled, that amount of money should still be able to support sick/poor people who really need welfare. It should be kept in mind that taxes are somebody's rightfully earned money, and it should not be thrown carelessly to leeches. I agree that capitalism gives people the incentive for strive and reward, which also spills over to benefit society as a whole, and it is a good thing. But the poor don't benefit. Do they. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ "If properly handled", Hah. When the government are the rich, and in the pocket of lobbyist, they will and do serve their and their benefactors interests. If you can separate economical self-interests from politics then it'd be a lot better. Government is supposed to regulate business but it's happening the opposite way. |
|
sobanoodle said: "Fuck capitalism"? Yeah, fuck a system that rewards hard working and productive people. Also, fuck privacy and an individual's rights. It doesnt quite do that. Capitalism is a system where CEOs take a large portions of the profits earned by the people doing all the work while the corporation takes the credit too. You think you get privacy from capitalism? Haha Your privacy is a commodity to be sold for advertising purposes via trackers placed on websites. Your entire browser history can be sold even. What about the Equifax security breech? People that never heard of such a company had all their private highly sensitive information and it got out to criminals. Insurance companies that know your entire medical history. Credit card companies know all your purchase history with their card. Rights? They sometimes slip in fine print things that revoke some of your rights when signing contacts. The thing that I like most about capitalism is that it gives people the most freedom to either climb the ladder of success, or be entitled, jealous lazies who sit on the ground and bitch. Sorry but that's highly exaggerated. Every heard of class mobility? Class mobility is quite low in many countries like the US and UK. Most wealth is inherited rather than built up from the bottom. This creates a system not far off from a caste system. It often has nothing to do with laziness that causes a lower income it's how lower income reduces opportunities. It would be so wrong if you were to think poor are more lazy and entitled than rich people.      I could go all day with evidence. The rich will still pay significantly large amounts of money in taxes even at the same rate as the poor, like 8-10%. And unlike the poor a much higher percentage of that money is not vital to their survival or mental well being. Even when they pay a higher tax they still have more extra cash left. If properly handled, that amount of money should still be able to support sick/poor people who really need welfare. It should be kept in mind that taxes are somebody's rightfully earned money, and it should not be thrown carelessly to leeches. When it's a capitalist big business owner they aren't who earned most of the money they just got others to do it for them who don't reap the full rewards of their own work. Also if it's inherited they didn't earn it through work but bloodlines with exception to some circumstances. |
| ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⣸⠋⠀⠀⠀⡄⠀⠀⡔⠀⢀⠀⢸⠀⠀⠀⡘⡰⠁⠘⡀⠀⠀⢠⠀⠀⠀⢸⠀⠀⢸⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠁⠀⣀⠀⠀⡇⠀⡜⠈⠁⠀⢸⡈⢇⠀⠀⢣⠑⠢⢄⣇⠀⠀⠸⠀⠀⠀⢸⠀⠀⢸⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⢰⡟⡀⠀⡇⡜⠀⠀⠀⠀⠘⡇⠈⢆⢰⠁⠀⠀⠀⠘⣆⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠸⠀⠀⡄⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠤⢄⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⡼⠀⣧⠀⢿⢠⣤⣤⣬⣥⠀⠁⠀⠀⠛⢀⡒⠀⠀⠀⠘⡆⡆⠀⠀⠀⡇⠀⠀⠇⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⢵⡀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⡰⠀⢠⠃⠱⣼⡀⣀⡀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠈⠛⠳⠶⠶⠆⡸⢀⡀⣀⢰⠀⠀⢸ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⣀⣀⣀⠄⠀⠉⠁⠀⠀⢠⠃⢀⠎⠀⠀⣼⠋⠉⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠴⠢⢄⡔⣕⡍⠣⣱⢸⠀⠀⢷⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⡰⠃⢀⠎⠀⠀⡜⡨⢢⡀⠀⠀⠀⠐⣄⠀⠀⣠⠀⠀⠀⠐⢛⠽⠗⠁⠀⠁⠊⠀⡜⠸⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⢀⠔⣁⡴⠃⠀⡠⡪⠊⣠⣾⣟⣷⡦⠤⣀⡈⠁⠉⢀⣀⡠⢔⠊⠁⠀⠀⠀⠀⢀⡤⡗⢀⠇⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⢀⣠⠴⢑⡨⠊⡀⠤⠚⢉⣴⣾⣿⡿⣾⣿⡇⠀⠹⣻⠛⠉⠉⢀⠠⠺⠀⠀⡀⢄⣴⣾⣧⣞⠀⡜⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠐⠒⣉⠠⠄⡂⠅⠊⠁⠀⠀⣴⣿⣿⣿⣿⣻⣿⣿⡇⠀⠀⢠⣷⣮⡍⡠⠔⢉⡇⡠⠋⠁⠀⣿⣿⣿⣿⣄⠀⠀⠀⠀ |
zodd0 said: So then you agree that the rich should pay more and not get tax breaks like the ones Trump are trying to implement? This would only apply if everyone had equal income...[/quote] The rich are already paying more with equal percentages; that's my point. Idk what tax breaks are, but if it means that they're not paying the same percentages as everyone else, then that's wrong. With equal percentages, everyone pays an amount that is reasonable in proportion to their income. 10% of 1 million is $100,000 dollars, for goodness sake! But 10% of $50,000 is only $5,000. I don't see how you're not seeing that equal percentages is plenty fair. |
| You are now breathing manually. |
More topics from this board
» What's your shoe size? Is it smaller than Your Waifu?RainyEvenings - Nov 12 |
4 |
by RainyEvenings
»»
1 minute ago |
|
» What are you doing right now? ( 1 2 3 4 5 ... Last Page )-Mayhem- - Dec 25, 2020 |
1835 |
by RainyEvenings
»»
15 minutes ago |
|
» How do they teach history in your countryDuckyduck9 - Nov 13 |
35 |
by RainyEvenings
»»
17 minutes ago |
|
» Have you ever won the genetic lottery? ( 1 2 )tanjiromybaby - Jul 13 |
57 |
by Tropisch
»»
47 minutes ago |
|
» What are some of your favorite slang to use?GoonLyfeVes - 5 hours ago |
2 |
by foxes_are_neet
»»
2 hours ago |