Tax the rich.

Since some people were talking about taxing big Oil companies, I was reading a nice little article and thought it was well stated. It is by Glenn Beck. He makes a very solid point and I don't think anyone can really argue against it. Especially you retard liberals.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/05/14/b [...] index.html

FFS, are you claiming that a self confessed 'entertainer' is smarter than all of us here? His mission is to entertain. He's managed that by getting simpletons to listen to his diatribe and spread his word. I am struggling to see why I should take him any more seriously than Howard Stern. They are both in the same industry and, as far as I can see, both do the same job. They talk sh!t and wind people up for money.

In Riser's head, maybe. In reality it is the other way around.

grab an AK llama, we're going to start a revolution. I assume the chimp will also be up for it, not like he is doing anything else.

true, we should make people pass a test first, like how many bubbles are there in a bar of soap.

FFS...how is that going to help anyone? Taxing the rich. 95% of the working population is not wealthy.
Whenever the Government tax the wealthy, the wealthy will Wingding screw the poor.

Uh, nope...

The leader of idiots isn't necessarily any less of an idiot.

Yeah, he's making mad cash. Good for him. I still wouldn't listen to him if he was free. Much like Mancow. He was good for a while, and then it got old right about the time I grew up.


Well, grew up a little anyway...

Democracy... a failed experiment.

King, I do admire the way he earns his cash, money for fcuk all is a speciality of mine too. I don't take anything he say seriously though. He has the integrity of a used car salesman, which incidentally, is still more than I have when selling anything.

Fu*king oath, tax the rich!

What do those c*nts ever do for society!?!

I'm not clicking on your gay conservative-sponsored link [/friendly liberal says hi ]

Harvard uni has 3 billion invested in a hedge-fund arrangement -- explain that, Mike. Come on! Be gay! lolz

Or, tell us about a hot-tub story -- that's the one with the juice, Chief

Tax? WTF is tax? Tax, in this neck of the woods, is a slang term used to describe theft.
Billy "where did you get that new phone"
Joey "I taxed some silly cnut on the way to the boozer"

A more precise slang term I've yet to hear.

That's a variation on "tax" that I believe to not only be reasonable, but necessary.

A lot of things sound good on paper or in theory.

My what a big clit you have!!!![/Bomber in Thailand....on drugs....a lot of drugs....too much drugs]

Actually, the one thing he does have is integrity. The humor of the show, that's a personal taste issue and to each their own. I just respect someone who's been able to have a #1 radio show in every market he was in, a #1 satellite show, a #1 movie, a #1 CD, and a best selling book(s). Also, when it was on, his Saturday night show beat Saturday Night Live on the markets it was in. D*ck jokes aside, there's clearly someone intelligent behind it.

On a side note, I do hope he sues Fox for Are You Smarter Than A 5th Grader? The show was "created" by two guys who just happened to live in NY when Stern was doing it on the radio 10-15yrs ago, with the same name even...

Sort of like VAT, you mean?

Ah.

I'll just confiscate everything.

"Capitalism" will be gone in the next 100-200 years. Makes me sad I can't reread these posts again then.

So I take it you're not planning any more silly bets tonight then?

You're at risk of loosing the interest on your savings. If you can show me that they would actually remove any of the original stake you invested I'll be surprised.

** Scratches chimp scalp **

I can see that either way you win more than the combined stake... But how you found two bookies offering the same odds I do not know. What do I have to ask Mugz to sort out in order to see you loose money today then?

@Tom
Ahh.. So I need one of those bookies to drop the odds on the winning team and invoke the 'palpable error' rule... We live in hope

You're absolutely right I'm at risk of losing the interest on my savings. Factor in inflation because its money 'saved.' $1,000 today isn't worth as much as $1,000 next year.

Stock Market on average has returned, over the course, around 13%. You have good years, you have bad years, but the course is 13%. If you can manage 8% to 10%, you're doing really well. Minus that 2% inflation and up the Capital Gains Tax, as the Democratic Party wants to do, and now I risk my money in the Stock Market where I'm taking a big risk for little gain. I have no incentive to save or invest my money. Makes sense, right? This was the entire concept behind the Bush Tax Cuts.

My investment ($1,000) is the same but the risk is much higher. I can risk my money and get less of a return due to higher taxes. The risk of losing money will cause people to remove or not invest in a market that has high risk.

I have $1,000 in the market. I do well and get a 10% return, I now have $1,100 after 1 year. Inflation is 2%, so technically I have the buying power of $1,080. I have to currently pay 16% on that $100 I made. Raise that tax to 18%-25% and well, its really not worth investing. You can only claim a loss of $3,000 (I think that's the limit) if you lost money in the market, unless you use another method to claim such losses in your taxes.

Really, the incentive with higher taxes isn't there. We've seen the stock market take off with the Tax Cuts. 401ks have gone up and the market was flooded with money to give out loans and such. Unfortunately, shady lending caused problems.

Having a small amount of money to invest such as the lower class or middle class and getting small returns on that money really isn't incentive for the people to save and invest. Would you give me $1,000 is I said I would give you back the $1,000 in a year plus $50? Hell no you wouldn't. Even if I offered you $100, you probably wouldn't go that route.

The catch is that you can earn more or lose more in the market, but historically the market goes up, not every year, but it goes up. Meaning the potential to earn money outweighs the risk. With higher taxes, you are increasing the risk and reducing the potential to earn money, thus keeping people from investing and/or saving their money.

Even keeping your money in a savings account is retarded since you lose buying power every year since interest does not keep pace with inflation. Keeping your money in the bank means you'll slowly lose money even though the number is the same or increasing, but not with the pace of inflation. Investing your money into the stock market you assume a risk with smaller reward, if any at all. If you only make 3%, you end up under inflation.

Americans have a problem saving money. Most people don't even have a 3-6 month savings in case they lose their job - you see this in the news where someone loses their job and a month later they're living on the streets in their $35,000 SUV complaining about how the economy sucks because they can't afford to live. No, they put more worth into a vehicle instead of living within their means and saving money.

The incentive to save is present but too many people have moved to living outside of their means. We need to see this correction and higher gas prices to make people re-evaluate the priorities and values in their life. I'm all for $4/gallon of gasoline. I live within my means and can afford it. My lifestyle will change a little but that is easy to change.

I know a lot of people who have invested and done well. I personally made over 71% on my 401k last year because I went highly aggressive. I'm down 8% this year due to the aggressiveness but that's nothing compared to what I made last year.

Now, also increasing the Capital Gains Taxs means our retirees who live off their 401k retirement plan will be paying more in taxes. As you probably know, Social Security is an issue in the US where retirees don't have enough money. Democrats propose to raise this tax, which directly effects retirees meaning they pay more on any money they made in their 401ks (say they have $200,000 and make 4%, they'll have to pay higher taxes on that amount, reducing their capital investment to make more money.) The idea of a 401k is to take out less or a proportional amount than what you make. If you make 7% a year, you shouldn't be taking out more than 7% a year or it will eventually run out. Time it right, you die, life is good for you. But realistically, they'll be pulling out more than they make in a year and then put additional taxes on top of the money earned, plus the money pulled out, and 401ks will dwindle faster. Now, the Democratic party has a solution to this. As they take away from retirees and those investing money to better their lives/families, Social Security will be able to pay out more money to retirees because they're taking more money. The problem is the retirees are losing more money in taxes than what they'll be making back in Social Security. Why is there? Social Security serves more people than it should and benefits are not paid out in proportion to what is paid in. Very simplistically, this is a redistribution of wealth. The responsible person who saved for retirement will now pay more in taxes on their retirement fund to supplement those who didn't save enough money or are abusing the system. Now the responsible retiree is pulling more out of their 401k or pension, getting more overall (but less than what it would have been before the tax) in Social Security. But the person who didn't save as much gets more money and doesn't pay as much in taxes because they didn't save as much.

Make sense? Basically, if you don't save money the Democratic Party wants to 'reward' you by taking the money from, not the rich, but the responsible. Redistributing the wealth. Where is the incentive to better your life when you can have a good life and not do anything?

The saying is, Republican, because not everyone can be on Welfare.

I'm bored at work.


High taxes reduces the potential of compound interest. Ben Franklin invested 1 month of salary into a bank account based off compound interest. Every 25 or 50 years, it pays out X% to Boston and Philadelphia. I think at last payout in the late 90s is was $25 or $50 million paid, strictly based off compound interest.

Increase taxes and you defeat severely cripple the savings concept. Rule of 72.