Now this is just ridiculous...

[doubleM23]

Originally posted by Spiff

Who the f*** are you to say the rich deserve to be "punished?"

 

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight....

 

I don't think you read my post, 'cuz they're not really being punished since they end up with more expendable money, anyways.

[doubleM23]

Here, my friend just explained this to me during lunch (he's an accounting major or something... like 80 bajillion times smarter than me)...

 

Wealth is much more active when its not being taken out by loans and s*** and when people actually have it as expendable income. Basically meaning, if a guy has $20,000 that money is a lot more worthwhile to him if he can go buy stuff with it right now, rather than taking out loans and buying things with that.

 

Let's say you buy something, like a car, and it originally costs $15,000 and you pull a loan on something, I'm not 100% sure how it works, but you'll end up losing another thousand or so paying back your loan, which only hurts consumers; as that money which originally could have been spent is lost.

[Chisoxfn]

Originally posted by doubleM23

30% of 80,000 is 24,000... Meaning he still has $56,000 left after taxes.

 

s***, let's make it higher... 40%?  That'd be a $32,000 loss to taxes for a whopping final of $48,000.

 

Granted, I just pulled these numbers out of my ass, but I fail to see how taxing the rich heavier causes people to not want to work harder.  Yes, you lose more, but you also end up with more.  I think the majority of people are still going to want the job that pays $80,000 a year (that yields $48,000-$56,000 a year) instead of the one that pays $25,000 a year and yields $20,000 despite the fact that you're losing anywhere from about 5-6 times as much on taxes.

 

Obviously you don't tax the rich so much that they end up with less money than those in lower brackets else, that would begin to weigh on the economy; however, concentrating mass amounts of wealth in few hands is also an uhealthy economic practice.

 

The flaw is that why should those people who make more get more of their money taken away. They earned every penny of it, yet a whole lot of it gets taken away and if you race it then they get screwed out of even more money, to the point that their isn't much of a disparity between someone who makes 80k a year to someone who makes a whole less and when it comes to that point, we might as wbell call ourselves communist cause the majority will all be making the same and that sucks.

 

The whole point in life is to shoot and always have higher goals and aspirations. Anyway, I think we all can agree communism sucks so I will end it at that. No, I'm not implying democrats are communist. I have nothing against democrats, I have my gripe with the democratic politicans cause many of them are the biggest liars out their. GOP has their fare share of liars too, but isn't near as much as the democrats.

[Chisoxfn]

Originally posted by bjmarte

Plus "rich" people don't just leave their money sitting in banks.  They invest it to try and grow their money.  Investment in business ventures usually leads to more jobs, which = growing the economy.

 

Not to mention that mm is making the false assumption that no one buys anything bigger or more expensive than a toaster with their money.

 

Limiting the amount of money a person is allowed to make limits investment which stunts job growth and taken to the mm extreme would lead to job losses = shrinking economy.

 

Investment is one of the best ways to stimulate the economy. If you go by terms of economic definitions then it would be investing in capital for businesses, but in the long run, money in the bank or money with other people helps everything grow cause they, the rich will spend it(investing, etc.) to increase their wealth and in term increase the wealth of others.

 

Also if its sitting in the bank(more money in the bank), then interest rates will go down, which also stimulates investing.

 

The economy has a whole lot of self correcting mechanisms and its one of my big reasons I think the government on the most part should stay the hell out of it cause capitalism is a great thing.

[Chisoxfn]

Originally posted by doubleM23

Originally posted by Spiff

Who the f*** are you to say the rich deserve to be "punished?"

 

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight....

 

I don't think you read my post, 'cuz they're not really being punished since they end up with more expendable money, anyways.

 

Ya, but whose to say that they don't deserve the same cut off their money that the others get? It doesn't seem fair to me if you go out and make all your money that you have to give it away to others. Call me selfish or whatever, but in life, I want my money in my hands so I am set for retirement and can live a good life. Its why I am in college now and why I work part time during school year and full time during the summer.

[doubleM23]

Originally posted by Chisoxfn

Originally posted by doubleM23

Originally posted by Spiff

Who the f*** are you to say the rich deserve to be "punished?"

 

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight....

 

I don't think you read my post, 'cuz they're not really being punished since they end up with more expendable money, anyways.

 

Ya, but whose to say that they don't deserve the same cut off their money that the others get? It doesn't seem fair to me if you go out and make all your money that you have to give it away to others. Call me selfish or whatever, but in life, I want my money in my hands so I am set for retirement and can live a good life. Its why I am in college now and why I work part time during school year and full time during the summer.

 

 

I think a point that I don't articulate well enough that I probably should is that all the taxed money doesn't necessarily go directly to the poor. On the contrary, while a large sum of it does go for public housing, public health insurance, public education etc. a lot of money that ends up in the tax poll does pay for a lot of public programs. I'm no doctor on communism or socialism, so I don't want to say exactly what would get funded through tax dollars, but I would assume that you'd probably see kickbacks to businesses who are environmentally friendly (to offset the costs of transforming to a green economy), and what not.

 

Regardless, the point I've probably not made vocal enough is that the taxed money does not simply go to inner city programs that folks like you and I will never directly benefit from. Put people in a more socialist economy, and while you have less total expendable money, in reality, you have more proportional money to spend on purley consumer goods because a lot of things you'd end up flipping the bill for (like the increases in prices to offset the cost of becoming more eco-friendly... such as with gas) become obsolete payments because people above you on the food chain pay more.

 

You're right, the system I advocate hurts the rich the most, and I can't counter that, but (maybe its just me) when I get a million bucks, I'm not going to have much use for a second million. I think the overall cost of maybe lowering the standard of living of the wealthiest (sorry, no more Aquafina baths and 38 cars in the garage) to substantially improve the lives of the bottom-feeders (like, sticking a roof over my head) is a sacrafice that needs to be made. Regardless, the upper class is still doing quite well for itself. They still have MORE; I'm not advocating pure communism here (while that would be my ideal), because I understand no one would go for that; however, in a psuedo-socialist/capitalist system, incentive remains because you can still do quite wel for yourself, but you never have the sword of dire poverty haning over your head because, no matter what, your basic human rights (housing, health care, education) are available to you because of government.

[doubleM23]

Originally posted by Murcielago

Why is Legalizing drugs the answer?? 

 

I dont care how much money the government will make, it's lowering our standards lower than they already are. 

 

We all know how drugs are horribly addicting..... all your gonna do is create alot more poverty, and alot more addicts...... prolly alot more welfare.

 

If we legalize drugs whats next? infant prostituton? tightest pussy you'll ever have..... but I mean there is a reason the government hasn't taken the drug money and legalized drugs. because they ruin lives! If you wanna do drugs, you just gonna have to do it the way you are used to, infear and illegally.

 

Well then why do we allow people to smoke? What? Nicotine isn't a drug now?

 

Criminilzation of drugs is a direct violation of the seperation of Church and State in that it is the legalization of Christian morals. Guess what? The government does not have the right to tell me and you what I can and cannot do with my body as long as I am not infringing on the rights of others (so yeah, murder is still a no-no). You should be allowed to go out and snort as much coke as you want, but the second you lay an unwanted finger on someone, BAM!

 

That, and like it or not, people still do drugs, despite the fact they have Uncle Sam wagging his finger in their face. Guess where that money goes? To criminals... Gangbangers, organized crime, terrorists.... Is that really where you want billions of dollars going each year, or would you rather accept reality and say, "Well, s***, as long as people are going to do the drugs, we may as pump them for cash," 'cuz that's a lot more likable to me. Yes, in a perfect world, no one would smoke weed or do crack... This ins't a perfect world, but all you do when you make drugs illegal is to reinforce crime and give it a strong source of income. Take away gang's drug money and they suddenly have their power sliced.

 

Thirdly, by legalizing drugs you make them vastly less dangerous (and less addictive). Right now, it only makes perfect sense to lace stuff with stronger, more addictive stuff, so that same person gets addicted to your s*** and keeps coming back to you. I have a friend who is a habitual cocaine addict and he picked up the habit from buying weed from a guy who laced it. Do you think that would happen all that often if you could just show up at an Osco and buy some marijuana cigarettes?

[Spiff]

Originally posted by doubleM23I think a point that I don't articulate well enough that I probably should is that all the taxed money doesn't necessarily go directly to the poor.  On the contrary, while a large sum of it does go for public housing, public health insurance, public education etc. a lot of money that ends up in the tax poll does pay for a lot of public programs.  I'm no doctor on communism or socialism, so I don't want to say exactly what would get funded through tax dollars, but I would assume that you'd probably see kickbacks to businesses who are environmentally friendly (to offset the costs of transforming to a green economy), and what not.

 

Regardless, the point I've probably not made vocal enough is that the taxed money does not simply go to inner city programs that folks like you and I will never directly benefit from.  Put people in a more socialist economy, and while you have less total expendable money, in reality, you have more proportional money to spend on purley consumer goods because a lot of things you'd end up flipping the bill for (like the increases in prices to offset the cost of becoming more eco-friendly... such as with gas) become obsolete payments because people above you on the food chain pay more.

 

You're right, the system I advocate hurts the rich the most, and I can't counter that, but (maybe its just me) when I get a million bucks, I'm not going to have much use for a second million.  I think the overall cost of maybe lowering the standard of living of the wealthiest (sorry, no more Aquafina baths and 38 cars in the garage) to substantially improve the lives of the bottom-feeders (like, sticking a roof over my head) is a sacrafice that needs to be made.  Regardless, the upper class is still doing quite well for itself.  They still have MORE; I'm not advocating pure communism here (while that would be my ideal), because I understand no one would go for that; however, in a psuedo-socialist/capitalist system, incentive remains because you can still do quite wel for yourself, but you never have the sword of dire poverty haning over your head because, no matter what, your basic human rights (housing, health care, education) are available to you because of government.

 

here is where i call you a stupid pinko and again ask you to go the hell away so i don't have to listen to your stupid bulls***.

[CubKilla]

Originally posted by Murcielago

But back to the allowing minorities into CPS HS....... Take a look at North Side Prep..... If your White you have to score in the 96 Pecentile to get in...... If your a minority it's the 55th percentile...... Does this sound right to all you liberal f***s?

 

Notice how doubleM ignores these fun little tidbits.....

[doubleM23]

Originally posted by Spiff

Originally posted by doubleM23I think a point that I don't articulate well enough that I probably should is that all the taxed money doesn't necessarily go directly to the poor.  On the contrary, while a large sum of it does go for public housing, public health insurance, public education etc. a lot of money that ends up in the tax poll does pay for a lot of public programs.  I'm no doctor on communism or socialism, so I don't want to say exactly what would get funded through tax dollars, but I would assume that you'd probably see kickbacks to businesses who are environmentally friendly (to offset the costs of transforming to a green economy), and what not.

 

Regardless, the point I've probably not made vocal enough is that the taxed money does not simply go to inner city programs that folks like you and I will never directly benefit from.  Put people in a more socialist economy, and while you have less total expendable money, in reality, you have more proportional money to spend on purley consumer goods because a lot of things you'd end up flipping the bill for (like the increases in prices to offset the cost of becoming more eco-friendly... such as with gas) become obsolete payments because people above you on the food chain pay more.

 

You're right, the system I advocate hurts the rich the most, and I can't counter that, but (maybe its just me) when I get a million bucks, I'm not going to have much use for a second million.  I think the overall cost of maybe lowering the standard of living of the wealthiest (sorry, no more Aquafina baths and 38 cars in the garage) to substantially improve the lives of the bottom-feeders (like, sticking a roof over my head) is a sacrafice that needs to be made.  Regardless, the upper class is still doing quite well for itself.  They still have MORE; I'm not advocating pure communism here (while that would be my ideal), because I understand no one would go for that; however, in a psuedo-socialist/capitalist system, incentive remains because you can still do quite wel for yourself, but you never have the sword of dire poverty haning over your head because, no matter what, your basic human rights (housing, health care, education) are available to you because of government.

 

here is where i call you a stupid pinko and again ask you to go the hell away so i don't have to listen to your stupid bulls***.

 

I'm sure there's a way to block me.

[Kempers]

lol alright i think we all have to argree doub is one of the biggest tards out there. a walking contradiction and a large group of broad cliches all rolled into one.

[doubleM23]

Originally posted by CubKilla

Originally posted by Murcielago

But back to the allowing minorities into CPS HS....... Take a look at North Side Prep..... If your White you have to score in the 96 Pecentile to get in...... If your a minority it's the 55th percentile...... Does this sound right to all you liberal f***s?

 

Notice how doubleM ignores these fun little tidbits.....

 

Well, I had to do a little research on this one; a know a guy who was Hispanic (last name was Rodriguez) and he scored in the 82nd percentile of the North Side College Prep placement test and got rejected, so I am a little leery of those numbers... If you can direct me to where I can find them, then I'll gladly tell you that kind of racial discrimination is horses***.

[CubKilla]

Originally posted by doubleM23

Here, my friend just explained this to me during lunch (he's an accounting major or something... like 80 bajillion times smarter than me)...

 

Wealth is much more active when its not being taken out by loans and s*** and when people actually have it as expendable income.  Basically meaning, if a guy has $20,000 that money is a lot more worthwhile to him if he can go buy stuff with it right now, rather than taking out loans and buying things with that.

 

Let's say you buy something, like a car, and it originally costs $15,000 and you pull a loan on something, I'm not 100% sure how it works, but you'll end up losing another thousand or so paying back your loan, which only hurts consumers; as that money which originally could have been spent is lost.

 

You needed an accounting major to explain this to you? This is what banks call "interest". Common sense will tell you that if you had $2000 in one hand and a $2000 credit card bill in the other, economically, you'd be better off using all $2000 to pay off the credit card bill to avoid the interest payments instead of investing the $2000 at a lower interest rate. Now I know why you are so far left..... you're probably a quota student at Bradley University.

[doubleM23]

Originally posted by CubKilla

Originally posted by doubleM23

Here, my friend just explained this to me during lunch (he's an accounting major or something... like 80 bajillion times smarter than me)...

 

Wealth is much more active when its not being taken out by loans and s*** and when people actually have it as expendable income.  Basically meaning, if a guy has $20,000 that money is a lot more worthwhile to him if he can go buy stuff with it right now, rather than taking out loans and buying things with that.

 

Let's say you buy something, like a car, and it originally costs $15,000 and you pull a loan on something, I'm not 100% sure how it works, but you'll end up losing another thousand or so paying back your loan, which only hurts consumers; as that money which originally could have been spent is lost.

 

You needed an accounting major to explain this to you? This is what banks call "interest". Common sense will tell you that if you had $2000 in one hand and a $2000 credit card bill in the other, economically, you'd be better off using all $2000 to pay off the credit card bill to avoid the interest payments instead of investing the $2000 at a lower interest rate. Now I know why you are so far left..... you're probably a quota student at Bradley University.

 

Nah, I knew the basics of it, I just didn't know how to say it. I have about zero understanding of economics outside of the crap we learned at St. Pat's and I have even less understanding of the language used.

[Spiff]

Originally posted by doubleM23Nah, I knew the basics of it, I just didn't know how to say it.  I have about zero understanding of economics outside of the crap we learned at St. Pat's and I have even less understanding of the language used.

 

Then what the f*** have you been spouting off about for 3 pages genius? Though I guess it was obvious before, now you've admitted you know s*** about economics, which diminishes any argument you may have had.

 

All I have to say is, wow.

[Kempers]

see my post above

[doubleM23]

Originally posted by Spiff

Originally posted by doubleM23Nah, I knew the basics of it, I just didn't know how to say it.  I have about zero understanding of economics outside of the crap we learned at St. Pat's and I have even less understanding of the language used.

 

Then what the f*** have you been spouting off about for 3 pages genius? Though I guess it was obvious before, now you've admitted you know s*** about economics, which diminishes any argument you may have had.

 

All I have to say is, wow.

 

Hmm... I dont know if its as much economics as it is government (and, yeah I did mention that I know s*** about it in that first truly economic post I made when I dumbed all the numbers down for my mathematically-challenged self).

 

Man, you all get worked up...

[Kempers]

Well you are the f***tard wasting everyone's time when you talk about a bunch of s*** you are clueless to.

[doubleM23]

Originally posted by Kempers

Well you are the f***tard wasting everyone's time when you talk about a bunch of s*** you are clueless to.

 

LOL... Then why do you read it? If you think I have no idea what I'm talking about, why do you waste your time and read the stuff? There are a few like Jason, bjmarte, CubKilla, and Murcielago who's actually reading what I'm writing and making intelligent commentary on it... If anyone's wasting your time, pal, it's you. I'm sure there's a way to block me or something. If you don't wanna read it, knock your socks off... You won't hurt my feelings.

[Kempers]

http://www.soxtalk.com/viewthread.php?tid=927

 

here, f***tard