OpinionWealth Envy: The Downfall of the Democrat. How can you cut his pay, and then expect his income tax to pay for your social programs?
      – DigitalBoss, 2009-10-23 at 21:07:24   (29 comments)

On 2009-10-23 at 21:13:30, DigitalBoss wrote...
In the US, the left is so full of wealth envy, that they can't see straight. When you base your whole progressive income tax policy on TAXING THE RICH, and then you make a bold move to start reducing the pay of these filthy stinking rich scumbags, where do you think you are going to get the money you need to re-distribute amongst the unwashed masses for votes? The whole house of cards comes falling down. The Dems in New York are telling the Dems in Washington, "Hey, what the hell are you doing? We tax the shine out of those guys. We need the money." LOL, LOL, LOL!
On 2009-10-23 at 21:14:20, DigitalBoss wrote...
Somebody has to pay for those votes, you dummies.
On 2009-10-23 at 21:18:03, DigitalBoss wrote...
The big problem, that no one has solved, is that sooner, or later, you run out of other people's money.
On 2009-10-23 at 23:11:31, BorgClown wrote...
I thought most of the taxes came from the middle class, not the wealthy class. I, for example, have my income and social security taxes deducted right off my paycheck, while if you have a business, you can find ways to deduct expenses and pay much less. When I was a freelance, my accountant told me that he could make me pay zero taxes, but that would look suspicious, so I paid about a fifth of what I pay now that I'm in payroll.
On 2009-10-23 at 23:12:17, BorgClown wrote...
Taxing the wealthy is a demagogic candy, I'm sure those new taxes can be deducted with expenses too.
On 2009-10-24 at 00:01:48, DigitalBoss wrote...
47% of Americans pay no federal income tax. The top 1% earners pay 70% of all the income tax revenue. In the US, because of wealth envy run amok, only the top earners pay income taxes. I make 50k, and all I pay is about 9%, my brother makes 300k, he pays about 33% to income tax. It is not new taxes that are the issue. The Obama government is lowering the pay of the employees of the companies that were bailed out by the taxpayers. These guys make millions. No millions, no federal income tax from the millions. No millions, no state income tax on the millions. The wealth envy is killing the golden goose. Cutting off its nose to spite its face. LMAO! The state of New York is yelling mad. They depend on the state income tax from these millionaires to pay for their liberal programs.
On 2009-10-24 at 00:22:15, DigitalBoss wrote...
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20091022/bs_nm/us_financial_pay
On 2009-10-24 at 14:24:53, DigitalBoss wrote...
I can't find a really good link for this, no one has really caught on to it yet. Obama is limiting the pay of employees of the "bailed-out" companies by 90%. Wait a minute! Hold the bus! These are big taxpayers. They pay a lot of money in income tax. Obama is actually cutting his revenue by cutting these people's pay. You can't have your cake, and eat it too. If one of your policies is to tax the rich, and another policy is to cut the pay of rich people, then you are doomed. It is ridiculous. Absolutely insane. Shows how smart tax and spend Democrats really are NOT.
On 2009-10-26 at 03:41:22, BorgClown wrote...
The bailout was the wrong way to go anyway, you could have saved billions by implementing a more pragmatic strategy, although it was sure to raise cries of communism eating USA. What I'm talking about is the state bought those badly managed companies and made them profitable, then resell them. The government could even make a profit before selling them back.
On 2009-10-26 at 14:01:36, DigitalBoss wrote...
The government should have just let them die. The reason Bush bailed them out was that the government created the mess to start with. People just don't understand this, when ever government gets involved in ANYTHING they mess it up. It started with the CRA (Community Reinvestment Act), which Bush made worse himself, not even mentioning Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton, then was made even worse by freddy mac and franny mae, and then made even worse with the credit default swaps. Another thing that most people forget is that were it not for the CRA and freddy mac, the credit default swaps would had never existed. The credit default swaps were a capitalist method of trying to normalize a messed-up government situation.
On 2009-10-27 at 03:36:57, BorgClown wrote...
Really let them die? Not buy them bankrupt and straighten them out?
On 2009-10-27 at 12:32:16, DigitalBoss wrote...
That is what would happen in the free market. When something fails, let it fail. Period. That is what the bankruptcy laws are for, sort it out in court.
On 2009-10-27 at 21:17:31, BorgClown wrote...
I'm not sure what would be the effect of banks crashing in the economy, I suppose it would be like Argentina, where there wasn't money for withdrawal from savings accounts, so you were limited to 100 USD per week of your own money. Also, Banks stopped lending money and companies stagnated for a while. And those banks weren't actually bankrupt, it was just that the money was siphoned outside Argentina.
On 2009-10-29 at 19:29:48, Scarletxstarlet wrote...
I only make minimum wage, but I manage to 'give' over a thousand dollars in taxes to the government each year. I'd rather have them use that for social programs than a war. Or a bailout.
On 2009-10-30 at 02:18:40, DigitalBoss wrote...
This shows how Democrats/liberals live in a fantasy world. A world where there are no evil rich people, but taxing the rich pays for giveaways to the poor. There is no such a thing as something for nothing. Sooner or later, you run out of the rich guy's money. You can't tax the shit out of the rich guy and then hate him so much that you cut his pay by 90%.
On 2009-10-30 at 02:22:17, DigitalBoss wrote...
@Scarlet: There are many taxes deducted/withheld from your pay check, how much of that $1,000.00 is federal income tax? Remember, you don't really "pay" the tax until you file your income tax return, so you will probably have to look there for the answer.
On 2009-10-30 at 04:02:35, BorgClown wrote...
In all justice, those bonuses are prizes for criminal ineptitude, how in hell you justify giving a fat bonus to the executives who tanked a company so hard it had to beg for money? The contracts must have had a clause tying the bonus to good performance.
On 2009-10-30 at 04:04:19, BorgClown wrote...
In the real world, you fail at work, you get fired. If it's due to ineptitude or bad work ethics, you don't even get the usual law benefits.
On 2009-10-30 at 08:08:10, Scarletxstarlet wrote...
@DigitalBoss: Let me check my paystub...aha. Here we go: City Tax- 143 YTD Federal- 511 YTD SSecurity- 590 YTD Medicare- 138 YTD State Tax- 290 YTD TOTAL- 1672 YTD So really the worst expense is towards Social Security, which no one in my generation will be able to draw from. But if the same amount was taken out and put towards UHC instead, I wouldn't mind a bit.
On 2009-10-30 at 13:36:59, DigitalBoss wrote...
Don't you wish you could put that $590.00 into a private account that was in your name? That you could will to your heirs? Over 40 years, it would be WAY more than you would get under SS. But no! The way the politicians like it, is that they can spend that 590 now and worry about paying you later. PONZI SCHEME! That federal 511.00 just means that they have withheld that much from your check, you don't actually pay it until you file your return. You will probably be able to get some of that back. They set it up that way so that you will feel "oh, I got money back, I did not pay anything".The amount that you don't get back is how much you ultimately pay. How would you like to have all that money? You earned it. Under the FairTax, you would get all that money on your check, except for maybe the city and state tax, but most feel that if the fed goes for the FairTax that the states and cities will too. That would be $1600 of your money that you could spend how you want.
On 2009-10-30 at 13:37:27, DigitalBoss wrote...
Glad to see you back, by the way, Scarlet.
On 2009-10-30 at 13:40:06, DigitalBoss wrote...
@Borg: Some of those people did not even work in the department that caused the problems. In many of the financial jobs, people are paid a very minimal salary and their pay is based mainly on performance. In many cases these people really deserve that bonus. Who are you to judge what they deserve, and what they do not deserve.
On 2009-10-31 at 02:46:57, BorgClown wrote...
@DigitalBoss: If you're the captain and the ship sinks, you take the blame, you were supposed to be the king who leads the pawns. And don't play innocent, you know unethical behavior played a significant role in this global recession.
On 2009-10-31 at 02:56:30, BorgClown wrote...
@Scarletxstarlet: What do SSecurity and Medicare cover?
On 2009-10-31 at 14:33:10, DigitalBoss wrote...
@Borg:Yeah, in the case of the CEO or CFO maybe, but there were hundreds of bonuses in question. These were regular employees who may have held up their end of the bargain and deserve to get their bonus regardless of if wealth envy liberals are offended. Can you be more specific of the unethical behavior? When the government forces you to make nonsense loans to people who everyone knows cannot pay them back, the bad paper has to go somewhere. The bad investment devices called mortgage-backed securities where so risky that insurance policies where created to soften them up. These insurance policies are called derivatives, in this case credit default swaps. Did they over sell these credit default swaps? Yes. Were way too many bad loans get written? Yes. It was all started by the government. The CRA held back bank expansion into new markets unless they could show that they were making loans to otherwise credit unworthy people and businesses. It was bad business practice promoted by the government.
On 2009-10-31 at 14:37:28, DigitalBoss wrote...
You want to talk about unethical behavior? It seems to me that government forcing nonsense on private enterprise is the unethical behavior. Whether it was intended to help poor people own homes, or to help the politicians buy votes, it was unethical for the government to get involved in the first place. Government regulations always have unintended consequences. The marketplace, in most cases, is best to run free and unregulated, especially by dumbass Democrats that have never run a business, or had to make a payroll.
On 2009-10-31 at 14:51:59, DigitalBoss wrote...
@Scarlet: Social Security is a Democrat big-government ponzi scheme excuse for a retirement plan. It is really a tax. The government is taking your money and spending it now to pay for it's largess and vote buying, hoping that when you retire, or become disabled, they will have the money to pay you from other people's SS tax revenue. At some point in the near future, there will be more people being paid by the system than are paying into the system. George Bush tried to modify the system a little to allow you to begin to put part of your "contribution" into a private account, and try to privatize the system somewhat. But the Democrats blocked him. They will use their standard fix, raise taxes. Barney Madoff, who ran a $50 Billion ponzi scheme, is in prison right now. The US government runs a $50 Trillion ponzi scheme. I am not against safety nets, we live in a very competitive market. I just think the net should be a free market solution, not a big-government solution. Google "Galveston County Retirement".
On 2009-11-01 at 00:25:18, BorgClown wrote...
Mexico tried a retirement plan who had good results in other Latin American countries, the privatization through Afores (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afores). Afores are like banks specialized in retirement funds. They collect from the employer, employee and the government, invest or loan the money for profit, and give part of the profit back into the savings account. Afores are very strictly regulated, so they can't invest or loan to their whim, so the risk factor is very low for your savings. It has worked pretty well so far, given the kind of monies they manage, there have been no frauds. There is even a website with the profitability and fees of each Afore, so every few months you can jump to the one that gets your eye.
On 2009-11-01 at 20:01:00, DigitalBoss wrote...
What is really interesting, or telling, is that the law enabling the Galveston plan was passed in 1980, and quickly repealed in 1983. My guess is that politicians realized the threat to their dear SS ponzi scheme and shut the door as fast as they could.