AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Obama's tax plan makes great sense.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Obama's tax plan makes great sense. - Page 2

post #41 of 151
5/17/11 at 6:51pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

So do you or do you not support the rich paying more in taxes? If you support a flat rate you do.

That's your story and you're sticking to it huh?

Gotta give you credit for sticktuitiveness.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #42 of 151
5/17/11 at 9:27pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

If you cut taxes so much that everybody pays less there'd be no welfare, no public schools, healthcare etc and the poor would be paying far more of the share that is paid than all the rest and still have to fork out for those things privately. In other words they'd be screwed.

You don't get it. Part of what he believes is that this is fair. The other part of what he believes is that if the rich get to 'keep' more of what they 'earn', productivity and wealth will suddenly increase so dramatically that the rich will suddenly offer all poor people jobs, and also give all their 'extra' money voluntarily to charities that will take care of everything else.

Talk about misguided utopian ideals!
Reply
Reply
post #43 of 151
5/18/11 at 5:48am
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

You don't get it. Part of what he believes is that this is fair. The other part of what he believes is that if the rich get to 'keep' more of what they 'earn', productivity and wealth will suddenly increase so dramatically that the rich will suddenly offer all poor people jobs, and also give all their 'extra' money voluntarily to charities that will take care of everything else.

Talk about misguided utopian ideals!

Why is 'earn' in quotes? That probably tells us all a lot about your mindset. The rest tells us a lot about your mindset as well.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #44 of 151
5/18/11 at 5:59am
[QUOTE=Hands Sandon;1865517]
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post


So do you or do you not support the rich paying more in taxes? If you support a flat rate you do. Do you really want to steal from the rich?

If you don't, what amount would you like to see set? Maybe everyone pays $15,000 with no deductions?

I don't support the rich paying more in the current system. As for how much they should pay, I think we could have--and I'm just throwing this number out there--a tax of 10% with no deductions on everyone above the poverty line (we could debate what it should be, if any, for people that earn less). From there, I think it's reasonable to have graduated "super rich" tax. Say another 1% on those over one million, and an additional 1% on those making over $5,000,000 (or whatever...you get the concept.

Taxing them more in the current system is utterly stupid, ineffective and detrimental.


Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

You don't get it. Part of what he believes is that this is fair. The other part of what he believes is that if the rich get to 'keep' more of what they 'earn', productivity and wealth will suddenly increase so dramatically that the rich will suddenly offer all poor people jobs, and also give all their 'extra' money voluntarily to charities that will take care of everything else.

Talk about misguided utopian ideals!

That's obviously exaggerated. What I'm saying is that the "rich" already pay the lion's share of the taxes. "Rich" includes small business in many cases, and the bulk of the middle and upper ""consumer classes." Taxing the rich more does not make anyone richer, it only makes them poorer. So in that vein, taxing them more for redistribution (which I oppose wholeheartedly) fails in itself.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Why is 'earn' in quotes? That probably tells us all a lot about your mindset. The rest tells us a lot about your mindset as well.

There you go. Two competing philosophies. When you look at money like say, Michael Moore does, you think that money is a natural resource and that the rich have stolen it from everyone else. The end goal is to solve the issue of "income inequality." Of course, this is impossible through taxation. All these policies of theirs (liberal, socialist-progressives) do is make everyone more poor...with the exception of Uncle Sam.
To save time, assume I know everything.
Reply
To save time, assume I know everything.
Reply
post #45 of 151
5/18/11 at 6:46am
I have a million dollars. I give it to a fund manager, who gets me a return of $50,000 a year on it (minimum). The whole process took me about two hours a day for a week to research and to arrange, and one hour a week afterward to monitor.

My son's history teacher works 30 hours a week in the classroom and 30 hours a week for preparation and grading, and earns $30,000 a year.

Who actually EARNED the money?
Reply
Reply
post #46 of 151
5/18/11 at 6:52am
Thread Starter 
[QUOTE=SDW2001;1865817]
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdw2001bc View Post


I don't support the rich paying more in the current system. As for how much they should pay, I think we could have--and I'm just throwing this number out there--a tax of 10% with no deductions on everyone above the poverty line (we could debate what it should be, if any, for people that earn less). From there, I think it's reasonable to have graduated "super rich" tax. Say another 1% on those over one million, and an additional 1% on those making over $5,000,000 (or whatever...you get the concept.

Taxing them more in the current system is utterly stupid, ineffective and detrimental.




That's obviously exaggerated. What I'm saying is that the "rich" already pay the lion's share of the taxes. "Rich" includes small business in many cases, and the bulk of the middle and upper ""consumer classes." Taxing the rich more does not make anyone richer, it only makes them poorer. So in that vein, taxing them more for redistribution (which I oppose wholeheartedly) fails in itself.



There you go. Two competing philosophies. When you look at money like say, Michael Moore does, you think that money is a natural resource and that the rich have stolen it from everyone else. The end goal is to solve the issue of "income inequality." Of course, this is impossible through taxation. All these policies of theirs (liberal, socialist-progressives) do is make everyone more poor...with the exception of Uncle Sam.


So you'd roughly cut income tax revenue from $1,090,000,000,000 to $550,000,000,000. 54% of the $1.09 trillion currently goes to defense spending. I guess given your not big on military spending cuts you'll just cut nearly everything else entirely and to hell with paying off the debt too.

Oh but wait... you'll argue it'll bring in more revenue, so the government will have more money! Good luck with that one.

"If your enemies cannot find a flaw in your reasoning, they will find it in your reputation".

~ William Hazlitt

Reply

"If your enemies cannot find a flaw in your reasoning, they will find it in your reputation".

~ William Hazlitt

Reply
post #47 of 151
5/18/11 at 6:55am
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

I have a million dollars. I give it to a fund manager, who gets me a return of $50,000 a year on it (minimum). The whole process took me about two hours a day for a week to research and to arrange, and one hour a week afterward to monitor.

My son's history teacher works 30 hours a week in the classroom and 30 hours a week for preparation and grading, and earns $30,000 a year.

Who actually EARNED the money?

Both.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #48 of 151
5/18/11 at 6:56am
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Both.

And who worked harder for it?
Reply
Reply
post #49 of 151
5/18/11 at 7:01am
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

And who worked harder for it?

Why does that matter? Surely you're not clinging to that antiquated and discredited labor theory of value concept are you? Sure looks like it.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #50 of 151
5/18/11 at 7:03am
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

I have a million dollars. I give it to a fund manager, who gets me a return of $50,000 a year on it (minimum). The whole process took me about two hours a day for a week to research and to arrange, and one hour a week afterward to monitor.

My son's history teacher works 30 hours a week in the classroom and 30 hours a week for preparation and grading, and earns $30,000 a year.

Who actually EARNED the money?

Read "Rich Dad, Poor Dad." The idea is to make money work for you, as you do (apparently). Working for money is what keeps us poor. I myself am in the process of changing my view of my personal financial picture. It's another topic, but related.
To save time, assume I know everything.
Reply
To save time, assume I know everything.
Reply
post #51 of 151
5/18/11 at 7:13am
[QUOTE=Hands Sandon;1865856]
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post



So you'd roughly cut income tax revenue from $1,090,000,000,000 to $550,000,000,000. 54% of the $1.09 trillion currently goes to defense spending. I guess given your not big on military spending cuts you'll just cut nearly everything else entirely and to hell with paying off the debt too.

Oh but wait... you'll argue it'll bring in more revenue, so the government will have more money! Good luck with that one.

I don't see where you get that number. Remember, I was just throwing that 10% number out there. It might be more or less. I know that as someone who earns over $100,000 a year in conjunction with my wife, my effective rate is almost always 10 or 11%. Imagine if the government made this tax unavoidable.

Speaking of unavoidable taxes, this is why some kind of consumption tax is better than an income tax. You exempt food, clothing and shelter to compensate for people who are lower income. You eliminate punishing success...you incentivize it. And you make that rate enough to cover expenses. Of course, all this comes while cutting spending.

And speaking of THAT, I do support reductions in military spending, or at least freezing costs as much as possible. We need to reorganize military bases and consolidate. We have over 700 foreign bases. That needs to be cut in half, at least. I don't support drastic cuts in military spending, but yes...some are necessary.

Of course, military spending is not the major reason we're in this situation, nor was it the reason for the recession. We spent a trillion dollars on a stimulus and vastly expanded many government department budgets. Federal employees now make far more than there private sector counterparts, for example. And of course, we need to reform Social Security and Medicare to make them sustainable.
To save time, assume I know everything.
Reply
To save time, assume I know everything.
Reply
post #52 of 151
5/18/11 at 7:14am
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Read "Rich Dad, Poor Dad." The idea is to make money work for you, as you do (apparently). Working for money is what keeps us poor.

Exactly!

The differences between the rich and poor have more to do with things like moving income away from wages to other forms (partly due to the income tax burden...but for other sensible economic reasons as well)...having a long term view vs. a short term view...deferring present consumption (saving and investing) vs. consuming all present income and more (debt).

The guy who invested his money in tonton's scenario first earned this money from some source (perhaps a job) saved some of it (deferred consumption for a time) and then lent this money to others who desired or needed it now. Time preference is a huge factor in the difference between the rich and the poor.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #53 of 151
5/18/11 at 7:31am
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Exactly!

The differences between the rich and poor have more to do with things like moving income away from wages to other forms (partly due to the income tax burden...but for other sensible economic reasons as well)...having a long term view vs. a short term view...deferring present consumption (saving and investing) vs. consuming all present income and more (debt).

The guy who invested his money in tonton's scenario first earned this money from some source (perhaps a job) saved some of it (deferred consumption for a time) and then lent this money to others who desired or needed it now. Time preference is a huge factor in the difference between the rich and the poor.

Yup. I just read that book, and I believe it may change my financial life. It's like I woke up one day and realized "I don't own any real assets other than my retirement and college savings." The author, Robert Kiyosaki writes about exactly what you're mentioning...passive and portfolio income rather than wages. I even found a copy of his "Cashflow" board game. I am quite serious about this...my whole outlook had changed.

But that outlook is quite different than what tonton presents. If one takes the view that people can only "earn" money through work, it's easy to be angry about income inequality and "unfairness." Even before my recent revelation, I took a different view...I just didn't know how to get there. Two different world views, I suppose.
To save time, assume I know everything.
Reply
To save time, assume I know everything.
Reply
post #54 of 151
5/18/11 at 8:40am
I'm perfectly fine with people using money to make money. I'm getting there, myself.

However, I think it's fair to tax those people who earn money in this way at a higher percentage, since they are benefiting from the system in a way that the poor are unable to do.
Reply
Reply
post #55 of 151
5/18/11 at 9:09am
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

I'm perfectly fine with people using money to make money. I'm getting there, myself.

However, I think it's fair to tax those people who earn money in this way at a higher percentage, since they are benefiting from the system in a way that the poor are unable to do.

Why? Just because?

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #56 of 151
5/18/11 at 9:11am
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Why? Just because?

No. Because it affects the standard of living of the investing class far less than it affects the standard of living of the working class. Honestly. It does.
Reply
Reply
post #57 of 151
5/18/11 at 9:13am
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

No. Because it affects the standard of living of the investing class far less than it affects the standard of living of the working class. Honestly. It does.

Do you believe the investing class is wealthy because they keep the working class poor?

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #58 of 151
5/18/11 at 9:13am
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

No. Because it affects the standard of living of the investing class far less than it affects the standard of living of the working class. Honestly. It does.



This doesn't rise to the level of valid justification in my book.

Just because my neighbor has two big screen TVs and three cars (and I have none and one) doesn't provide enough justification for me to go take one of each.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #59 of 151
5/18/11 at 9:26am
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

Do you believe the investing class is wealthy because they keep the working class poor?

On the one hand, every employer tries to minimize the costs associated with employment, so in that sense, yes.
Reply
Reply
post #60 of 151
5/18/11 at 9:27am
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

This doesn't rise to the level of valid justification in my book.

Of course it doesn't. You lack empathy.
Reply
Reply
post #61 of 151
5/18/11 at 9:29am
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

On the one hand, every employer tries to minimize the costs associated with employment, so in that sense, yes.

Would you say those costs include payroll and other taxes?

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #62 of 151
5/18/11 at 9:29am
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post



This doesn't rise to the level of valid justification in my book.

Just because my neighbor has two big screen TVs and three cars (and I have none and one) doesn't provide enough justification for me to go take one of each.

You're not taking one of each. Nor is the government. This is a lie.
Reply
Reply
post #63 of 151
5/18/11 at 9:30am
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Of course it doesn't. You lack empathy.

You lack consistency. If you yourself would not steal from your neighbor, why do you approve of other people (government) stealing from your neighbor for you?

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #64 of 151
5/18/11 at 9:37am
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

Would you say those costs include payroll and other taxes?

Of course. Would you say those costs don't include salaries and benefits?

Now, don't respond with a question. I'm not going to answer any more of your questions until you answer some of mine. How does the free market deal with monopoly, collusion, market manipulation, supply constraint, monopsony and non-transparency?
Reply
Reply
post #65 of 151
5/18/11 at 9:40am
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

You lack consistency. If you yourself would not steal from your neighbor, why do you approve of other people (government) stealing from your neighbor for you?

Because it's not theft. It's funding services given to you, including maintenance of the very system which allows you to profit through investment. Take away the rule of law, take away enforcement (of property rights, for instance -- something dear to your heart), take away poverty avoidance measures, and the system you profit from as an investor collapses.
Reply
Reply
post #66 of 151
5/18/11 at 9:50am
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Of course. Would you say those costs don't include salaries and benefits?

Now, don't respond with a question. I'm not going to answer any more of your questions until you answer some of mine. How does the free market deal with monopoly, collusion, market manipulation, supply constraint, monopsony and non-transparency?

In a truly free market, all of those things you listed either would not exist or would be bad for business.

The focus would be on pleasing the customer, not "gaming the system" (because there would be no system - at least not one that involved government aggression).

You don't please your customer by charging him excessively for a product or service.

Monopolies wouldn't exist because people would be allowed to start their own businesses and compete.

If you are found to be cheating your customers or are providing substandard products/services at unfair prices, your customers would go elsewhere and you would be allowed to fail.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #67 of 151
5/18/11 at 9:53am
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

You lack empathy.

Thanks for sharing your opinion.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #68 of 151
5/18/11 at 9:53am
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Because it's not theft. It's funding services given to you, including maintenance of the very system which allows you to profit through investment. Take away the rule of law, take away enforcement (of property rights, for instance -- something dear to your heart), take away poverty avoidance measures, and the system you profit from as an investor collapses.

Threatening someone with imprisonment or bodily harm unless they give you money is most certainly theft. More like armed robbery.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #69 of 151
5/18/11 at 9:56am
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

You're not taking one of each. Nor is the government. This is a lie.

Sorry if you're unable to see the parallels. That's part of the problem here.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #70 of 151
5/18/11 at 9:58am
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

The focus would be on pleasing the customer, not "gaming the system" (because there would be no system - at least not one that involved government aggression).

Sorry, but this is incorrect. The focus would be on making money. If abusing the system helps to make more money, the system will be abused.
Quote:
You don't please your customer by charging him excessively for a product or service.

But you sure can get more money out of them. Do you think Microsoft got where it did by pleasing the customer? Do you think they shouldn't have been censured for their business practices? Do you think that had they not been censured by courts and governments, they would have lost market share from consumer action?
Quote:
Monopolies wouldn't exist because people would be allowed to start their own businesses and compete.

Wrong again. A monopoly can easily crush a challenger, through supply constraint, out-marketing, and acquisition. Imagine if Microsoft could have gotten away with buying Apple in the nineties.
Quote:
If you are found to be cheating your customers or are providing substandard products/services at unfair prices, your customers would go elsewhere and you would be allowed to fail.

Not if there's nowhere else to go.
Reply
Reply
post #71 of 151
5/18/11 at 10:44am
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

I'm perfectly fine with people using money to make money. I'm getting there, myself.

However, I think it's fair to tax those people who earn money in this way at a higher percentage, since they are benefiting from the system in a way that the poor are unable to do.

But the poor don't pay any taxes now. Perhaps you mean the working class? I happen to think that the working class can absolutely "benefit from the system" as you put it.
To save time, assume I know everything.
Reply
To save time, assume I know everything.
Reply
post #72 of 151
5/18/11 at 11:07am
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Sorry, but this is incorrect. The focus would be on making money. If abusing the system helps to make more money, the system will be abused.
But you sure can get more money out of them. Do you think Microsoft got where it did by pleasing the customer? Do you think they shouldn't have been censured for their business practices? Do you think that had they not been censured by courts and governments, they would have lost market share from consumer action?

Wrong again. A monopoly can easily crush a challenger, through supply constraint, out-marketing, and acquisition. Imagine if Microsoft could have gotten away with buying Apple in the nineties.

Not if there's nowhere else to go.

Microsoft has gotten where it is through government intervention in the free market.

Here's a libertarian view on it.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #73 of 151
5/18/11 at 11:18am
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Of course it doesn't. You lack empathy.

Let me clarify this for you MJ. Empathy means you don't comment on the spouses of your fellow posters and associate them with dairy products often enough.

Thus, you lack empathy. At least I'm pretty sure that's what it means based off tonton comments.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #74 of 151
5/18/11 at 11:23am
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

Let me clarify this for you MJ. Empathy means you don't comment on the spouses of your fellow posters and associate them with dairy products often enough.

Thus, you lack empathy. At least I'm pretty sure that's what it means based off tonton comments.

Thanks. I assumed it simply meant that I didn't agree with him.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #75 of 151
5/18/11 at 1:32pm
  • BR
  • Justified Arrogance
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Of course it doesn't. You lack empathy.

Ding ding ding. That's the common thread behind all of these libertarian arguments. And the sad thing is, these people often call themselves Christians. Disgusting.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #76 of 151
5/18/11 at 1:38pm
And yet another entry in the "Fun With Fallacies" game:

Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

Ding ding ding. That's the common thread behind all of these libertarian arguments. And the sad thing is, these people often call themselves Christians. Disgusting.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #77 of 151
5/18/11 at 2:00pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

Ding ding ding. That's the common thread behind all of these libertarian arguments. And the sad thing is, these people often call themselves Christians. Disgusting.

Apparently the common thread for the counter-arguments is ad-homs of posting members, their spouses, their off-spring, etc.

By the way BR, you look like a vat of cheese with creamer on top.

Just trying to show some empathy.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #78 of 151
5/18/11 at 8:13pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

Microsoft has gotten where it is through government intervention in the free market.

Here's a libertarian view on it.

I'm on the fence on the intellectual property issue. Have you read any Stephen Kinsella? He's kind of the modern intellectual center of the libertarian anti-intellectual property movement. Some of what's he's written is pretty compelling and convincing. I'm still digesting it all though. I think Lysander Spooner also wrote on this though I have not read his stuff on that subject.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #79 of 151
5/18/11 at 8:19pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

I'm perfectly fine with people using money to make money. I'm getting there, myself.

However, I think it's fair to tax those people who earn money in this way at a higher percentage, since they are benefiting from the system in a way that the poor are unable to do.

Unable and unwilling are not synonyms.

There is no law that prevents anyone from living below their means to save and invest nor any law that prevents upward mobility.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #80 of 151
5/18/11 at 8:24pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

Unable and unwilling are not synonyms.

There is no law that prevents anyone from living below their means to save and invest nor any law that prevents upward mobility.

P.S. And unwilling is just fine too. It sometimes simply reflects a different set of choices. We ought not assume that everyone who is not (financially) rich is not so because they can't be. Some folks just don't want to make the various sacrifices that may be necessary to move up in the organization or to move up on the wealth scale. They are content and happy where they are...and sometimes with good reasons.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Obama's tax plan makes great sense.