I'm Curious

  • conservativej...

    Posts: 2465

    Mar 16, 2011 10:13 PM GMT
    So are there any top 1-2% Liberal 'Wealthers' on RJ? (Yes, a new word.)
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 16, 2011 10:14 PM GMT
    conservativejock saidSo are there any top 1-2% Liberal 'Wealthers' on RJ? (Yes, a new word.)
    Are there any top 1-2% teaparty/repub 'Wealthers' on RJ?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 16, 2011 10:18 PM GMT
    Are there any self loathing gay Republicans on RJ?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 16, 2011 10:36 PM GMT
    catfish5 saidAre there any self loathing gay Republicans on RJ?
    No. They all work in political offices.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 16, 2011 11:24 PM GMT
    It's hard to know on a site like this but I would say there are a few people whom I've also friended on Facebook that are definitely in the top 5-10% of income earners. Mostly professional guys, who actually advocate for more progressive tax rates which would impact them.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 16, 2011 11:40 PM GMT
    southbeach1500 said
    Christian73 said Mostly professional guys, who actually advocate for more progressive tax rates which would impact them.


    In government we trust. icon_rolleyes.gif
    Beats trusting you!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 17, 2011 12:27 AM GMT
    catfish5 saidAre there any self loathing gay Republicans on RJ?



    Are there any other kind?

    Don't think so.
  • creature

    Posts: 5197

    Mar 17, 2011 12:40 AM GMT
    So conservativejock wants to see if any liberals on here are wealthy. Why? He doesn't think it's possible for a wealthy person to advocate more taxes? Have the words of Bill Gates and Warren Buffet not reached him, despited their repeated call for higher taxes? Is conservativejock not aware that there are wealthy districts in America that vote overwhelmingly for Democrats.

    It seems like every time conservativejock posts something, it's irrelevant.
  • conservativej...

    Posts: 2465

    Mar 17, 2011 12:57 AM GMT
    TropicalMark said
    conservativejock saidSo are there any top 1-2% Liberal 'Wealthers' on RJ? (Yes, a new word.)
    Are there any top 1-2% teaparty/repub 'Wealthers' on RJ?


    Yes. icon_biggrin.gif
  • creature

    Posts: 5197

    Mar 17, 2011 1:11 AM GMT
    southbeach1500 said
    creature saidSo conservativejock wants to see if any liberals on here are wealthy. Why? He doesn't think it's possible for a wealthy person to advocate more taxes? Have the words of Bill Gates and Warren Buffet not reached him, despited their repeated call for higher taxes? Is conservativejock not aware that there are wealthy districts in America that vote overwhelmingly for Democrats.

    It seems like every time conservativejock posts something, it's irrelevant.


    A point that is often overlooked about Gates and Buffett... they've already made their fortunes. If the extraordinary high tax rates that they have advocated were in place during the time they were first beginning to accrue their wealth, the outcome would have been quite different.

    For those of us who have not yet attained the level of wealth of Gates and Buffett but who are seeing the fruits of their labor and risk taking starting to pay off, we feel quite differently regarding this issue.


    Does it really matter though? Buffet and Gates are just two examples. There are plenty of millionaires and others in the top 1 - 2% who think its proper for a higher tax bracket. And even if there would have been higher taxes for Gates and Buffet before they noticeably increased their wealth, who are you to say they would not favor it?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 17, 2011 1:11 AM GMT
    southbeach1500 said
    creature saidSo conservativejock wants to see if any liberals on here are wealthy. Why? He doesn't think it's possible for a wealthy person to advocate more taxes? Have the words of Bill Gates and Warren Buffet not reached him, despited their repeated call for higher taxes? Is conservativejock not aware that there are wealthy districts in America that vote overwhelmingly for Democrats.

    It seems like every time conservativejock posts something, it's irrelevant.


    A point that is often overlooked about Gates and Buffett... they've already made their fortunes. If the extraordinary high tax rates that they have advocated were in place during the time they were first beginning to accrue their wealth, the outcome would have been quite different.

    For those of us who have not yet attained the level of wealth of Gates and Buffett but who are seeing the fruits of their labor and risk taking starting to pay off, we feel quite differently regarding this issue.


    That's a ridiculous argument, not borne out by data or anecdotal evidence. icon_rolleyes.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 17, 2011 1:12 AM GMT
    Imprecise question: what the heck is a "wealther"? Are we talking income or net worth?
  • Webster666

    Posts: 9217

    Mar 17, 2011 1:18 AM GMT
    southbeach1500 said
    Christian73 said Mostly professional guys, who actually advocate for more progressive tax rates which would impact them.


    In government we trust. icon_rolleyes.gif




    Stupid ass.
    Maybe you'd like a Mallomar Kuhdaffy type government.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 17, 2011 1:20 AM GMT
    southbeach1500 said
    creature said
    Does it really matter though? Buffet and Gates are just two examples. There are plenty of millionaires and others in the top 1 - 2% who think its proper for a higher tax bracket. And even if there would have been higher taxes for Gates and Buffet before they noticeably increased their wealth, who are you to say they would not favor it?


    Because if we were to turn the clock back 70 or 80 years to the tax rates of the past, 90% of their income would have been sent to the Federal government and they would never have become the millionaires and billionaires they are today.

    And then there's the question of "how much is enough?" when it comes to the needs of the Federal government.


    No one is talking about a 90% bracket, which in any case didn't stop enormous fortunes from being amassed.

    Taking the highest paid hedge fund manager from last year who earned $4 billion. Even at a rate of 90%, he still brings home $400,000,000. I sincerely doubt the potential to earn $400 million would stifle someone's ambition. Now, let's say we're talking about just going back to pre-Bush rates. That same hedge fund managers pays $2.4 billion as opposed to $2.5 billion.

    Are you seriously telling us that such a change in rate would prevent wealth accumulation? icon_rolleyes.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 17, 2011 1:20 AM GMT
    southbeach1500 said
    Christian73 said
    southbeach1500 said
    creature saidSo conservativejock wants to see if any liberals on here are wealthy. Why? He doesn't think it's possible for a wealthy person to advocate more taxes? Have the words of Bill Gates and Warren Buffet not reached him, despited their repeated call for higher taxes? Is conservativejock not aware that there are wealthy districts in America that vote overwhelmingly for Democrats.

    It seems like every time conservativejock posts something, it's irrelevant.


    A point that is often overlooked about Gates and Buffett... they've already made their fortunes. If the extraordinary high tax rates that they have advocated were in place during the time they were first beginning to accrue their wealth, the outcome would have been quite different.

    For those of us who have not yet attained the level of wealth of Gates and Buffett but who are seeing the fruits of their labor and risk taking starting to pay off, we feel quite differently regarding this issue.


    That's a ridiculous argument, not borne out by data or anecdotal evidence. icon_rolleyes.gif



    I know, difficult concept for the liberal / socialist mind to grasp.

    I've since more fully explained it in a subsequent post. Perhaps that will help you to understand.


    Yes. And I've demolished your ridiculous argument. icon_cool.gif
  • conservativej...

    Posts: 2465

    Mar 17, 2011 1:22 AM GMT
    q1w2e3 saidImprecise question: what the heck is a "wealther"? Are we talking income or net worth?


    I am referring to that 1-2% that rickrick cited a few days ago as America's most wealthy. Unfortunately, that 1-2% are in dimenishing number.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 17, 2011 1:22 AM GMT
    southbeach1500 said
    LeanathleticDC said
    catfish5 saidAre there any self loathing gay Republicans on RJ?



    Are there any other kind?

    Don't think so.


    Says the old, leathery-skinned, self loathing gay guy... icon_rolleyes.gif
    You are quite compulsive, aren't you? I know it's difficult, but please try to resist the urge to stalk people on here and stop posting nastiness about them.

    Thank you.

    Sound remotely familiar jane?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 17, 2011 1:24 AM GMT
    conservativejock said
    TropicalMark said
    conservativejock saidSo are there any top 1-2% Liberal 'Wealthers' on RJ? (Yes, a new word.)
    Are there any top 1-2% teaparty/repub 'Wealthers' on RJ?


    Yes. icon_biggrin.gif
    Where?
  • conservativej...

    Posts: 2465

    Mar 17, 2011 1:25 AM GMT
    creature said
    southbeach1500 said
    creature saidSo conservativejock wants to see if any liberals on here are wealthy. Why? He doesn't think it's possible for a wealthy person to advocate more taxes? Have the words of Bill Gates and Warren Buffet not reached him, despited their repeated call for higher taxes? Is conservativejock not aware that there are wealthy districts in America that vote overwhelmingly for Democrats.

    It seems like every time conservativejock posts something, it's irrelevant.


    A point that is often overlooked about Gates and Buffett... they've already made their fortunes. If the extraordinary high tax rates that they have advocated were in place during the time they were first beginning to accrue their wealth, the outcome would have been quite different.

    For those of us who have not yet attained the level of wealth of Gates and Buffett but who are seeing the fruits of their labor and risk taking starting to pay off, we feel quite differently regarding this issue.


    Does it really matter though? Buffet and Gates are just two examples. There are plenty of millionaires and others in the top 1 - 2% who think its proper for a higher tax bracket. And even if there would have been higher taxes for Gates and Buffet before they noticeably increased their wealth, who are you to say they would not favor it?


    Let me ask you a question or two creature. Did you lunch with a millionaire today? Perhaps last night for dinner. Or maybe play golf with a billionaire in Highland Park on Saturday.

    Fact is your opinion is conjecture unless you can look the man or women in the eye and ask whether they want to pay more taxes.
  • creature

    Posts: 5197

    Mar 17, 2011 1:36 AM GMT
    southbeach1500 said
    creature said
    Does it really matter though? Buffet and Gates are just two examples. There are plenty of millionaires and others in the top 1 - 2% who think its proper for a higher tax bracket. And even if there would have been higher taxes for Gates and Buffet before they noticeably increased their wealth, who are you to say they would not favor it?


    Because if we were to turn the clock back 70 or 80 years to the tax rates of the past, 90% of their income would have been sent to the Federal government and they would never have become the millionaires and billionaires they are today.

    And then there's the question of "how much is enough?" when it comes to the needs of the Federal government.


    I'll be honest and say I never knew it reached that high. However, I looked at a table with the tax rates, and it appears that the tax rates were substantially high when the nation was at a moment of crisis. I don't think raising it by a few percentage points is going to do any damage. After all, Clinton's administration policies turned the economy around and the rate was about 4.5% higher than it is today.

    I guess "enough" is when the federal government can be self-sustaining. And it's at this point where your skepticism is probably kicking in because you don't think the federal government can be self-sustaining with debt and waste, which I agree with.
  • creature

    Posts: 5197

    Mar 17, 2011 1:47 AM GMT
    conservativejock said
    creature said
    southbeach1500 said
    creature saidSo conservativejock wants to see if any liberals on here are wealthy. Why? He doesn't think it's possible for a wealthy person to advocate more taxes? Have the words of Bill Gates and Warren Buffet not reached him, despited their repeated call for higher taxes? Is conservativejock not aware that there are wealthy districts in America that vote overwhelmingly for Democrats.

    It seems like every time conservativejock posts something, it's irrelevant.


    A point that is often overlooked about Gates and Buffett... they've already made their fortunes. If the extraordinary high tax rates that they have advocated were in place during the time they were first beginning to accrue their wealth, the outcome would have been quite different.

    For those of us who have not yet attained the level of wealth of Gates and Buffett but who are seeing the fruits of their labor and risk taking starting to pay off, we feel quite differently regarding this issue.


    Does it really matter though? Buffet and Gates are just two examples. There are plenty of millionaires and others in the top 1 - 2% who think its proper for a higher tax bracket. And even if there would have been higher taxes for Gates and Buffet before they noticeably increased their wealth, who are you to say they would not favor it?


    Let me ask you a question or two creature. Did you lunch with a millionaire today? Perhaps last night for dinner. Or maybe play golf with a billionaire in Highland Park on Saturday.

    Fact is your opinion is conjecture unless you can look the man or women in the eye and ask whether they want to pay more taxes.


    Look anyone in the eye and ask whether they want to pay more taxes. The answer will be "no."
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 17, 2011 1:48 AM GMT
    southbeach1500 said
    TropicalMark said
    conservativejock said
    TropicalMark said
    conservativejock saidSo are there any top 1-2% Liberal 'Wealthers' on RJ? (Yes, a new word.)
    Are there any top 1-2% teaparty/repub 'Wealthers' on RJ?


    Yes. icon_biggrin.gif
    Where?


    Here - but don't know if I count since I'm an Independent. icon_biggrin.gif
    Pure BS..........
  • creature

    Posts: 5197

    Mar 17, 2011 1:52 AM GMT
    creature said
    I guess "enough" is when the federal government can be self-sustaining. And it's at this point where your skepticism is probably kicking in because you don't think the federal government can be self-sustaining with debt and waste, which I agree with.


    I'm glad we both agree! icon_biggrin.gif[/quote]

    Wait a minute...

    Just because I said I agree that we cannot be self-sustaining with debt and waste doesn't mean I agree with what you consider "waste."
  • conservativej...

    Posts: 2465

    Mar 17, 2011 2:37 AM GMT
    southbeach1500 said
    Christian73 said
    Are you seriously telling us that such a change in rate would prevent wealth accumulation? icon_rolleyes.gif


    Yes.

    But it would be very helpful for the wealth redistribution machinery (i.e. the Federal government).


    It will do more than prevent wealth accumulation. I own a large chunk of a corporation that 12 years ago was not only incorporated in the U.S. but split sales 60% U.S. to 40% non-U.S. The hand writing in regards to inefficiency and taxation in the U.S. has been on the wall for a long time. The corporation is now based in Ireland. 72% of sales are non-U.S. Earnings from those sales are taxed in Ireland. The remaining 28% of sales occur in the U.S. and are taxed here. People will always do amazing things to protect themselves.

    The corporation sources product from 163 nations. These nations compete to produce product. They do not bicker with you about what your responsibilities might be. Most tell you up front what they expect. Business then flows forward.

    So honestly, I do not take many of the comments seriously. Not from RJ's liberal crowd. You lost the war many years ago. Raise the rates. Little will be collected. Liberals have always accused conservatives of being stupid, but it seems to me if there is to be any pain from these big deficits I and others are not going to be the ones burned. So perhaps you should learn to look at individuals rather than groups when you throw the term “stupid” around.

    Look around. America no longer has an effective voice in the world or President Obama's pleading to Europe to continue to spend and not pull back would have been headed. They are going to show their maturity and not be stupid.


  • musclmed

    Posts: 3284

    Mar 17, 2011 2:48 AM GMT
    conservativejock said
    southbeach1500 said
    Christian73 said
    Are you seriously telling us that such a change in rate would prevent wealth accumulation? icon_rolleyes.gif


    Yes.

    But it would be very helpful for the wealth redistribution machinery (i.e. the Federal government).


    It will do more than prevent wealth accumulation. I own a large chunk of a corporation that 12 years ago was not only incorporated in the U.S. but split sales 60% U.S. to 40% non-U.S. The hand writing in regards to inefficiency and taxation in the U.S. has been on the wall for a long time. The corporation is now based in Ireland. 72% of sales are non-U.S. Earnings from those sales are taxed in Ireland. The remaining 28% of sales occur in the U.S. and are taxed here. People will always do amazing things to protect themselves.

    The corporation sources product from 163 nations. These nations compete to produce product. They do not bicker with you about what your responsibilities might be. Most tell you up front what they expect. Business then flows forward.

    So honestly, I do not take many of the comments seriously. Not from RJ's liberal crowd. You lost the war many years ago. Raise the rates. Little will be collected. Liberals have always accused conservatives of being stupid, but it seems to me if there is to be any pain from these big deficits I and others are not going to be the ones burned. So perhaps you should learn to look at individuals rather than groups when you throw the term “stupid” around.

    Look around. America no longer has an effective voice in the world or President Obama's pleading to Europe to continue to spend and not pull back would have been headed. They are going to show their maturity and not be stupid.






    Well at least the liberal politicians have it figured out..... the Clintons, John Edwards, John Kerry ( well at least his wife)

    nowadays business goes were the profit margin is.

    They can pass laws and decree all they want. What you get is Cleveland...... With a guy like Kusinich representing it. A shell of a city with no business.

    Recently they lost a movie deal because they withdrew a special tax status for it, It just moved up north. As if they just have too many jobs, and no hotel space.

    You can take a nap on the street during rush hour. Nothing is happening there.