Lottery winners just as likely to go bust

GenSeneca

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 8, 2008
Messages
6,245
Location
={CaLiCo}= HQ
I would be interested (although probably won't) to see the breakdown of Buffet's profit on that year.
As the boss, he can set his salary at say... $1 per year, that way only $1 of his money will be subject to the Progressive income tax while the rest of his earnings come from dividends and capital gains which are taxed at a much lower rate.
 
Werbung:

steveox

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 13, 2007
Messages
7,499
Location
Way Down South
That is right... you cannot do those things. Those things take talent, and as long as people are willing to pay money to see that talent on display, who are you to say they do not deserve to earn that money?

Because this moron wont allow me have that Talent
jesustoast2.jpg


I prayed for a lot of **** and im still waiting for answers from him


At Least Kathy Griffith was right about him
 

SapphireJinx

Member
Joined
Dec 8, 2009
Messages
21
If you were to win $1,000,000 in the lottery, government would take more than half before you saw one penny. I wouldn't care so much about paying taxes that high on money I did not earn but if I had to earn that money it would be a different story.

That is the point I was making.

But that's not what you said. You specifically used the word "earned" and "hard-earned". So if you drop a dollar on a quick pick and win a cool million, that was "hard-earned"? I'm just askin'. What was that point you were trying to make again?

As for Buffet, he's one of the Jackasses I was talking about. Someone needs to remind him that there is no limit to the amount of money he can send to the government. Just because they only demand 17% doesn't mean he's not allowed to give them as much as he wants beyond that amount.

Haha, touche!

Comparing his income to that of his secretary is apples and oranges, he is taxed once at the corporate level, 2.5% and then he is taxed again on dividends and capital gains at 15%. His secretary is hammered with the Progressive income tax, like most of us are, and that's why she paid a higher % of her income than her boss.

We have all been present at discussions (or arguments) in which one of the combatants attempts to clarify or strengthen a point by comparing the subject at hand with another item or situation more familiar to the audience or opponent. More often than not, this stratagem instantly results in the protest that "you're comparing apples and oranges!" This is generally perceived as being a telling blow to the analogy, since it is generally understood that apples and oranges cannot be compared. However, after being the recipient of just such an accusation, it occurred to me that there are several problems with dismissing analogies with the comparing apples and oranges defense.
First, the statement that something is like comparing apples and oranges is a kind of analogy itself. That is, denigrating an analogy by accusing it of comparing apples and oranges is, in and of itself, comparing apples and oranges. More importantly, it is not difficult to demonstrate that apples and oranges can, in fact, be compared (see figure 1).

Materials and Methods
Both samples were prepared by gently desiccating them in a convection oven at low temperature over the course of several days. The dried samples were then mixed with potassium bromide and ground in a small ball-bearing mill for two minutes. One hundred milligrams of each of the resulting powders were then pressed into a circular pellet having a diameter of 1 cm and a thickness of approximately 1 mm. Spectra were taken at a resolution of 1 cm-1 using a Nicolet 740 FTIR spectrometer. Figure 2 shows a comparison of the 4000-400 cm-1 (2.5-25 mm) infrared transmission spectra of a Granny Smith apple and a Sunkist Navel orange.

Conclusions
Not only was this comparison easy to make, but it is apparent from the figure that apples and oranges are very similar. Thus, it would appear that the comparing apples and oranges defense should no longer be considered valid. This is a somewhat startling revelation. It can be anticipated to have a dramatic effect on the strategies used in arguments and discussions in the future.

http://improbable.com/airchives/paperair/volume1/v1i3/air-1-3-apples.html

I'm sorry, I must be a bit ADHD. What was your point again?

My point is that there's only 400 of them and 6 billion of us. Why are we letting them control all our resources again?
 

GenSeneca

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 8, 2008
Messages
6,245
Location
={CaLiCo}= HQ
Because this moron wont allow me have that Talent
Keep in mind this is coming from an Atheist but Jesus is not in the business of granting wishes. By all accounts he expects you to humble yourself before God and that means abandoning your selfish interests in order to live a life of altruistic service to God, and your fellow man, in return for eternal salvation.
 

GenSeneca

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 8, 2008
Messages
6,245
Location
={CaLiCo}= HQ
But that's not what you said.
It is precisely what I said. Here is the exact quote:

... At least lottery winnings are not earned, it's much worse to actually earn $1,000,000 only to see more than half of your hard earned money shoveled into the blast furnace of government and redistributed to parasitic jackasses who insist you're still not paying your "fair" share.

I don't mind repeating my brilliance.

My point is that there's only 400 of them and 6 billion of us. Why are we letting them control all our resources again?
400 of who? 6 billion of "us"? Is "us" the entire population of the world? "our resources"?

If there was a memo that went out declaring that suddenly life was fair and that everyone in the world had an equal share of all resources and wealth on the planet, I did not get that memo.
 

GenSeneca

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 8, 2008
Messages
6,245
Location
={CaLiCo}= HQ
Oh yeah... as for the "apples to oranges" Capital gains taxes are a flat 15%, it is not a Progressive tax. Income tax is Progressive.

Progressive taxation is a type of tax system that is designed to put the greatest tax burden on those who make the most money.

Therefore there is no equating them. Even if you smash them into powder and form them into pellets of equal size and shape, one will still be Progressive and the other will not.
 

SapphireJinx

Member
Joined
Dec 8, 2009
Messages
21
It is precisely what I said. Here is the exact quote:



I don't mind repeating my brilliance.

I'm sorry, from your post it appeared that you were in possession of first hand information about how much a person who makes a million dollars is taxed. I believe you said, "more than half". And the entire context was about how The Man makes you pay more than your fair share. As it turns out, you were *****ing about lottery taxes and have no experience with actual income tax rates at that level of income.


400 of who? 6 billion of "us"? Is "us" the entire population of the world? "our resources"?

So you see no problem with 400 people controlling the wealth, resources and politics of the other 6 billion?

If there was a memo that went out declaring that suddenly life was fair and that everyone in the world had an equal share of all resources and wealth on the planet, I did not get that memo.

Oh God help us all, you're an Ayn Rand fan, aren't you? :rolleyes:
 

SapphireJinx

Member
Joined
Dec 8, 2009
Messages
21
Oh yeah... as for the "apples to oranges" Capital gains taxes are a flat 15%, it is not a Progressive tax. Income tax is Progressive.

The apples and oranges thing I posted is what's known as a joke. Ayn Rand fans rarely have a sense of humor, in my experience.
 

GenSeneca

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 8, 2008
Messages
6,245
Location
={CaLiCo}= HQ
I'm sorry
Apology accepted.

So you see no problem with 400 people controlling the wealth, resources and politics of the other 6 billion?
I'm not familiar with this particular conspiracy theory.

Who exactly are these 400 people?

Oh God help us all, you're an Ayn Rand fan, aren't you?
I am. Why would you require the assistance of a supernatural being because of this?

The apples and oranges thing I posted is what's known as a joke. Ayn Rand fans rarely have a sense of humor, in my experience.

Interviewing Osama

Carbon Offsets for Sale

The New Patriotism
 

SapphireJinx

Member
Joined
Dec 8, 2009
Messages
21
I am. Why would you require the assistance of a supernatural being because of this?

Because nothing less than divine intervention could get an Ayn Rand fan to consider for even a moment any idea or thought that appears in any way to contradict Her Nuttiness.
 

SapphireJinx

Member
Joined
Dec 8, 2009
Messages
21
Speaking of nuttiness, does this mean you will not explain your conspiracy theory?

You mean the crazy theory that most of the political and economic power in the world lies in the hands of a few multinational corporations, and that they use this power to accumulate..... more power and wealth? That there are thousands of people or more who die every day simply because they don't have the money to afford medical treatment or food?

It's not a theory. It's reality. And you should celebrate it. It is the realization of Alissa Rosenbaum's angry dreams of rule by the strongest predators, with the rest of us human trash (that includes you, btw) existing only to serve our superhuman masters.

The woman venerated serial killers and rapists. Whereas Christianity's defining virtue is compassion (the golden rule--Do Not Do Unto Others What You Would Not Have Done Unto You), her defining virtue is egotism and selfishness (the iron rule--Do Unto Others Before They Do Unto You). The highest possible expression of human behavior, according to Ayn, is to fight and claw your way to power and wealth by any means necessary, and kick anyone on a rung below you in the face to knock them off completely. It's the old, "I've got mine, so **** the rest of you" philosophy, and it stinks.

No man is an island, unless he suffers a psychotic break with reality. Whatever success you enjoy today, you did not win all by yourself. You had the help of your parents, teachers, community members, and yes, even your government. To deny that any of those things affected or even helped you in some ways in your past is to spit in the face of every one of your family members and friends and claim glory for yourself which you don't deserve. It makes you not just an egotistical bore, but a dangerous sociopath...you know, a stand-up guy according to Rand.

That's if you accept every tenet of Ayn Rand's philosophies. And if you didn't, she would spit on you and kick you in the face herself. Ayn Rand is about free thinking only as long as you agree with her. And every Ayn Rand fan I've ever met has been exactly the same way--little cultish clones of Her Scariness. Individualists, indeed. :rolleyes:
 
Werbung:

GenSeneca

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 8, 2008
Messages
6,245
Location
={CaLiCo}= HQ
It's not a theory. It's reality.
You claimed there were precisely 400 people controlling the world. Please name some of these people and offer some evidence to support your claim.

The highest possible expression of human behavior, according to Ayn, is to fight and claw your way to power and wealth by any means necessary, and kick anyone on a rung below you in the face to knock them off completely.

From where do you derive your understanding of Rand and her philosophy?

Since I hear this sort of thing all the time, I'll create a thread where we can discuss this topic. I do hope you will join me there.
 
Top