Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[NinjaBoot]

What I am against however, is the notion that taxing the rich is a positive thing to begin with.  The reasons for this are twofold, for one, it means less capital flowing around the economy, whether through rich people buying nice things

Rich people buying nice things typically benefits the other rich, or economies in other countries. Case in point: Mercedes Benz. Foreign-made, expensive cars that don't benefit the economy at home very much.

Yes, all rich people buy 100% of their high-priced cars from over-seas and not a single one is bought from American car companies that offer high-end cars. 

All those jobs created by the need to offer such high-priced services don't exist either.  They just are.  No money transactions, taxes generated, wealth created.  Nothing. 

, or rich people investing company into companies/starting up businesses (which means more jobs!)

Only works until the rich person drives the company into the ground before selling it. Goodbye potential competitor, hello money back. Isn't that what Romney or one of the other candidates/former candidates did?

I think your referring to former democrat senator from new jersey, Joe Corzine, who ran IMF Global into the ground during his tenure then bailed out with a nice hefty golden parachute payment. 

Yes, the same Joe Corzine who Obama wanted for one of his key positions in his administration, before Joe ended up at IMF Global.

[NinjaBoot]

Yes rich people can invest in bussiness.  But so can everyone else.  Literally everyone.

So why doesn't everybody start investing in companies and earning a return?

Even if that does happen, not everybody is going to benefit equally from the returns.  Hell, some people will lose money because of how the market works, while others will become mega-gazillionaires by virtue of owning stock in a crazily successful company (re: google investors, apple investors, microsoft investors, who all contributed something like $10,000 and got millions in return). 

[darkflagrance]

, or rich people investing company into companies/starting up businesses (which means more jobs!)

Only works until the rich person drives the company into the ground before selling it. Goodbye potential competitor, hello money back. Isn't that what Romney or one of the other candidates/former candidates did?

I think your referring to former democrat senator from new jersey, Joe Corzine, who ran IMF Global into the ground during his tenure then bailed out with a nice hefty golden parachute payment. 

Yes, the same Joe Corzine who Obama wanted for one of his key positions in his administration, before Joe ended up at IMF Global.

I don't think anyone will deny that Democrats like Corzine represent the same kinds of issues that are being raised with a lot of wealthy Republican politicians either. It's not about party, it's about how these people become rich, the selfish ideologies they adopt as a result of their riches, and the negative impact their holding power has had and will continue to have on the country. Wealthy people, no matter their political affiliation, have greater access to and influence within the halls of power and are essentially hijacking the politics of the nation from the rest of the people.

[lemon10]

, or rich people investing company into companies/starting up businesses (which means more jobs!)

Only works until the rich person drives the company into the ground before selling it. Goodbye potential competitor, hello money back. Isn't that what Romney or one of the other candidates/former candidates did?

I think your referring to former democrat senator from new jersey, Joe Corzine, who ran IMF Global into the ground during his tenure then bailed out with a nice hefty golden parachute payment. 

Yes, the same Joe Corzine who Obama wanted for one of his key positions in his administration, before Joe ended up at IMF Global.

I don't think anyone will deny that Democrats like Corzine represent the same kinds of issues that are being raised with a lot of wealthy Republican politicians either. It's not about party, it's about how these people become rich, the selfish ideologies they adopt as a result of their riches, and the negative impact their holding power has had and will continue to have on the country. Wealthy people, no matter their political affiliation, have greater access to and influence within the halls of power and are essentially hijacking the politics of the nation from the rest of the people.

He's referring to Romney.
Bain capital (the company he was CEO of) bought other companies and tried to turn them around.
If that failed, they took out a massive loan with the company as collateral shortly before it went bankrupt, making tons of money through what is basically fraud.

EDIT:

Yes rich people can invest in bussiness.  But so can everyone else.  Literally everyone.

So why doesn't everybody start investing in companies and earning a return?

Even if that does happen, not everybody is going to benefit equally from the returns.  Hell, some people will lose money because of how the market works, while others will become mega-gazillionaires by virtue of owning stock in a crazily successful company (re: google investors, apple investors, microsoft investors, who all contributed something like $10,000 and got millions in return). 

When you don't have very much savings, investing in the stock market is pretty pointless, especially when you could spend it more cost effectively else where (eg. buying in bulk, saving up for a car).
Most middle class people though do invest in the stock market, its just that since they don't have as much saved up its not as important compared to their overall income, whereas if your ultra rich and have tons of money, the amount you could get from a regular salary is pretty insignificant.

[NinjaBoot]

, or rich people investing company into companies/starting up businesses (which means more jobs!)

Only works until the rich person drives the company into the ground before selling it. Goodbye potential competitor, hello money back. Isn't that what Romney or one of the other candidates/former candidates did?

I think your referring to former democrat senator from new jersey, Joe Corzine, who ran IMF Global into the ground during his tenure then bailed out with a nice hefty golden parachute payment. 

Yes, the same Joe Corzine who Obama wanted for one of his key positions in his administration, before Joe ended up at IMF Global.

I don't think anyone will deny that Democrats like Corzine represent the same kinds of issues that are being raised with a lot of wealthy Republican politicians either. It's not about party, it's about how these people become rich, the selfish ideologies they adopt as a result of their riches, and the negative impact their holding power has had and will continue to have on the country. Wealthy people, no matter their political affiliation, have greater access to and influence within the halls of power and are essentially hijacking the politics of the nation from the rest of the people.

He's referring to Romney.
Bain capital (the company he was CEO of) bought other companies and tried to turn them around.
If that failed, they took out a massive loan with the company as collateral shortly before it went bankrupt, making tons of money through what is basically fraud.

If what you said about the latter is true, then it is indeed fraud, but for reading purposes a link would be wonderful!

As for the former, hey, the experience that Romney has from being an actual CEO and turning around companies is a way better alternative than "community organizer", right? 

At least our potential commander in chief would know where to start in turning around the behemoth money loser that is government. 

EDIT:

Yes rich people can invest in bussiness.  But so can everyone else.  Literally everyone.

So why doesn't everybody start investing in companies and earning a return?

Even if that does happen, not everybody is going to benefit equally from the returns.  Hell, some people will lose money because of how the market works, while others will become mega-gazillionaires by virtue of owning stock in a crazily successful company (re: google investors, apple investors, microsoft investors, who all contributed something like $10,000 and got millions in return). 

When you don't have very much savings, investing in the stock market is pretty pointless, especially when you could spend it more cost effectively else where (eg. buying in bulk, saving up for a car).
Most middle class people though do invest in the stock market, its just that since they don't have as much saved up its not as important compared to their overall income, whereas if your ultra rich and have tons of money, the amount you could get from a regular salary is pretty insignificant.

How do you think all those investors in the initial startup phases of apple, google, microsoft, etc etc became as filthy rich as they are? 

Part if it is pure luck (investing in the next google for example), but another is actually saving money for that particular reason.  Alot of people as you noted, would rather spend on things that would benefit them in the short-term future.  And even if everybody did practice the financial prudence to save up significant money to invest, not everybody is going to see the same returns. 

But as it stands, not everybody is prepared to sacrifice the short-term happiness for the potential at vast future earnings through the stock market (saving up the dough to invest).

[Sirus]

But as it stands, not everybody is prepared to sacrifice the short-term happiness for the potential at vast future earnings through the stock market (saving up the dough to invest).

Not everyone is able to. Buying in bulk is a cheap way to get essentials, especially for large families, and saving for a car hardly qualifies as "short-term". Take a starving college student who lives on ramen and drives a 40-year-old clunker. Do you think he has the money to make long-term investments? Unlikely.

[NinjaBoot]

But as it stands, not everybody is prepared to sacrifice the short-term happiness for the potential at vast future earnings through the stock market (saving up the dough to invest).

Not everyone is able to. Buying in bulk is a cheap way to get essentials, especially for large families, and saving for a car hardly qualifies as "short-term". Take a starving college student who lives on ramen and drives a 40-year-old clunker. Do you think he has the money to make long-term investments? Unlikely.

So.. what?  These people made the choice to have a large family, or saving money to buy a car (is it used or new?), or taking on large debt to goto school.

[jester]

But as it stands, not everybody is prepared to sacrifice the short-term happiness for the potential at vast future earnings through the stock market (saving up the dough to invest).

Not everyone is able to. Buying in bulk is a cheap way to get essentials, especially for large families, and saving for a car hardly qualifies as "short-term". Take a starving college student who lives on ramen and drives a 40-year-old clunker. Do you think he has the money to make long-term investments? Unlikely.

So.. what?  These people made the choice to have a large family, or saving money to buy a car (is it used or new?), or taking on large debt to goto school.

Are you 14 years old?

[Sirus]

These people made the choice to have a large family

People don't choose who they're born to. A number of people take jobs to support their parents and siblings. There's a guy in the sad thread who is trying to figure out a way for his mother and sibling to move in, because they cannot support themselves. It's called being selfless.
You've also got people who did not mean to have a family, but it happened anyway.

or saving money to buy a car (is it used or new?)

Well, I used the term "40-year-old clunker". That kinda implies that it's either used or so old that it might as well be. The point is, if someone literally has no other option for transportation, a good portion of that person's income is going to go into maintenance, gas and stuff.

or taking on large debt to goto school.

And you're ignoring that higher education is practically a requirement in some circles to getting the kind of job that pays enough for you to fool around with investments in the first place.

[NinjaBoot]

But as it stands, not everybody is prepared to sacrifice the short-term happiness for the potential at vast future earnings through the stock market (saving up the dough to invest).

Not everyone is able to. Buying in bulk is a cheap way to get essentials, especially for large families, and saving for a car hardly qualifies as "short-term". Take a starving college student who lives on ramen and drives a 40-year-old clunker. Do you think he has the money to make long-term investments? Unlikely.

So.. what?  These people made the choice to have a large family, or saving money to buy a car (is it used or new?), or taking on large debt to goto school.

Are you 14 years old?

U mad?

[jester]

But as it stands, not everybody is prepared to sacrifice the short-term happiness for the potential at vast future earnings through the stock market (saving up the dough to invest).

Not everyone is able to. Buying in bulk is a cheap way to get essentials, especially for large families, and saving for a car hardly qualifies as "short-term". Take a starving college student who lives on ramen and drives a 40-year-old clunker. Do you think he has the money to make long-term investments? Unlikely.

So.. what?  These people made the choice to have a large family, or saving money to buy a car (is it used or new?), or taking on large debt to goto school.

Are you 14 years old?

U mad?

Ill take your schoolyard witticisms as a yes.

[NinjaBoot]

These people made the choice to have a large family

People don't choose who they're born to. A number of people take jobs to support their parents and siblings. There's a guy in the sad thread who is trying to figure out a way for his mother and sibling to move in, because they cannot support themselves. It's called being selfless.
You've also got people who did not mean to have a family, but it happened anyway.

What does this have to do with people who choose to save money?

Why do we always have to focus on the "have nots"? 

As much as you would like to believe, not everybody is equal, and therefore, not everybody is going to earn the same
amount of income. 

Hell, we might as argue about the need for a department of FUG, because studies have shown that attractive people make more money in their lifetime than unattractive people! 

or saving money to buy a car (is it used or new?)

Well, I used the term "40-year-old clunker". That kinda implies that it's either used or so old that it might as well be. The point is, if someone literally has no other option for transportation, a good portion of that person's income is going to go into maintenance, gas and stuff.

Maybe take public transportation/car pool?  There are alot of alternatives than spending money, depending on the situation. 

or taking on large debt to goto school.

And you're ignoring that higher education is practically a requirement in some circles to getting the kind of job that pays enough for you to fool around with investments in the first place.

http://collegedropoutshalloffame.com/

http://www.funalso.com/Celebrities/rich-school/760

Bill Gates, the late Steve Jobs, James Cameron, Mark Zuckerberg, Tiger woods! and even Tom Hanks!

And all these other people who invented stuff!

But yeah, you would be right if you were talking about something like a lawyer, or a doctor.  Personal success is more about being driven, having determination and personal ambition than it is about academic accolades. 

[NinjaBoot]

But as it stands, not everybody is prepared to sacrifice the short-term happiness for the potential at vast future earnings through the stock market (saving up the dough to invest).

Not everyone is able to. Buying in bulk is a cheap way to get essentials, especially for large families, and saving for a car hardly qualifies as "short-term". Take a starving college student who lives on ramen and drives a 40-year-old clunker. Do you think he has the money to make long-term investments? Unlikely.

So.. what?  These people made the choice to have a large family, or saving money to buy a car (is it used or new?), or taking on large debt to goto school.

Are you 14 years old?

U mad?

Ill take your schoolyard witticisms as a yes.

I figured I would ask since you are apparently mad enough at what I am writing to ask such a pointless question.

[jester]

Well you apparently have no idea about basic household finances and many other basic things that everyday people come up against everyday, your grammar often lacks and you seem to think that totally biased articles from the internet prove your points, dont get me wrong, I think you are probably a fairly smart kid, but many of the opinions you voice as well as the way you voice them, make me think you are a kid.

[NinjaBoot]

Well you apparently have no idea about basic household finances and many other basic things that everyday people come up against everyday, your grammar often lacks and you seem to think that totally biased articles from the internet prove your points, dont get me wrong, I think you are probably a fairly smart kid, but many of the opinions you voice as well as the way you voice them, make me think you are a kid.

How is an article biased that points out those who became successful without resorting to higher education?  It is merely backing up my argument from the stance that, hey, there are some people who don't have to do what everybody else does to get ahead in life. 

Yes, some people are less well off than others, and most have to content with where to spend their money, but not everybody cares about what a rich person does with his or her money, or having to "pay their fair share". 

But whatever, I fail at English.  Lets just include that and my apparent lack of knowledge about basic household finances in the topic because you would rather try to attack me than actually debate me. 

The fact you even brought up basic household finances is proof that you completely missed the point.  The whole point is to highlight that there are people who are just better at making money.  This is either through natural abilities (good looks, unique voice, higher intelligence, emotional capacity, personal charm, physical ability), acquired skills (musical instruments, business skills, trade skills, engineering skills, doctor/dentist/lawyer skills, things taught by a mentor/parent etc), or just plain luck (winning the lottery, hitting big on the stock market, winning the WSOP as a first-time player, getting that big break, etc). 

How does this relate to Mitt Romney?  Most likely he has a combination of natural abilities and acquired skills that over his life and career have led him to making such an obscene amount of money.  Why do people always have to focus on things like that in such a negative context?