Mitt Romney and the myth of self-created millionaires

[PlumberKhan]

Originally Posted by OCCH

While I'll never fall into this category, I can't believe how offensive the title of this thread is to all the people who worked their butt off to get where they are . . .

Paris Hilton worked her butt off?

So did Kim Kardasian, Snooki and Lindsey Lohan?

Weird.

[AlwaysGreenAlwaysWhite]

Originally Posted by PlumberKhan

Paris Hilton worked her butt off?

So did Kim Kardasian, Snooki and Lindsey Lohan?

Weird.

Jelly?

Lohan was a legitimate child actress, Kardashian has a mom who happens to be a marketing genius and Snooki is a byproduct of MTV execs knowing how ridiculously retarded young Americans are...

All three of those are a drop in the bucket to the wealth in this country...

Of them, only Kardashian is wealthy...

Hilton has long money too but she started filthy rich so that's another discussion...

[Warfish]

Originally Posted by PlumberKhan

Paris Hilton worked her butt off?

So did Kim Kardasian, Snooki and Lindsey Lohan?

Weird.

If taxes were being raised on those whose incomes were over $5.0 Million a year, I doubt you'd get as much pushback.

Describe those making $250K hourhold as "millionaires and billionaires", and you get what you should.

[SafetyBlitz]

Originally Posted by Warfish

If taxes were being raised on those whose incomes were over $5.0 Million a year, I doubt you'd get as much pushback.

Describe those making $250K hourhold as "millionaires and billionaires", and you get what you should.

I wish more conservatives would say that instead of "never raise taxes on anyone".

[OCCH]

Originally Posted by SafetyBlitz

I wish more conservatives would say that instead of "never raise taxes on anyone".

Well, I'll be the jerk that says someone shouldn't pay more taxes just because they can.

If you think someone gets 1000x more advantage from the system than someone else (ie "the rich need the roads to run their businesses, etc. etc.) so they should pay 1000x more taxes, fine -- that's a different discussion.

But if we're simply gonna say "pay because you can", then we can't turn around and complain how the rich control everything, because they pretty much have the right to . . .

[PlumberKhan]

Originally Posted by AlwaysGreenAlwaysWhite

Jelly? ..

Perhaps. But not nearly as jealous as you are of Tim Tebow.

[AlwaysGreenAlwaysWhite]

Originally Posted by PlumberKhan

Perhaps. But not nearly as jealous as you are of Tim Tebow.

you just had to take it there...

[quantum]

Originally Posted by Timmy®

The average democrat seen by this board's republicans.

Not even remotely true. I see the far lefties here as brainwashed, foaming at the mouth nutjobs with a brick in one hand, and Kleenex and a picture of Obummer in the other hand.

[Warfish]

Originally Posted by SafetyBlitz

I wish more conservatives would say that instead of "never raise taxes on anyone".

You know where I stand on taxes.

I stand for a Flat, Universal, Tax Rate for All Citizens, and an efficient, non-cash, highly-restricted, pushes-them-off-it, social safety net system.

The Tax rate should, at any given point, be set within a certain group of rates to pay for vital spending. Not for the most recent pork project or brilliant idea to get re-lected by pandering to X, Y or Z.

I'm convinced the same problem in much of the corporate world exists in Politics. They guys at the top constantly feel they have to come up with something "new" to "fix" everything, even if the status quo is perfectly fine as it is. Thats how you end up (in some jobs) doing 20 things unrelated to your actual job, instead of doing your job....because 20 executives had to get their evaluations and bonues, and came up with 20 "great ideas" to "fix" the company.

Politics works teh same way. The old adage of "it really isn't broken, please don'ty "fix" it" and politics are mutually exclusive. Hence, we wind up with 20 Federal Programs to provide funding for testing is Shrimp **** better in a 20% Oxygen atmosphere vs. a 21% oxygen atmosphere.....

Every citizen needs a stake in the tax paying game, even if they still may get more back in non-cash benefits because their poor, every person should pay in, in cash, in income taxes.

[chiefst2000]

Originally Posted by intelligentjetsfan

no. The poor/lower class are evil. Sean Hannity, Dennis Miller, Bill O' Reilly, Rush Limbaugh, Michelle Malkin and countless millionaires tell us this every day.

link please

[SafetyBlitz]

Originally Posted by Warfish

You know where I stand on taxes.

I stand for a Flat, Universal, Tax Rate for All Citizens, and an efficient, non-cash, highly-restricted, pushes-them-off-it, social safety net system.

The Tax rate should, at any given point, be set within a certain group of rates to pay for vital spending. Not for the most recent pork project or brilliant idea to get re-lected by pandering to X, Y or Z.

I'm convinced the same problem in much of the corporate world exists in Politics. They guys at the top constantly feel they have to come up with something "new" to "fix" everything, even if the status quo is perfectly fine as it is. Thats how you end up (in some jobs) doing 20 things unrelated to your actual job, instead of doing your job....because 20 executives had to get their evaluations and bonues, and came up with 20 "great ideas" to "fix" the company.

Politics works teh same way. The old adage of "it really isn't broken, please don'ty "fix" it" and politics are mutually exclusive. Hence, we wind up with 20 Federal Programs to provide funding for testing is Shrimp **** better in a 20% Oxygen atmosphere vs. a 21% oxygen atmosphere.....

Every citizen needs a stake in the tax paying game, even if they still may get more back in non-cash benefits because their poor, every person should pay in, in cash, in income taxes.

20 different tests for shrim sh*t aside and leaders changing things just for the sake of their resume, agree to disagree.

I favor a progressive income tax in the current climate. Perhaps forty years ago, a flat tax would've been ideal - but today? The wealth of this nation is highly concentrated amongst the few, and a flat tax will either take too much from the bottom or not enough from the top.

[Warfish]

Originally Posted by SafetyBlitz

20 different tests for shrim sh*t aside and leaders changing things just for the sake of their resume, agree to disagree.

I favor a progressive income tax in the current climate. Perhaps forty years ago, a flat tax would've been ideal - but today? The wealth of this nation is highly concentrated amongst the few, and a flat tax will either take too much from the bottom or not enough from the top.

We disagree, because we see the role of taxation very differently.

You see (as you've stated) the role of taxation as one of "fundamental redistribution" of wealth amongst the populace, i.e. economic collectivism. Wealth should not reside in the hands of who earned it, it should be taken by the State and issued back out to those the State find worthy/needy in order to flatten the wealth distribution to a more "Equal" collectivist end result.

I see taxation only as a means to fund vital Governement functions, such as Defense, Courts, etc, and is a burden that should be as equally shared amongst all citizens as is humanly possible. Taxation should, in my view, never be used to simply take from one to give to another as the goal, or to promote social engineering, or similar.

True equallity is impossible, as it would entail every person paying the same amount (not rate, amount) each year, and would be the system I would choose. The closest realistic option is a Flat Tax % rate, and I continue to support it, an oppose in totallity any form of taxation whose purpose is the systemic, political-based redistribution of wealth from those who earned it to those who did not.

[SafetyBlitz]

Originally Posted by Warfish

We disagree, because we see the role of taxation very differently.

You see (as you've stated) the role of taxation as one of "fundamental redistribution" of wealth amongst the populace, i.e. economic collectivism. Wealth should not reside in the hands of who earned it, it should be taken by the State and issued back out to those the State find worthy/needy in order to flatten the wealth distribution to a more "Equal" collectivist end result.

I see taxation only as a means to fund vital Governement functions, such as Defense, Courts, etc, and is a burden that should be as equally shared amongst all citizens as is humanly possible. Taxation should, in my view, never be used to simply take from one to give to another as the goal, or to promote social engineering, or similar.

True equallity is impossible, as it would entail every person paying the same amount (not rate, amount) each year, and would be the system I would choose. The closest realistic option is a Flat Tax % rate, and I continue to support it, an oppose in totallity any form of taxation whose purpose is the systemic, political-based redistribution of wealth from those who earned it to those who did not.

See we disagree on the role of government. I think government, does and has done in the past, advance the population. The GI Bill, funding for NASA, research and development funding, student loans, having social security so we can have a population that work a job that isn't necessarily high income but good for society and be able to support themselves in retirement.

I want the best and the brightest to have the least path of resistance to achieving for themselves, and therefore, the rest of the society. IMO, the best way to do that is to tax the rich and big inheritances and invest it in our own people - rich and poor. The government can research the cutting edge because it does not need to meet quarterly profits, it can lay the initial groundwork with things like NASA and then a company like Space X can come along and cut costs and develop a profitable business.