Quote:

---

zappaisgod said:

Quote:

---

Jryan said:

Quote:

---

Two things come to mind. First, you cut that CEO's earnings completely, distribute it amongst all the employees of the company, and generally speaking, each employee wouldn't see much of an increase.

Secondly, and by far most importantly, the CEO's pay is pretty much representative of the worth that the company feels his role in the company has. How much responsibility does an entry-level worker have, individually, in terms of the success of the company? How much money are they responsible for?
You play a small role and they pay you for a small role. You play a big role and they pay you for a big role.
To me, it only makes sense. I'm happy that it is this way.

---

This doesn't make sense though because their are so few CEO jobs, why should they live like kings, even taxing them at 90% they still live like kings.  This was all proven in the 50's.  This goes back to a very basic math class, 90% of $30,000 leaves you $3,000 while 90% of $10,000,000 leaves you with $1,000,000.  If you can't live off an income of 1 million dollars (like a king I might add) then you do not deserve that income.  On the other hand, it would be VERY difficult to live off of $3,000.  When you tax someone that has less you are taking more of their money that they spend on stuff to eat/live.  When you tax the rich you might prevent them from buying another gulf stream IV.

---

How is how they live any of your concern and who made you Queen of England that you decide what anybody deserves?  The wealthy pay almost all of the taxes already and the losers pay almost nothing.

You think you have a right to have 4 kids you can't support on your own but I have an obligation to pay for losers passing on their obviously defective genes?  Devolution is here, folks.

---

Quote:

---

communeart said:
I think you have no choice but to support people making those very stupid fucking choice, it's a civilisation, when you were 3 we protected you, took care of you and raised you.

---

Quote:

---

Now while i find it deplorable that countries like africa are having huge demographic boom followed by famines , and that without any racism, white people obviously have more success in nowdays world even if that success comes from imperialism, they certainly should have a higher birth rate than other people on earth by virtue of the number of big guns they have, if only slightly more.

---

Quote:

---

zappaisgod said:

Quote:

---

Jryan said:

Quote:

---

Why should ANYONE in the middle class pay more federal taxes (percentage) than someone who is rich (percentage)?

---

You must of missed that.  Also, I don't use explicit words when I reply to you, I would appreciate it if you could do the same for me.

---

I can't miss what isn't there.  And when I see a pile of bullshit I will call it bullshit.  Did you put the dog down yet?

Soc sec is capped because the benefits are capped.  Do you know what that means?  And Warren Buffet lied.  He derives his income as capital gains which are taxed at a lower rate than regular income.  Do you know why that is?  Because the company already paid taxes on it's profit.  If you take those taxes, that he paid, into account his secretary did not pay a higher tax rate.  Also Warren Buffet is a tax scofflaw.

http://hotair.com/archives/2011/09/02/buffetts-berkshire-hathaway-owes-1-billion-in-back-taxes/

---

Quote:

---

communeart said:
I think you have no choice but to support people making those very stupid fucking choice, it's a civilisation, when you were 3 we protected you, took care of you and raised you.

Now while i find it deplorable that countries like africa are having huge demographic boom followed by famines , and that without any racism, white people obviously have more success in nowdays world even if that success comes from imperialism, they certainly should have a higher birth rate than other people on earth by virtue of the number of big guns they have, if only slightly more.

The problem is, that you are shitting on your dumb half-ego within your own people that made idiotic choices. or i dunno.

---

Quote:

---

zappaisgod said:

Quote:

---

dtowntoker said:
That is a pretty weak argument Zappa.  If you're getting your income taxed at 50% you're not doing it right.

---

Why?  I don't derive my income from capital gains, I get it from, you know, working.  Last dollar fed income tax is 35%  NY income tax is 8%  Medicare is 3%.  Soc sec is at least capped but it's around 10% (for now) of 200,000+.  Then there are property taxes and sales taxes and gas taxes and telephony taxes and electricity taxes and billions and billions of other hidden taxes.

---

Quote:

---

dtowntoker said:

Quote:

---

zappaisgod said:

Quote:

---

dtowntoker said:
That is a pretty weak argument Zappa.  If you're getting your income taxed at 50% you're not doing it right.

---

Why?  I don't derive my income from capital gains, I get it from, you know, working.  Last dollar fed income tax is 35%  NY income tax is 8%  Medicare is 3%.  Soc sec is at least capped but it's around 10% (for now) of 200,000+.  Then there are property taxes and sales taxes and gas taxes and telephony taxes and electricity taxes and billions and billions of other hidden taxes.

---

Those are the rates, but like I said, if you pay that in full you're not doing it right.  Everyone pays all the other taxes you list so I'm not even going to touch it.

---

Quote:

---

zappaisgod said:

Quote:

---

zappaisgod said:

Quote:

---

Jryan said:

Quote:

---

Why should ANYONE in the middle class pay more federal taxes (percentage) than someone who is rich (percentage)?

---

You must of missed that.  Also, I don't use explicit words when I reply to you, I would appreciate it if you could do the same for me.

---

I can't miss what isn't there.  And when I see a pile of bullshit I will call it bullshit.  Did you put the dog down yet?

Soc sec is capped because the benefits are capped.  Do you know what that means?  And Warren Buffet lied.  He derives his income as capital gains which are taxed at a lower rate than regular income.  Do you know why that is?  Because the company already paid taxes on it's profit.  If you take those taxes, that he paid, into account his secretary did not pay a higher tax rate.  Also Warren Buffet is a tax scofflaw.

http://hotair.com/archives/2011/09/02/buffetts-berkshire-hathaway-owes-1-billion-in-back-taxes/

---

More on the myth perpetrated by Warren Buffett:

http://hotair.com/archives/2011/09/20/ap-fact-check-secretaries-dont-pay-more-taxes-than-their-bosses/

Quote:

---

Let’s hope that Warren Buffet is better at managing funds than he is at tax policy.  After Buffett complained that his secretary pays a higher tax rate than he does, Barack Obama decided to call his new class-warfare taxes “the Buffett Rule” and emphasize that he wants to make taxes more “fair.”  But was Buffett right?  According to an AP fact check — and just about every ounce of common sense that exists outside of the class-warfare fever swamps of the White House these days — not at all:

   

Quote:

---

“Middle-class families shouldn’t pay higher taxes than millionaires and billionaires,” Obama said Monday. “That’s pretty straightforward. It’s hard to argue against that.”

    The data tell a different story. On average, the wealthiest people in America pay a lot more taxes than the middle class or the poor, according to private and government data. They pay at a higher rate, and as a group, they contribute a much larger share of the overall taxes collected by the federal government.

    There may be individual millionaires who pay taxes at rates lower than middle-income workers. In 2009, 1,470 households filed tax returns with incomes above $1 million yet paid no federal income tax, according to the Internal Revenue Service. That, however, was less than 1 percent of the nearly 237,000 returns with incomes above $1 million.

---

Even when talking rates rather than aggregate payments, the claims made by Buffett and Obama are nothing more than an urban legend:

   

Quote:

---

This year, households making more than $1 million will pay an average of 29.1 percent of their income in federal taxes, including income taxes and payroll taxes, according to the Tax Policy Center, a Washington think tank.

    Households making between $50,000 and $75,000 will pay 15 percent of their income in federal taxes.

    Lower-income households will pay less. For example, households making between $40,000 and $50,000 will pay an average of 12.5 percent of their income in federal taxes. Households making between $20,000 and $30,000 will pay 5.7 percent.

---

That has been true ever since the US went to a progressive income tax.  It was true decades ago, it was true a few years ago, and it remains true today.  Those with higher incomes pay more taxes at higher rates that those with lower incomes.  So unless Buffett’s paying his secretary a million dollars a year, the notion that we’re burying secretaries in higher taxes while letting millionaires and billionaires off the hook is flat-out false.

Buffett should know better than to make that kind of claim without checking his facts first, but no one elected Buffett to be in charge of anything, either.  The President of the United States has vast resources at his command to get the facts straight before speaking to the American people, especially before pushing a divisive and destructive policy like his tax plan with class-warfare rhetoric designed to gin up demand for government to start seizing more from the successful than they already do.  Either Obama doesn’t bother to do his homework, or he doesn’t care whether he’s passing along myths rather than facts.

---

Warren Buffett needs to mind his own fucking business and not meddle in mine.  I don't fuck with his money.  And we know what Barry is up to.  Buying votes.

---

Quote:

---

I don't have an obligation to anybody else. My parents worked hard and payed taxes and supported me on their own. I should have no obligation to take care of somebody's kids, I owe them nothing.

Also, there is a correlation between low birth-rates and overall wealth of a nation. Most developed nations have lower birthrates, by virtue of not being self-indulgent selfish monsters like the rest of the world.

---

Quote:

---

communeart said:

Quote:

---

I don't have an obligation to anybody else. My parents worked hard and payed taxes and supported me on their own. I should have no obligation to take care of somebody's kids, I owe them nothing.

Also, there is a correlation between low birth-rates and overall wealth of a nation. Most developed nations have lower birthrates, by virtue of not being self-indulgent selfish monsters like the rest of the world.

---

the limit doesn't stop to the parents, you have a tribe and society, without them you and your parents wouldn't be shit. it's those liberals and those conservatives you voted for which destroyed all notions of common good.

---

Quote:

---

communeart said:


You think that not making children is a form of higher civilisation while it is in fact the straight definition of being a self-indulgent asshole who breaks with the normal cycle of nature to buy himself wide-screen tvs and wait until 40 years old to make children.
.

---

This is straight up insanity. As Zappa pointed out, you are asserting that it is our duty to procreate regardless of economical feasibility, then you turn around and attack people that are fiscally responsible by living within their means? And no, it's not the definition of being self indulgent. You seem to have a vested interest in being supported by your society regardless of fiscal sustainability or self-earned wealth.

Quote:

---

Mind Transcribing said:

Quote:

---

communeart said:


You think that not making children is a form of higher civilisation while it is in fact the straight definition of being a self-indulgent asshole who breaks with the normal cycle of nature to buy himself wide-screen tvs and wait until 40 years old to make children.
.

---

This is straight up insanity. As Zappa pointed out, you are asserting that it is our duty to procreate regardless of economical feasibility, then you turn around and attack people that are fiscally responsible by living within their means? And no, it's not the definition of being self indulgent. You seem to have a vested interest in being supported by your society regardless of fiscal sustainability or self-earned wealth.

---

Quote:

---

Welcome to the thought processes of the BORG.  You will be assimilated.

There is no common good.  There is only individual good.  The common is a fictive construct unless you are a bee or an ant.  HIVE MIND!

---

Quote:

---

It is selfish not to have children or to wait until one is fiscally secure enough?  What fresh lunacy is this?  YOU WILL PROCREATE FOR THE HIVE!

---

Quote:

---

Those losers will be eradicated like the incompetent swine they are.  Go away.  You have reached epic proportions of clowndom rarely ever witnessed even on this site.  By the way, judging from this latest repugnant screed, I might point out that you yourself are one of those that clearly hasn't thought and only nebulously feels.

---

Zappa, they will not be eradicated, You want to cut social spendings for them? Could it occur to you that some of the smartest people in this planet are poor? You're not a nazi Zappa, your loathful conservative that hates poor people. Your hate is not constructive. You don't want poor people to sacrifice themselves for the good of the nation because it is their turn, you argue in favor of preserving their money.

Beside, if we knew the wealth of everyone who's talking it wouldn't surprise me that rich douchebag want to keep their money and poor bums want to stay on better welfare. Your all pieces of shit. Thank god the firestorm is coming and 95% of the population is going to fucking die. god bless Alex Jones and his batshit conspiracy theory, hope!


The rich are getting more money these days than they used to. Stop this bullshit. Rush limbaugh is a rich son of a bitch who can afford private healthcare, no wonder he's against public healthcare.

Quote:

---

There is no community testicle.

---

There is no community testicle?  Are we referring to nuts here because if so then I am definitely the community nut.

Quote:

---

I despise people who refuse to support themselves even though they are completely capable of it.  "Dogma of reason?"  I think you might have that a tad backward.  Do you know why collectives exist?  To benefit the individuals in it.  The community is the tool, the individual the only thing of importance or genetic expression.  There is no community testicle.

---

Quote:

---

At this point commune's not even coherent. Not that he ever was I suppose. I'm not sure if I even have the capacity to read something so obscenely stupid without a couple braincells committing apoptosis.

---