What having "Super Rich" means...
Actually, you might want to consider the question of super rich self-made people like Bill Gates, Henry Ford, Howard Hughs etc. as a separate question from the really super-super rich like Rothchilds who don't seem to do much of anything in life other than banking and money games.
What that produces in the US is individuals, often with considerable brains and talent, making directional decisions as opposed to all directional decisions being made by career politicians, political hacks, and bureaucratic wonks as was the case in the CCCP and as the wonk rulers of rogue agencies such as our present EPA and DOI would have it.
But I can tell you right now what would have happened to any stupid mother ****** who with a straight face were to have ever stood in front of FDR, Truman, or Ike and started talking about the need to destroy dams and hydroelectric plants for the benefit of shad, snail darters, and salmon and to appease Gaea: that would have literally been the last day of that stupid ******'s life, even FDR would have ordered him taken out behind the barn and shot through the head.
@izzythepush,
Quote:Your knowledge of history is best expressed by your assertion that Peruvians used to fly about on pterodactyls.
I'll thank you not to include outright lying in your rhetorical arsenal, I never said that. I've mentioned that teratorns and the kinds of pterosaurs which turn up at Big Bend were BIG enough for somebody to have ridden them if the rider weren't didn't have reason to fear being eaten, but you'd need a time machine to try to ascertain whether anything like that ever happened.
@gungasnake,
We've got entrepreneurs over here, Richard Branson for instance. What we don't have is a bunch of brown nosing, supine, blue collar workers who are stupid enough to believe that tax cuts for the super rich benefits them.
@izzythepush,
Dumb question, Poop, are you aware that the US never had any sort of a regular and permanent income tax at all prior to 1913?
Or that taxing INCOME of the rich is taxing the least of what makes anybody rich or that you could simply confiscate ALL of the wealth of everybody in the US with incomes over a million a year and it wouldn't start to balance our present budget?
I don't know about England, but the US only has four or five serious problems standing between us and financial happiness and taxing the rich or super rich would not be part of resolving any of those problems, and by that I mean that it (taxing the rich) would be neither necessary nor effective in resolving any or all of those problems.
One other note, aside from all the horror stories you read about the English and Canadian health care systems, there is what Mark Steyn says about European health care in general i.e. that you could be the president, the PM, the king, the duke, the grand duke, the arch duke, the grand arch duke or the duke of earl or the imperial wizard of any European country right now, and that from any of those jobs to being the man in charge of health care is a step UP, i.e. more power, more money, more prestige, more fast cars, more teenage groupies, more wine, women, song or whatever you'd want.
Do you really think you're enjoying living under a regime like that??
@izzythepush,
izzythepush wrote:We've got entrepreneurs over here, Richard Branson for instance.
I 'm under the impression that he is a good guy.
izzythepush wrote:What we don't have is a bunch of brown nosing, supine, blue collar workers
who are stupid enough to believe that tax cuts for the super rich benefits them.
It is to be hoped that in opposition to naked
ROBBERY,
thay 'd support equal tax treatment for everyone,
including the financially successful,
rather than have a tax policy based on spite & envy.
David
@gungasnake,
gungasnake wrote:
Dumb question, Poop, are you aware that the US never had any sort of a regular and permanent income tax at all prior to 1913?
Or that taxing INCOME of the rich is taxing the least of what makes anybody rich or that you could simply confiscate ALL of the wealth of everybody in the US with incomes over a million a year and it wouldn't start to balance our present budget?
I use the word:
ROB, instead of "confiscate".
gungasnake wrote:I don't know about England, but the US only has four or five serious problems standing between us and financial happiness and taxing the rich or super rich would not be part of resolving any of those problems, and by that I mean that it (taxing the rich) would be neither necessary nor effective in resolving any or all of those problems.
I 'd impose a cap of $500,000 maximum taxes that
ANYONE cud owe.
Beyond that, he gets no quid pro quo from government to justify those taxes.
David
@izzythepush,
izzythepush wrote:You are a monument to the dangers of home schooling.
I feel free knowing there's no armed nutters in my neighbourhood,
Any
LOGIC problems here, Izzy??
First u condemn schooling at home; (inferentially, u did not have that).
THEN u say:
"I feel free knowing there's no armed nutters . . ."; "there's" = there
is, meaning
singular;
"no armed nutter
s" = plural.
With all respect, Izzy,
if u 'd had some home schooling, I bet that your mom 'd have
explained more precisely correct grammar for u.
(
I guess fonetic spelling is too much to hope for. )
David
@OmSigDAVID,
Oh David, we've spoken about my idiom before, you're clutching at straws if that's the best you can do.
@gungasnake,
You're a proud graduate of faux news and no mistake.
@gungasnake,
gungasnake wrote:Do you really think you're enjoying living under a regime like that??
A regime that only exists in your fevered imagination.
@gungasnake,
Gunga
Dim strikes again. The income tax in the United States was permanently established by the sixteenth amendment precisely because the Supreme Court, in a series of decisions between 1871 and 1895, had struck down the income tax established in the first Republican administration of Mr. Lincoln in 1861, and renewed in 1862.
As usual, Gunga Dim shoots his mouth off without bothering to refer to facts or reality.
@Setanta,
The courts did not strike down the entire income tax system as unconstitutional. It only declared income on rents from property were exempt from income tax under the Constitution. Income tax on wages was still constitutional.
@parados,
Which reinforces my point that Gunga, as usual, doesn't know what the **** he's talking about.
@Setanta,
What I said:
Quote:Dumb question, Poop, are you aware that the US never had any sort of a regular and permanent income tax at all prior to 1913?
Note the qualifying adjectives "regular" and "permanent" in the sentence, which I' ve highlighted in red so that even a moron like yourself should be able to see them. If you can't read sentences longer than four or five words with some comprehension, then you've no business calling people names for writing in longer sentences like that. There is nothing wrong with the statement I made. The history of the thing is well known, they were basically implementing Alexander Hamilton's notion of basing money on federal debt and using an income tax to pay interest on that debt while rolling principle over in perpetuity.
Again there had been income taxes on temporary bases prior to 1913, but there had never been a regular and permenent income tax prior to that.
@gungasnake,
"regular" and "permannent" are conditions only visualized after the fact . When your had is firmly up your ass you should just leave it hang like you do in your contributions to science. That way people forget youre an idiot.
The Big Bend Park is one of the easiest geological records to read in the interpretation of the continental (cratonic) geology from the late preCambrian to the post Pleistocene.
When Quetzocoatlus was found over 40 years ago, the big ass was found in an "interstrate" condition (to use a tired word of you Creationists). There are several other species of "big birosaurs" that were found in sub and super formational locations till the Cretaceous hiatus. The location clearly shows the evolutionary relationship of several of these "ornosaurii" to each other.
Im so glad you like to use other folks facts to try to pretend you know of what you speak.
@izzythepush,
izzythepush wrote:Oh David, we've spoken about my idiom before,
you're clutching at straws if that's the best you can do.
Incidentally, concerning the "armed nutters" from whom u feel free in your naborhood:
if some of your nabors have fallen into
mental illness,
r u justified in your certainty that thay will not
arm themselves
in
psychotic scorn of your gun control laws ????
How much
faith do u repose in your mentally crippled nabors ???
David
@gungasnake,
That is an interesting argument gunga. So, you are arguing that the current income tax is
permanent and yet you are promoting eliminating or changing it. Once again, you seem to be out of touch with reality.
