 heat84Bit Torrent Apologist
join:2004-03-11
Fort Lauderdale, FL | reply to lolwhat
Re: Why isnt Wall Street in jail? said by lolwhat:Well, nothing will happen to those crooks... unless, you know, a sufficient number of people get fed up with it. Consider the French Revolution, just as an example.
As I've said before, we've become too civilized. That will never happen here.
--
Bit Torrent is my DVR. |
|
heat84Bit Torrent Apologist
join:2004-03-11
Fort Lauderdale, FL | reply to Archivis
said by Archivis:said by lolwhat:Well, nothing will happen to those crooks... unless, you know, a sufficient number of people get fed up with it. Consider the French Revolution, just as an example.
I laugh at those who still believe that things can be fixed via peaceful methods. Me too.
--
Bit Torrent is my DVR. |
|
 GomezExile in waitingPremium,Ex-Mod 06-11
join:2001-02-21
Atlanta, GA | reply to lolwhat
said by lolwhat:Fact: People will choose - in fact, are already choosing - to close their businesses (or not start new ones). It isn't just in direct response to the fact that the worldwide Ponzi scheme isn't being prosecuted; it's due to the indirect effects of the Ponzi. Good luck keeping your job in this corrosive business environment.
If I listened to the doom and gloom spouted here, I might be. But no worries on the Job front, I have to be voted out by my partners. Thanks for caring though.
Still waiting on all the shoes to drop that have been mentioned over the past years.. But no, it's all about the gloomy future, never about the predicted events in the past that didn't happen.
Continue to fear it all.. Rational minds will cover for you.
--
It's a fact : Chicks dig Mafia players.
'Wanna help buy a goat?' - »www.kiva.org
|
|
|
|
 lolwhatYou're getting warmerPremium
join:2001-06-11
PonziWorld
 ·Callcentric
| And when the wolf really came, the little boy shouted in vain. I suppose we'll see who's right in the fullness of time. And since you're a moderator, I guess it's OK to engage in ad hominem attacks, especially since you hold a majority opinion. Right?
--
Tutto nelle banche, niente al di fuori delle banche, nulla contro le banche |
|
| said by lolwhat: Since you're a moderator, I guess it's OK to engage in ad hominem attacks, especially since you hold a majority opinion. Right?
Whoever told you that life was fair ? |
|
 taoChaos ImpendsPremium
join:2000-12-03
Lansing, MI | reply to Waterbug
said by Waterbug: Your position/attitude show disdain for people of wealth and not real concern for resolving our current economic problems. Over taxing the wealthy WILL NOT solve anything.
Well, I suppose that depends upon what you consider needs to be resolved, as to whether anything (important) will be solved by taxation.
The statement "Don't tax the rich because the government is corrupt" begs a question because for me, the corruption is tainted to the benefit of the rich. I, in no way, advocate the nationalization of wealth, I advocate the return to a high tax on high incomes. I don't do this with the idea that anyone will be punished, I do this with the idea that income will be reinvested and/or that potential income will be deferred to a later time. While some would say that money would only be moved offshore, that is irrelevant, the premise being to create and maintain liquidity in the marketplaces while reducing speculative, short-term investments.
I seek stable markets via held investments. I seek a denial of the supposed right to profit. As someone very smart said, we do not live in an economy, we live in a society. I value the freedom of people over the freedom of money. |
|
1 edit | said by tao:said by Waterbug: Your position/attitude show disdain for people of wealth and not real concern for resolving our current economic problems. Over taxing the wealthy WILL NOT solve anything.
Well, I suppose that depends upon what you consider needs to be resolved, as to whether anything (important) will be solved by taxation. The statement "Don't tax the rich because the government is corrupt" begs a question because for me, the corruption is tainted to the benefit of the rich. I, in no way, advocate the nationalization of wealth, I advocate the return to a high tax on high incomes. I don't do this with the idea that anyone will be punished, I do this with the idea that income will be reinvested and/or that potential income will be deferred to a later time. While some would say that money would only be moved offshore, that is irrelevant, the premise being to create and maintain liquidity in the marketplaces while reducing speculative, short-term investments. I seek stable markets via held investments. I seek a denial of the supposed right to profit. As someone very smart said, we do not live in an economy, we live in a society. I value the freedom of people over the freedom of money. The problem is that I never said "Don't tax the rich because the government is corrupt." I did say that a personal income tax over 50% is obscene. I did say that any tax increase, so that corrupt/inept politician could waste the money, was foolish.
EDIT: You are advocating the government confiscating 90% of a person's income, if that income is not used in the method that YOU dictate. What if I think that their income should be used to buy jelly beans ? Maybe the person that earns that money should make that decision. |
|
taoChaos ImpendsPremium
join:2000-12-03
Lansing, MI | Correction noted. The difference remains as I stated it. |
|
| reply to Waterbug
I think Atlas should Shrug. That'll teach 'em! The rich will quit producing and then where will you get your precious tax from? |
|
