Political Roundtable Part XV

[stilldropin20]

Balance is everything and while I found Bernie a breath air but he was also trying too much too quickly you are trying to take a "Luddite Society" politically into a totally reformed Social Democracy. While it might be "Utopian" it is unrealistic. All you have to do is look at the current Republican choice in Alabama..... Strange is regressive and Moore is a knuckles dragging Neanderthal. To think part of the American society can be dragged into the 20th Century little less the 21st is futile.

Let's stick to ideologies and not worry about which agent supports whatever given ideology and just stick to the ideology.

Ideally, I dont think we want the wealthy elite ruling class hoarding wealth and buying off politicians with that wealth so as to continue to influence legislation in a way that further enriches themeselves unless the vast and overwhelming majority of americans are simultaneously benefitting just as much? and even then we still dont want them hoarding too much of the wealth, correct? So I ask that question of the entire board. Who agrees with this basic premise that we dont want a wealthy elite ruling class at all and especially not to be able to easily pay off our politicians for favorable legislation?

I assume nearly everyone agrees with that except the few scant idiots that still think they are going to end up super wealthy and one of the elite ruling class?

So if we dont want that...how do we legally get our politician to write legislation to go after that wealth? And do so before they run off or paris, London, Dubai, Switzerland? Or better, get London, Paris, Germany, et al on board with us in a legal seizure of this wealth. How do we pull this off?

The arguments you made are - we don't want the wealthy to hoard wealth. From there you jumped to those that hoard wealth buy off politicians to further enrich themselves. Then you made the jump to we should separate the wealthy from their money and not let that money cross boarders easily.

Let's take an example that is easy to understand - since we are on a basketball board: Most that play basketball don't earn nearly as much as those the superstars. You are essentially advocating that we would pick a number, say $50M. As soon as a basketball player had accumulated $50M we would take the rest of his earnings and savings. Further, we wouldn't allow him to go to Europe and take his money with him to play, earn and accumulate more money.

So, although you have a simple argument - the argument is simple and unworkable in the context in which you have laid it out. I won't go through the numerous other flaws in your "argument". Instead, I would encourage you to think about your proposals in terms of the unintended consequences to those proposals.

well thats why i asked the question and I ask it to you directly? Do you want people like the Koch brothers to be able to steer elections, and buy influence from those politicians?

For time's sake, I assume you dont. As much as it is the "american way" its not suppose to be.

So at some point we have to tax income harshly. and by extension tax accumulated wealth harshly. That number is up for debate. at current dollar valuations I dont mind millionaires. I dont mind a person with a combined wealth of 10 million or even up to 50Million. But that's about my personal "hard cap " to use the basketball analogy you suggested. Beyond that it's just too much wealth. Too much power in one place. Of course wealthy and powerful families will simply distribute that amongst each other so we need to look at combined wealth too.

Put a gun to my head and me legislate a new tax code right now? i'd say 55% tax rate on income over 2Million. 65% over 4 Million. 75% over 6 Million. 85% tax rate on income over $25 Million. 98% rate over $50million. Combine that with a 98% tax rate on inheritance over $50M.

You can still be rich. just not ultra wealthy. No Billionaires!! Hard workers and genius who put that genius to work should be rewarded.

If we did that we would have a ton more low end millionaires once the trillions get repatriated into society. I think its better to have 100 people worth 1 million vs 1 person worth 100million. I think the world would be a better place. and I'd rather have 200 people worth $500K.

[BigA]

It's simple. If you agree with me, then you should have the right to freely express your views, assemble, practice your religion, etc.

If you disagree with me and want to exercise any of those rights, then you should lose your job, be doxxed, have stuff thrown at you, and be forced to do what I believe you should do.

I'm outraged, oppressed, offended, and indignant. I'm determined to express my anger in a way that everyone else notices and has to react to, even though there may only be a tenuous or imaginary connection between my mode of expression and the object of my anger.

The fact that others who I admire and are sympathetic toward agree with me and are behaving the same way validates what I am doing and what I believe. The fact that others who I hate and feel contempt toward condemn what I'm doing proves that I am on the right track.

I'm certainly not being manipulated by any powerful political or corporate interests. I am certainly thinking for myself.

Glad we were able to clear all that up.

[verbal8]

Trump supporters (some) make so many excuses for his behavior.

1.)"Yeah, he's a little over the top now but once he's elected he'll moderate"

2.)"He's just not PC. He tells it like it is"

3.)He's going to drain the swamp. Kick the bums out. He's different. He's not bought like "Crooked Hillary"

4.)He's not racist. He's just America first".

Please.

When someone consistently shows you who they are, believe them.

Trump he has shown himself not just to be a jerk, but also a failure on a pretty consistent basis.

[Chocolate City Jordanaire]

Trump supporters (some) make so many excuses for his behavior.

1.)"Yeah, he's a little over the top now but once he's elected he'll moderate"

2.)"He's just not PC. He tells it like it is"

3.)He's going to drain the swamp. Kick the bums out. He's different. He's not bought like "Crooked Hillary"

4.)He's not racist. He's just America first".




Please.

When someone consistently shows you who they are, believe them.

A. He's a billionaire. He's a one percent-er. More like he's a one-in-one-hundred-million-er. This would explain a lot of his "clueless-ness"

B. Not only is he a billionaire; but he's a son-of-a .... (Joke, based on what Trump calls people) He's Fred Trump's son. Dude was a Klan guy and a slum lord. His money comes from a long line of discriminating choices.

C. Next, The Donald i's a white, male, over 70 years old. Where he comes from might be type cast, if you factor in his privileged background.

D. And ... he's a New Yorker. Doesn't surprise me he's ... very vocal, if even seeming combative.

E. My call on him: Look at the DSM-V. Google it. There's a category in there for whatever this man's deal is. He's mental AF, and I should know one when I see one.

Either way, I'm not worried about him.

[payitforward]

...I have faith in God. If Trump gets us all killed I'm not even worried about that.

What are you talking about, man? Do you have kids? Do you have grandchildren?

As to "faith in the office of president," which is what I think you meant, so do I. That's why I don't like to see it dishonored by a lowlife like Donald Trump.

As to his UN speech -- Except for his one stupid improv of the name "rocket man," which was not in the text, it was his best speech as President in the sense that the speech actually said something. It enunciated a policy. & it linked itself to the history of US policy. Plus, he actually read the whole thing rather than just mouthing off.

But, that's as far as it goes. The actual policies he enunciated are the opposite of what we need -- which is a vision of *one world.* Instead, he made a point of lauding "the nation-state" & its rights to "protect" itself against other "nation states," i.e. essentially to act as if there is no such thing as "law" or "right and wrong" at a level above the nation-state -- at the level of humanity, the world.

That, my friend, is the view of the world, & the place of the nation in the world, that caused two catastrophic world wars. There's nothing to approve of in that idea or in policies based on it.

Donald Trump is quickly turning himself into a danger to the future of every human being. Personally, I don't think he can put much of this stupid rhetoric into action -- or at least I hope not. But, even mouthing it is dangerous.

[Chocolate City Jordanaire]

...I have faith in God. If Trump gets us all killed I'm not even worried about that.

What are you talking about, man? Do you have kids? Do you have grandchildren?

As to "faith in the office of president," which is what I think you meant, so do I. That's why I don't like to see it dishonored by a lowlife like Donald Trump.

As to his UN speech -- Except for his one stupid improv of the name "rocket man," which was not in the text, it was his best speech as President in the sense that the speech actually said something. It enunciated a policy. & it linked itself to the history of US policy. Plus, he actually read the whole thing rather than just mouthing off.

But, that's as far as it goes.[color=#FF0000] The actual policies he enunciated are the opposite of what we need -- which is a vision of *one world.* [/color]Instead, he made a point of lauding "the nation-state" & its rights to "protect" itself against other "nation states," i.e. essentially to act as if there is no such thing as "law" or "right and wrong" at a level above the nation-state -- at the level of humanity, the world.

That, my friend, is the view of the world, & the place of the nation in the world, that caused two catastrophic world wars. There's nothing to approve of in that idea or in policies based on it.

Donald Trump is quickly turning himself into a danger to the future of every human being. Personally, I don't think he can put much of this stupid rhetoric into action -- or at least I hope not. But, even mouthing it is dangerous.

He read it well. Smarter than I thought him capable of being.

I LOVED the Rocket Man reference. Scare a crazy mofo. Reagan scared the shyt out of Russia. Trump just made the N. Korean leader say "Day-um! This guy IS crazy".

PIF, one thing I do know is war. My ex went to Iraq twice while I kept the kiddos. YES, I GOT A LOT OF KIDS. Before I was with her, I spent a year IN KOREA. I've seen a NORTH KOREAN IN UNIFORM, SO CLOSE I COULD HAVE RUN OVER TO HIM AND SHAKEN HIS HAND WITHIN A COUPLE MINUTES. (Nice uniform, the olive with red). On a serious tip, I know EXACTLY HOW FUKKIN tense that place is. Walkin' around in chemical gear on my way to do my job, which I won't even try to explain, not that it's TS any more....

PIF, before then I was a kid who had a career army Dad. My Dad is buried in Arlington. He went to Vietnam a couple times when I was a kid.

SO, tell me what you will about catastrophic wars....

I can tell you about how I feel about the philosophies of Sun Tzu

I can also tell you my impressions of what I learned studying Von Clausewitz

payitforward, I take it you're concerned that POTUS has us on a collision course in which we end up in "a world of shyt".

THAT MAY WELL BE SO.

OR NOT.

Regardless, like I said before; I have faith in God. (You can PM me if you want to know more. In short, I read the Bible and have a personal relationship with God. I have many others who believe and who fellowship with me).

My kids believe, too. They're strong soldiers. Them dudes can kick ass, too.

[payitforward]

CCJ -- go with God, amigo. On my side of the fence we say "humans get ideas in their heads, & God laughs."

Reagan didn't scare Russia. The Soviet Union collapsed under its own weight; it was about toppling already when he was elected. And, no, you don't try to scare a crazy man. That's one of the things "crazy" often means -- not scared when a sane man would be!

As to wht "Trump... made the Korean leader say" -- it wasn't anything like what you think. What he said was: "A frightened dog barks louder." & "I will surely and definitely tame the mentally deranged U.S. dotard with fire." ("dotard" means something like "a dottering old senile grandpa")

[stilldropin20]

It's simple. If you agree with me, then you should have the right to freely express your views, assemble, practice your religion, etc.

If you disagree with me and want to exercise any of those rights, then you should lose your job, be doxxed, have stuff thrown at you, and be forced to do what I believe you should do.

I'm outraged, oppressed, offended, and indignant. I'm determined to express my anger in a way that everyone else notices and has to react to, even though there may only be a tenuous or imaginary connection between my mode of expression and the object of my anger.

The fact that others who I admire and are sympathetic toward agree with me and are behaving the same way validates what I am doing and what I believe. The fact that others who I hate and feel contempt toward condemn what I'm doing proves that I am on the right track.

I'm certainly not being manipulated by any powerful political or corporate interests. I am certainly thinking for myself.

Glad we were able to clear all that up.

i think we need to fully educate ourselves and then have thoughtful debate. popper posted a recent study that shows how stupid we are. Hardly anyone wants to discuss the deeper issues Ive finally gotten to in the last few pages. crickets!!

but taking a knee???? Why is this such a divisive debate? Why cant he protest and make his point? I dont get why 70% of americans feel its extremely wrong to be "disrespectful" of the flag. and i especially dont know why the president thinks its a good idea to cow tow those 70% of americans. He thinks its a political win. and I hate to argue with his logic (cuz well he's pres and I'm not) but this isn't a win for him.

So the whole argument is counter intuitive and counter productive. and frankly its because we're uneducated in terms of whats really going on. we are in the dark and purposefully. look, we can take back our government tomorrow. literally tomorrow. we just have to educate each other and fully understand where we really stand as a people.

And i may have somewhat of a unique perspective. I'm an oral surgeon/dentist so Ive been reading and discussing people's extremely personal medical records with them for almost 20 years. I see about 15,000 patients per year. I have a practice in an urban/suburban middle class area and a practice in an upper class suburban area. and I practice in downtown chicago. Thats a huge sampling pool and very diverse. and I've been at this for 20 years. So I know all the meds you take. and all the self-medicating you do. I know where you work, how much money you make, your diets, and sooooo much more. "you" have been applying for credit in my offices for 20 years to pay for your dental work so I know how much you make and what your assets are. and i see the differences in the urban and suburban and metropolitan settings. I've been "reading you" for 20 years.

I've also been purchasing, developing and selling real estate simultaneously. Both high end and middle of the road stuff. To the young and to the middle aged. I've bought your short sales, your tax foreclosure, your estate sales etc. I also have a smallish/medium sized rental portfolio. I've help you make the most important purchases and sales of your lives. I know where you want to live and why. As realtor, I know what your buying power is, your real credit scores and how much money you actually have in the bank.

To say "I get it" is an understatement. 20 years of this stuff just puts it in persepctive. trends remain consistent. add to it my time in the Navy as CCJ said with a TS SI SCI security clearance and serving on the bates and parche and i just know things most people dont know.

To top it off some of my closest friends work for Goldman, UBS, PSP capitol and so on. We get together and just geek it out. Discuss it all. Its fun for us. Other friends are also doctors, lawyers, local business owners. Tying it all together, its a perspective most cant even fathom. genius do of course. almost immediately no matter their backgrounds. they see the same trends in their own lines of work and are able to tie it together with us and talk about it.

And my life's experiences have taught me that we are not that different at all. in ideology, concerns, desires, etc. Genetically we are extremely similar (almost identical). Biochemically, again, we are almost identical. yet we remain extremely divided over so much "stuff." And in my opinion its because the world only has so much food in it. only so much "money." only so much land. And the elite ruling class has hoarded the vast majority of all of it and has us pitted against each other fighting over "the remaining scraps." And that includes me. I've done very well for myself. Ive worked hard to gather up as much of the "scraps" as possible. But they are just scraps and I get that. And no one should have much more than what I have. My scraps yield me no power than any average income earner.

And there are a ton of families worth $200Million plus. A ton!!!!!!!!!! You'd be amazed. or mortified? But its not published because its privately owned. and they are secretive. their investment bankers at UBS and G/S know. Sometimes, often really, they live right next door to the guy making $500K and a net worth of about $1M.

And I'm not hatin'. Truly I'm not. I'm blessed. I exceeded my expectations for myself 15 years ago. This aint sour grapes talking. I'm not them. But I'm close enough to see just how big their sledgehammers are and how powerful their swing is. It aint even close to fair and equal. And it has nothing to do with Race. its about generational wealth. This is not a world of black and white or Brown. its a world of have and have nots. But to everyone, please learn to get your minds off of each other (where they want it) and get your minds and focus on them.

Which brings me to a major basic understanding Ive come to on this planet. 2 things matter (aside form love, inner peace, and happiness that you can control). those 2 things are generational wealth and generational knowledge. If you dont have the wealth make sure you at least acquire the knowledge. Cuz, its the only shot you got. they are coming for it all. They want it all. arm yourself with at least the knowledge of knowing where you stand and what you can do about it.

[montestewart]

A penny saved is a penny earned, stand near the fire and you'll get burned, don't count your chickens before they hatch, one bad apple don't spoil the batch, slow and steady wins the race, don't cut off your nose to spite your face, monkey see monkey do, a bird in the hand in the bush makes two, let the punishment fit the crime, procrastination is the thief of time, neither borrower nor lender be, there are always more fish in the sea, as you sow so you shall reap, finders keep and losers weep, all that glitters isn't gold, revenge is a dish best served cold, when the going gets tough the tough get going, you won't cross the river if you don't start rowing, if wishes were horses beggars would ride, justice delayed is justice denied, better loved and lost than never loved at all, pride cometh before a fall, old soldiers don't die they just fade away, Rome wasn't built in a day, two's company three's a crowd, there's a silver lining in every cloud, giant oaks from acorns grow, the husband is always the last to know, can't make silk purse from a sow's ear, speak of the devil and he'll appear, where there's a will there's a way, remember tomorrow's gonna be another day.

[dckingsfan]

Let's stick to ideologies and not worry about which agent supports whatever given ideology and just stick to the ideology.

Ideally, I dont think we want the wealthy elite ruling class hoarding wealth and buying off politicians with that wealth so as to continue to influence legislation in a way that further enriches themeselves unless the vast and overwhelming majority of americans are simultaneously benefitting just as much? and even then we still dont want them hoarding too much of the wealth, correct? So I ask that question of the entire board. Who agrees with this basic premise that we dont want a wealthy elite ruling class at all and especially not to be able to easily pay off our politicians for favorable legislation?

I assume nearly everyone agrees with that except the few scant idiots that still think they are going to end up super wealthy and one of the elite ruling class?

So if we dont want that...how do we legally get our politician to write legislation to go after that wealth? And do so before they run off or paris, London, Dubai, Switzerland? Or better, get London, Paris, Germany, et al on board with us in a legal seizure of this wealth. How do we pull this off?

The arguments you made are - we don't want the wealthy to hoard wealth. From there you jumped to those that hoard wealth buy off politicians to further enrich themselves. Then you made the jump to we should separate the wealthy from their money and not let that money cross boarders easily.

Let's take an example that is easy to understand - since we are on a basketball board: Most that play basketball don't earn nearly as much as those the superstars. You are essentially advocating that we would pick a number, say $50M. As soon as a basketball player had accumulated $50M we would take the rest of his earnings and savings. Further, we wouldn't allow him to go to Europe and take his money with him to play, earn and accumulate more money.

So, although you have a simple argument - the argument is simple and unworkable in the context in which you have laid it out. I won't go through the numerous other flaws in your "argument". Instead, I would encourage you to think about your proposals in terms of the unintended consequences to those proposals.

well thats why i asked the question and I ask it to you directly? Do you want people like the Koch brothers to be able to steer elections, and buy influence from those politicians?

For time's sake, I assume you dont. As much as it is the "american way" its not suppose to be.

So at some point we have to tax income harshly. and by extension tax accumulated wealth harshly. That number is up for debate. at current dollar valuations I dont mind millionaires. I dont mind a person with a combined wealth of 10 million or even up to 50Million. But that's about my personal "hard cap " to use the basketball analogy you suggested. Beyond that it's just too much wealth. Too much power in one place. Of course wealthy and powerful families will simply distribute that amongst each other so we need to look at combined wealth too.

Put a gun to my head and me legislate a new tax code right now? i'd say 55% tax rate on income over 2Million. 65% over 4 Million. 75% over 6 Million. 85% tax rate on income over $25 Million. 98% rate over $50million. Combine that with a 98% tax rate on inheritance over $50M.

You can still be rich. just not ultra wealthy. No Billionaires!! Hard workers and genius who put that genius to work should be rewarded.

If we did that we would have a ton more low end millionaires once the trillions get repatriated into society. I think its better to have 100 people worth 1 million vs 1 person worth 100million. I think the world would be a better place. and I'd rather have 200 people worth $500K.

A high tax rate is one thing - but you are advocating confiscation of wealth and a cap on earnings. What are the consequences?

Is this like Trump - let it burn, consequence be damned.

It is a rhetorical question you don't need to answer.

[stilldropin20]

The arguments you made are - we don't want the wealthy to hoard wealth. From there you jumped to those that hoard wealth buy off politicians to further enrich themselves. Then you made the jump to we should separate the wealthy from their money and not let that money cross boarders easily.

Let's take an example that is easy to understand - since we are on a basketball board: Most that play basketball don't earn nearly as much as those the superstars. You are essentially advocating that we would pick a number, say $50M. As soon as a basketball player had accumulated $50M we would take the rest of his earnings and savings. Further, we wouldn't allow him to go to Europe and take his money with him to play, earn and accumulate more money.

So, although you have a simple argument - the argument is simple and unworkable in the context in which you have laid it out. I won't go through the numerous other flaws in your "argument". Instead, I would encourage you to think about your proposals in terms of the unintended consequences to those proposals.

well thats why i asked the question and I ask it to you directly? Do you want people like the Koch brothers to be able to steer elections, and buy influence from those politicians?

For time's sake, I assume you dont. As much as it is the "american way" its not suppose to be.

So at some point we have to tax income harshly. and by extension tax accumulated wealth harshly. That number is up for debate. at current dollar valuations I dont mind millionaires. I dont mind a person with a combined wealth of 10 million or even up to 50Million. But that's about my personal "hard cap " to use the basketball analogy you suggested. Beyond that it's just too much wealth. Too much power in one place. Of course wealthy and powerful families will simply distribute that amongst each other so we need to look at combined wealth too.

Put a gun to my head and me legislate a new tax code right now? i'd say 55% tax rate on income over 2Million. 65% over 4 Million. 75% over 6 Million. 85% tax rate on income over $25 Million. 98% rate over $50million. Combine that with a 98% tax rate on inheritance over $50M.

You can still be rich. just not ultra wealthy. No Billionaires!! Hard workers and genius who put that genius to work should be rewarded.

If we did that we would have a ton more low end millionaires once the trillions get repatriated into society. I think its better to have 100 people worth 1 million vs 1 person worth 100million. I think the world would be a better place. and I'd rather have 200 people worth $500K.

A high tax rate is one thing - but you are advocating confiscation of wealth and a cap on earnings. What are the consequences?

Is this like Trump - let it burn, consequence be damned.

It is a rhetorical question you don't need to answer.

i'll put it to you the same i put it to whatshispus a few pages back. educate us! tell us what the big bad consequences are. dont run away and tell us how busy you are and how we should pay you to educate us. Just do it. Tell us what we should fear.

You can leave out the boogie man, i've already seen his crafty work and I know he is real.

[Chocolate City Jordanaire]

CCJ -- go with God, amigo. On my side of the fence we say "humans get ideas in their heads, & God laughs."

Reagan didn't scare Russia. The Soviet Union collapsed under its own weight; it was about toppling already when he was elected. And, no, you don't try to scare a crazy man. That's one of the things "crazy" often means -- not scared when a sane man would be!

As to wht "Trump... made the Korean leader say" -- it wasn't anything like what you think. What he said was: "A frightened dog barks louder." & "I will surely and definitely tame the mentally deranged U.S. dotard with fire." ("dotard" means something like "a dottering old senile grandpa")

Once in Korea, I saw a truck carrying dogs... apparently, to be slaughtered for food.

PIF, if I really think Donald Trump is not going to last. Before our Joint Chiefs and others would let POTUS compromise our security they will likely take him out IMO.

Prediction: Pence will be POTUS by 2020.

Sent from my Moto G (4) using RealGM mobile app

[dckingsfan]

well thats why i asked the question and I ask it to you directly? Do you want people like the Koch brothers to be able to steer elections, and buy influence from those politicians?

For time's sake, I assume you dont. As much as it is the "american way" its not suppose to be.

So at some point we have to tax income harshly. and by extension tax accumulated wealth harshly. That number is up for debate. at current dollar valuations I dont mind millionaires. I dont mind a person with a combined wealth of 10 million or even up to 50Million. But that's about my personal "hard cap " to use the basketball analogy you suggested. Beyond that it's just too much wealth. Too much power in one place. Of course wealthy and powerful families will simply distribute that amongst each other so we need to look at combined wealth too.

Put a gun to my head and me legislate a new tax code right now? i'd say 55% tax rate on income over 2Million. 65% over 4 Million. 75% over 6 Million. 85% tax rate on income over $25 Million. 98% rate over $50million. Combine that with a 98% tax rate on inheritance over $50M.

You can still be rich. just not ultra wealthy. No Billionaires!! Hard workers and genius who put that genius to work should be rewarded.

If we did that we would have a ton more low end millionaires once the trillions get repatriated into society. I think its better to have 100 people worth 1 million vs 1 person worth 100million. I think the world would be a better place. and I'd rather have 200 people worth $500K.

A high tax rate is one thing - but you are advocating confiscation of wealth and a cap on earnings. What are the consequences?

Is this like Trump - let it burn, consequence be damned.

It is a rhetorical question you don't need to answer.

i'll put it to you the same i put it to whatshispus a few pages back. educate us! tell us what the big bad consequences are. dont run away and tell us how busy you are and how we should pay you to educate us. Just do it. Tell us what we should fear.

You can leave out the boogie man, i've already seen his crafty work and I know he is real.

The unintended consequences are many and deep when you start confiscating property. Many times the cure is worse than the disease.

And, I would add - you are creating your own new boogie men. To you it might be someone with $50M. Someone else, it might be $5M.

Look at the alternative minimum tax for an example of how difficult it would be to control the legislation.

This is just a terrible idea - I will leave it at that...

[stilldropin20]

A high tax rate is one thing - but you are advocating confiscation of wealth and a cap on earnings. What are the consequences?

Is this like Trump - let it burn, consequence be damned.

It is a rhetorical question you don't need to answer.

i'll put it to you the same i put it to whatshispus a few pages back. educate us! tell us what the big bad consequences are. dont run away and tell us how busy you are and how we should pay you to educate us. Just do it. Tell us what we should fear.

You can leave out the boogie man, i've already seen his crafty work and I know he is real.

The unintended consequences are many and deep when you start confiscating property. Many times the cure is worse than the disease.

And, I would add - you are creating your own new boogie men. To you it might be someone with $50M. Someone else, it might be $5M.

Look at the alternative minimum tax for an example of how difficult it would be to control the legislation.

This is just a terrible idea - I will leave it at that...

so you accept that we are never getting that wealth back???!!!! Almost 99% of the Global wealth is held by about .5%

I mean, we are never getting it back? think about those consequences, instead.

Ya know. In the "good ol' days" of 300 years ago. If a king and his court had too much and dispersed too little, the neighboring clan got together and "elected" a new king and they came and just took it. as barbaric as it was, at least the phuckin wealth got redistributed.

And its going to happen, again. not sure of the mechanism. ww3, war of all wars, nuclear waste land, scorched earth, or just a "global redistribution tax." At some point the "have nots" are going to begin to take it back from the "haves."

There is no way around it.

[cammac]

NAFTA NEWS

OTTAWA - Canada is pushing for the inclusion of enforceable, progressive labour standards in a rewritten North American Free Trade Agreement, aimed at compelling Mexico to pay workers higher wages and do away with so-called "yellow" unions that represent employers rather than employees.
Canada's proposed chapter on labour standards also calls for an end to right-to-work laws in the United States, whereby workers in 28 states have the right to refuse to join or pay dues to a union while enjoying all the benefits of a unionized workplace. Labour leaders contend such laws are essentially aimed at starving the unions of cash and weakening their ability to represent the interests of their members.

http://www.msn.com/en-ca/money/topstories/canada-wants-progressive-labour-standards/ar-AAstmsI?li=AA54rW&ocid=spartandhp

[montestewart]

i'll put it to you the same i put it to whatshispus a few pages back. educate us! tell us what the big bad consequences are. dont run away and tell us how busy you are and how we should pay you to educate us. Just do it. Tell us what we should fear.

You can leave out the boogie man, i've already seen his crafty work and I know he is real.

The unintended consequences are many and deep when you start confiscating property. Many times the cure is worse than the disease.

And, I would add - you are creating your own new boogie men. To you it might be someone with $50M. Someone else, it might be $5M.

Look at the alternative minimum tax for an example of how difficult it would be to control the legislation.

This is just a terrible idea - I will leave it at that...

so you accept that we are never getting that wealth back???!!!! Almost 99% of the Global wealth is held by about .5%

I mean, we are never getting it back. think about those consequences, instead.

Ya know. In the "good ol' days" of 300 years ago. If a king and his court had too much and dispersed too little, the neighboring clan got together and "elected" a new king and they came and just took it. as barbaric as it was, at least the phuckin wealth got redistributed.

And its going to happen, again. not sure of the mechanism. ww3, war of all wars, nuclear waste land, scorched earth, or just a "global redistribution tax." At some point the "have nots" are going to begin to take it back from the "haves."

There is no way around it.

I can see Trump leading the charge, yelling "There he goes! Get him!" as the educated professional elite real estate mogul is cornered in a dead end alley. "Make him show his tax return! Don't let him kneel! Make him show his birth certificate! He's a Have! He's a witch!"



Change you can deceive yourself with.

[cammac]

i'll put it to you the same i put it to whatshispus a few pages back. educate us! tell us what the big bad consequences are. dont run away and tell us how busy you are and how we should pay you to educate us. Just do it. Tell us what we should fear.

You can leave out the boogie man, i've already seen his crafty work and I know he is real.

The unintended consequences are many and deep when you start confiscating property. Many times the cure is worse than the disease.

And, I would add - you are creating your own new boogie men. To you it might be someone with $50M. Someone else, it might be $5M.

Look at the alternative minimum tax for an example of how difficult it would be to control the legislation.

This is just a terrible idea - I will leave it at that...

so you accept that we are never getting that wealth back???!!!! Almost 99% of the Global wealth is held by about .5%

I mean, we are never getting it back. think about those consequences, instead.

Ya know. In the "good ol' days" of 300 years ago. If a king and his court had too much and dispersed too little, the neighboring clan got together and "elected" a new king and they came and just took it. as barbaric as it was, at least the phuckin wealth got redistributed.

And its going to happen, again. not sure of the mechanism. ww3, war of all wars, nuclear waste land, scorched earth, or just a "global redistribution tax." At some point the "have nots" are going to begin to take it back from the "haves."

There is no way around it.

Capitalism shouldn't be feudalism and I believe a man in his lifetime should be able to accumulate as much wealth as he/she can as long as they pay a fair share of taxes. My problem becomes enriching future generation without significant inheritance taxes and I must even include altruistic people like Bill Gates where significant amount of his treasure should go the government before going to his good deeds. Taxation should be simple both in corporate and personal with most loopholes closed but citizens getting value for taxes.

[stilldropin20]

The unintended consequences are many and deep when you start confiscating property. Many times the cure is worse than the disease.

And, I would add - you are creating your own new boogie men. To you it might be someone with $50M. Someone else, it might be $5M.

Look at the alternative minimum tax for an example of how difficult it would be to control the legislation.

This is just a terrible idea - I will leave it at that...

so you accept that we are never getting that wealth back???!!!! Almost 99% of the Global wealth is held by about .5%

I mean, we are never getting it back. think about those consequences, instead.

Ya know. In the "good ol' days" of 300 years ago. If a king and his court had too much and dispersed too little, the neighboring clan got together and "elected" a new king and they came and just took it. as barbaric as it was, at least the phuckin wealth got redistributed.

And its going to happen, again. not sure of the mechanism. ww3, war of all wars, nuclear waste land, scorched earth, or just a "global redistribution tax." At some point the "have nots" are going to begin to take it back from the "haves."

There is no way around it.

Capitalism shouldn't be feudalism and I believe a man in his lifetime should be able to accumulate as much wealth as he/she can as long as they pay a fair share of taxes. My problem becomes enriching future generation without significant inheritance taxes and I must even include altruistic people like Bill Gates where significant amount of his treasure should go the government before going to his good deeds. Taxation should be simple both in corporate and personal with most loopholes closed but citizens getting value for taxes.

pretty much my thoughts but i would also cap "the mans" earnings albeit in one life time. or else you will end up with powerful families "making deals" for the children that will pave a path for massive earnings. So you have to cap what a man can earn in a lifetime as well. A generous cap. but a cap none the less. You gotta eliminate the hiding of wealth. All wealth should be visible and out in the open, every single penny accounted for. then a harsh inheritance tax.

Until we get this done there is nothing fair and equal about jack effin sheeot. the US constitution and the bill of rights are worth the paper they are printed on until we get serious about income and wealth "equality."

[Jamaaliver]

My president...seems to have nothing better to do than squash 1st Amendment rights and antagonize professional athletes.

Read on Twitter

Has Puerto Rico been fixed yet?
Has the Korean peninsula been stabilized?
Has healthcare reform been resolved?
Has his tax plan been approved in congress?

If not...why is wasting his time on such a trivial issue?

[cammac]

My president...seems to have nothing better to do than squash 1st Amendment rights and antagonize professional athletes.

Read on Twitter

Has Puerto Rico been fixed yet?
Has the Korean peninsula been stabilized?
Has healthcare reform been resolved?
Has his tax plan been approved in congress?

If not...why is wasting his time on such a trivial issue?

Totally agree Puerto Rica is a tragedy and it is a sign of poor leadership the likely scenario of what was going to happen was know days before the Hurricane landed. Why wasn't navy and commercial ships already on the way?

I am very disappointed in the NHL and Canadian players especially not telling Trump to FO.