Shock - Buffet says the rich aren't taxed enough!

[deleted15807]

don't see anyone wrapping Jesus around anything. Not only that, they don't believe they sinned by killing criminals.

Where in the bible is mankind given the authority to murder? Where in the commandment 'Thou Shalt Not Kill' is there an exception?

 

[StormfrontFL]

So far beyond ignorance? Is this the third grade? NUH UH! YOU ARE! ! !

This is that mythical argument that your having with yourself. You read a few liberal talking points and you're desperately trying to fit this discussion into it.

If "poor" people ride for free on tax payers, thats immoral
If "rich" people ride for free on tax payers, thats immoral.

Does this not prove your ignorance?

But that wasn't the question. This was about you, and how you are exactly what you hate.

I have signed multiple petitions to get civil unions/gay marriage on the ballot. One may note that Obama did absolutely nothing for gay marriage. To be honest, the GOP has a very hard time turning me out on social issues. Their fundamentals, allegedly, support gay marriage. Again, you're having some pre-rehearsed discussion. Its not fitting nicely into your talking points.

Lets see some examples.

You should know better, you got schooled. I really need you to step it up, I'm not getting what I need here.

I love how you suddenly try to limit everything to how you supposedly act or believe not to the GOP itself. Just because you supposedly don't follow their discriminatory policies on gays and Muslims you want to deny that it exists and is exploited by them. Your own words are all the proof I need. If you want to pretend to be ignorant of things that I'm sure you are already aware of why should I waste my time posting links which you will assuredly deny provide proof.
You are the definition of a troll. You come to a large penis group and spend most if not all your time posting in the political section. Nothing wrong with that if it weren't so clear that your reason to post is simply to stir things up and spout nonsensical garbage. I wish VB were still here because he would write a treatise on why people like you are worthless but I prefer to just do away with you. Congrats you are now on my ignore list. So far the few that have been deemed worthy of that honor have ended up banned so let's hope the streak continues.

 

[B_enzia35]

Upperdown is right, you are just like a little kid: "You're mean to me and I'm going home!"
All I see from you is a bunch of leftist bullshit talking points.

 

[Thedrewbert]

Where in the bible is mankind given the authority to murder? Where in the commandment 'Thou Shalt Not Kill' is there an exception?

Deuteronomy 22:21,22,24,25
21 - then they shall bring out the young woman to the door of her father's house, and the men of her city shall stone her to death with stones
22 "If a man is found lying with the wife of another man, both of them shall die, the man who lay with the woman, and the woman;
24 then you shall bring them both out to the gate of that city, and you shall stone them to death with stones25 "But if in the open country a man meets a young woman who is betrothed, and the man seizes her and lies with her, then only the man who lay with her shall die.

Judges 21:7-23 - Go kill everyone who either has a penis or has seen one and then take the leftovers as your wives.

 

[deleted15807]

Deuteronomy 22:21,22,24,25
21 - then they shall bring out the young woman to the door of her father's house, and the men of her city shall stone her to death with stones
22 "If a man is found lying with the wife of another man, both of them shall die, the man who lay with the woman, and the woman;
24 then you shall bring them both out to the gate of that city, and you shall stone them to death with stones25 "But if in the open country a man meets a young woman who is betrothed, and the man seizes her and lies with her, then only the man who lay with her shall die.

Judges 21:7-23 - Go kill everyone who either has a penis or has seen one and then take the leftovers as your wives.

Ahhh and those passages supersede God's words 'Thou Shalt Not Kill'?

 

[Upperdown]

Where in the bible is mankind given the authority to murder? Where in the commandment 'Thou Shalt Not Kill' is there an exception?

I have no idea. Is this a trick question?

Or are you still trying to wedge your talking points in to this conversation?

 

[Upperdown]

I love how you suddenly try to limit everything to how you supposedly act or believe not to the GOP itself. Just because you supposedly don't follow their discriminatory policies on gays and Muslims you want to deny that it exists and is exploited by them. Your own words are all the proof I need. If you want to pretend to be ignorant of things that I'm sure you are already aware of why should I waste my time posting links which you will assuredly deny provide proof.
You are the definition of a troll. You come to a large penis group and spend most if not all your time posting in the political section. Nothing wrong with that if it weren't so clear that your reason to post is simply to stir things up and spout nonsensical garbage. I wish VB were still here because he would write a treatise on why people like you are worthless but I prefer to just do away with you. Congrats you are now on my ignore list. So far the few that have been deemed worthy of that honor have ended up banned so let's hope the streak continues.

I never said the GOP was right. Stop trying to have this mythical conversation.

I don't deny that there is racism in this country. Just today Maxine Waters said that greedy jews voted for Turner to protect their money, thats racist. It exists. Is the GOP hateful toward gays? Yep. Toward personal freedoms of all stripes? Just about. Do I know any of these people? No. In fact my Republican friends are far more tolerant than my liberal/Democrat friends.

Aren't YOU posting in the political section? Another instance where its right for a liberal to do it but wrong for anyone else.

What happened to VB? What was he banned for?

 

[Upperdown]

We could avoid all this and ensure that everyone pays a fair share: FAIR TAX. Rich people buy more expensive things, therefore their taxes will be higher. Liberals will fight this tooth and nail as the system is far more efficient, meaning the rich would have more money at the end of the day; even if they paid more in taxes.

 

[B_enzia35]

Did Waters really say that? I swear, Democrats are the biggest racists. EVUR.

 

[StormfrontFL]

Upperdown is right, you are just like a little kid: "You're mean to me and I'm going home!"
All I see from you is a bunch of leftist bullshit talking points.

Your comprehension skills are as weak as Upperdown's logic. I have no problem with him believing what he does. My issue is that when his hypocrisy is pointed out he attempts to spin things in his favor and deny the existence of obvious evidence. If proof is presented and he refuses to admit it then why should I waste my time by continuing to interact with him?
There used to be some conservatives on here that were able to express themselves reasonably and rationally but it seems like they left only to be replaced by idiots like Upperdown and now apparently you(damn Texas education really has gone to hell)

 

[B_starinvestor]

You could take all the money from the rich in America, and give it to the poor. In a short period of time, it would go back to the way it was. I have empathy for all walks of life. The poor are poor for a reason, the same way the rich are rich for a reason. The rest of this bantering is meaningless.

 

[B_enzia35]

I've gone back through your replied in this discussion and have seen no evidence. Lots of leftist class warfare bullshit though.

 

[dandelion]

Sorry, but I'd caveat that by saying that the Labour government whacked up benefits to a unaffordable, & unsustainable level that couldn't be continued in an economic downturn, so that was bound to happen regardless.

Thats hard to say. Most people in the UK currently pay 2x -3x as much for their housing as they need to. This is a result of government policy to restrict housing. Just how would all our budgets look if this huge expense was taken out of them? If you are going to start unravelling mistakes of the past then this is one of the biggest. Along with allowing insane borrowing for everything else, of course.

Sensible people would say the tax rate should be much lower so everyone can have the maximum freedom to do as they wish with their lives

sensible people understand that some things can only be provided sensibly on a national basis and only governments can do this. So they willingly pay taxes to fund this.

So, if you made $50k on your house you'd owe (for some unknown reason) $12,500.

In the UK your own home is exempt from capital gains tax. I am not suggesting a simplistic approach to taxation. On the ther hand, if you decide to be a landlord and buy properties as an investment...

when we look at it from how people are treated, the "poor" still recieve favorable tax treatment over the rich (0% vs 15%).

Generally it is accepted the poor should get a tax free allowance because they cannot afford taxes. But you seem to be suggesting 15% would be sufficiently high as a general rate ????. Hardly.

You are missing the basic premise. Anyone that want to can sweep the street. They have to want to. It is very difficult to take someone who has earned a high status in this society, say a lawyer, and tell them to sweep the street for $7.25/hr. They wont do it. But, they could do it if they wanted to.

It was a standing joke in the Uk at one point that Polish doctors and lawyers were coming to sweep the streets in Britain. They were presumably perfectly good doctors and lawyers but the economy in poland was totally in pieces. Presumably as people they were just as good as british doctors and lawyers. Yet they could not get jobs as doctors or lawyers. Why? because the doctors, lawyers, bankers, etc, all operate a closed shop which does not allow outsiders to join. The professionals union prevent just anyone taking those jobs and therefore artifically inflate their own wages by maintaining an artificial shortage of such people. Clever, isnt it? The worst closed shop practices are invariably by the best paid people. Of course, because they want to preserve their own pay!

Its MUCH easier to stay home, collect welfare, unemployment and food stamps than it is to go into the fields and earn $7.25.

But what benefit is there to us as a nation to have lots of people on bottom level wages? Surely national policy should be to encourage industries which pay lot more than this. On the one hand people bemoan a skilled labour shortage, but on the other insist people should do basic unskilled jobs where the nation can never compete with foreign labour in undeveloped countries. We righly expect much higher pay standards, because we are all rich. We should not be encouraging the growth of industries in our countries which rely on cheap labour. This is a recipe for continuing decline. It is therefore important to maintain minimum wage levels, which forces such dead end industries out of the economy.

Where do you get this crap? How is he making money at the expense of ordinary citizens? Right now there is a Chase Bank down the street from my house. Do you know how much they made off me? $0. Why? Because I chose not to bank there.

If you don't want your banker making money on your money, while making you money, then DON'T BANK THERE.

Fine. then i presume you have no bank accounts, no credit cards, no mortgage, no loans of any sort, no accountant, no insurance, no shares. Or did you in fact go to a banker for financial services because in modern society you are forced to do so? They have a monopoly! They charge what the hell they please! Every single time money changes hands through the system they get a payment. Every time. All that money comes from ordinary people, just being charged for spending their own money. It is a tax levied by banks on us, and I resent paying banks to get rich where i do not resent paying government to provide healthcare.

OK, obviously if they are doing something for you that has to be paid for. But you only have to look at the scale of bank salaries and profits to know they are charging way more than cost and reasonable profit. There is absolutley no cost control on the system. The biggest ripoffs though have always been commissions for transactions, not physical costs of the infrastructure. I dare say even the banks keep an eye on how much their buildings, etc are costing them.

EVERY country doesn't need the government involved.

OK. no police. no law. I can get a gun, shoot you and take anything you own. You say that is fine...dont need the government involved. There is no difference between me using a gun, or persuading you to buy something which is not what I claim it to be, or overpriced. These are all ways to take your money. No law, no reason why I should not dump radioactive waste in your garden. Might even make the flowers glow brighter! I lent you some money, now I have changed my mind and want it back at once. You cant pay so i will take all your possessions instead. No government to say I cant. I need a new kidney, how about yours?

Average person there lives on less than $10/day. Try that some time.

I though a world minimum figure to live on was more like $1 per day. It depends what your expenses are. For example, bank commission eating away at your money and inflated housing costs.

Not only that, Mao had to kill off millions to make it work. Are you willing do that?

Personally i believe in the welfare state and a viable minimum wage. Because I believe in the importance of governments regulating a fair share of wealth distribution. The chinese may not do this very well, but they have much less wealth per head than the US to distribute. This is just an argument for effective government which has the aim of helping those at the bottom. Im not aware this was the Chinese objective.

I noticed you left out some of the left wings most prized attempts. My favorite is the USSR.

I dont understand why people quote a right wing dictatorship as an example of the 'left'.

Bread lines around the block for people that were working, BY LAW, 6 twelve hour days! Thats what you want for this country? How can you sleep?

Youre the one advocating a low wage economy, which is just another way of forcing people to work long hours for nothing! You are proposing this same policy. The USSR indeed is just the reflection of the US.

 

[Industrialsize]

You could take all the money from the rich in America, and give it to the poor. In a short period of time, it would go back to the way it was. I have empathy for all walks of life. The poor are poor for a reason, the same way the rich are rich for a reason. The rest of this bantering is meaningless.

Why are the "poor" poor?

 

[B_starinvestor]

Why are the "poor" poor?

Most of the time they are simply incapable of not being poor.

 

[B_crackoff]

Thats hard to say. Most people in the UK currently pay 2x -3x as much for their housing as they need to. This is a result of government policy to restrict housing. Just how would all our budgets look if this huge expense was taken out of them? If you are going to start unravelling mistakes of the past then this is one of the biggest. Along with allowing insane borrowing for everything else, of course.

The poor in the UK don't pay a penny towards housing! It's state subsidies towards private landlords that keep rents high, allied to the mass immigration policies of the labour party - & they're getting higher.

UK rents rise by record amount in August | Money | guardian.co.uk

It's people like RMT union 6 figure earning boss Bob Crowe & others, staying in council/housing association houses & paying £300/month when they could afford their own homes, or rent privately, that screw up the system.

70% of the UK is owner occupied - 10% privately rented, & 20% council/housing association - meaning 5 millions dwellings, & 11 million people live in them. BBC NEWS | UK | Plea to build new council houses

The government has finally wised up to how uneconomic public housing is, & is finally putting up the rents - but idiotically, only for new tenants! There is no plan on harmonizing the rest, or means testing current occupiers who are probably saving themselves £5,000+ a year, or subletting illegally.

I'd agree that house prices should be a third less in order to match the 4*earnings average criteria (£25,000*4), BUT because interest rates are so low, say an SVB of 3.5%, a £150,000 mortgage @3.5% has the same monthly payments of a £100,000 mortgage @ the more historically usual 7.5% - about £750/month BBC - Homes - Property - Mortgage calculator.

The historically low interest rates that we have mean that when interest rates go up - there will inevitably be a crash in house prices - that's why inflation heading upward to some extent masks this.

If interest rates went from 3.5 to 7.5%, a repayment mortgage would go up by 50%, & obviously an interest only would double.

It think that both Yorkshire & Chelsea BS's do very good 10 year fixed rates about 4%. I'd advise anyone to seriously consider getting these. Seriously!

As soon as the rates rise, we'll probably see repos on an unprecedented scale - & it will certainly enormously damage the domestic economy, as all that interest paid will have been diverted away from goods & services.

Of course, who'll swoop in & mainly buy all those repos - the rich of course:wink:

 

[Klingsor]

You could take all the money from the rich in America, and give it to the poor. In a short period of time, it would go back to the way it was. I have empathy for all walks of life. The poor are poor for a reason, the same way the rich are rich for a reason. The rest of this bantering is meaningless.

The poor are poor for a wide range of complex reasons. To ignore the systemic shifts in the political, social, and economic spectrum of this country over the last thirty years (at least)--to assume that the increasing disparity of wealth over that period is just the result of some people being more meritorious than others--is a sad and dangerous form of blindness.

 

[Industrialsize]

Most of the time they are simply incapable of not being poor.

And why is that?

 

[dreamer20]

"Just today Maxine Waters said that greedy jews voted for Turner to protect their money", thats rascist

Dems' fate in NY special sparks '12 fears - TheHill.com

Quote H. Waxman:

“I think Jewish voters will be Democratic and be for Obama in 2012, especially if you get a Republican candidate like [Texas] Gov. [Rick] Perry,” he said. “But there’s no question the Jewish community is much more bipartisan than it has been in previous years. There are Jews who are trending toward the Republican Party, some of it because of their misunderstanding of Obama’s policies in the Middle East, and some of it, quite frankly, for economic reasons. They feel they want to protect their wealth, which is why a lot of well-off voters vote for Republicans.”


The comment in your post was neither made by Maxine Waters, nor was it made by Jewish Congressman Henry Waxman. It's a racist comment, according to you, that you made up yourself.

 

[Thedrewbert]

Ahhh and those passages supersede God's words 'Thou Shalt Not Kill'?

are you suggesting that God contradicts himself?