So....yea, Romney's finished. (Paid 14% tax rate on $14 million dollars)

[TheBigBopper]

Having enough money that you are well diversified enough where you can live off the interest and only pay tax on the sale of stock is NOT a RISK.

You need to sell me some of these riskless equities you have, breh

 

[Rarely-Wrong Liggins]

Arguing things from a moral standpoint is meaningless

No it's not.

 

[Broke Wave]

1.) Of course they wouldn't be around. They wouldn't even have any working capital to grow if it weren't for their IPOs or a way for venture capitalists and founders to cash out. If they were around sans a system in which equity owners could quickly liquidate, these tech names wouldn't be anywhere near as large as they are with one.

2.) Warren Buffett is suffering from white guilt. Also, more tax loopholes existed during the era of 90% marginal tax rates, thereby lowering effective tax rates. We were also the world's leading exporter of high value goods at the time because Europe and Asia were destroyed after WWII. We would have been prosperous throughout the 1940s-70s even if effective tax rates were high.

3.) I mentioned the stock market's liquidity not as an argument for its future success, but as evidence that this isn't something that can be tightly controlled by 20 or so elite white men to screw over the proletariat. It's too large and dynamic for that. How can the entire market be rigged if it's so big and there are millions of players in the game? Setting aside your discretionary income and putting it into an index fund that will eventually reap returns at a <15% tax rate is easily attainable for the middle class as long as they don't buy mindless shyt like cars they can't afford and vacations to Disney Land.

So much is wrong with this... lets take apart the most inane assumptions in this.

1. You are making a false correlation between innovation and company sustainability. Facebook would exist without a IPO. Microsoft would exist without an IPO. There are many large tech firms that exist without an IPO. The size of a tech company is not any indication as to innovative quality nor is it a barometer of success. An IPO is simply a vehicle to finance corporate expansion, and IF that entails innovation that is one outcome, it is not the raison d'etre, where as venture capital SEED money depends on innovation. Those people are the real risk takers and capitalists that we should as a society respect and promote.

2. For a black man to be talking about white guilt, that to me in and of itself is very bizarre. As if a white man realizing that he was privileged and wealthy is some how the manifestation of irrational "white guilt" is beyond me. How does that discredit his specific comments on taxes, being that he's the greatest investor ever? As far as effective rates, while it is true that there were loopholes, those loopholes were given AFTER the person fulfilled the requirements of the tax break. The effective rate was still much higher, and taxes are at 15% of GDP, a historic low. As far as your interpretation of global trade competition, this is an erroneous argument because the United States even post NAFTA remains the most technologically advanced economy, they should have by all accounts maintained this advantage according to your view of trade dominance.

3.The stock market is not "rigged", the tax code is, that is what this discussion is about. Not as to whether it is possbile for someone to make money on Wall Street.You also said you want less regulation on Wall Street, and that invariably creates volatility. You want people to give money to firms in this volatile climate where 2008 can happen again? What kind of bi-polar analyses are you giving here?

 

[TheBigBopper]

No it's not.

Morality isn't a universal truth. It's opinion. It's as productive as arguing over whether some broad looks good or not. Neither is objective. You cannot disprove it.

 

[Rarely-Wrong Liggins]

Morality isn't a universal truth. It's opinion. It's as productive as arguing over whether some broad looks good or not. Neither is objective. You cannot disprove it.

That doesn't make it meaningless though. You're using a definition to justify your opinion.

 

[TheBigBopper]

So much is wrong with this... lets take apart the most inane assumptions in this.

1. You are making a false correlation between innovation and company sustainability. Facebook would exist without a IPO. Microsoft would exist without an IPO. There are many large tech firms that exist without an IPO. The size of a tech company is not any indication as to innovative quality nor is it a barometer of success. An IPO is simply a vehicle to finance corporate expansion, and IF that entails innovation that is one outcome, it is not the raison d'etre, where as venture capital SEED money depends on innovation. Those people are the real risk takers and capitalists that we should as a society respect and promote.

2. For a black man to be talking about white guilt, that to me in and of itself is very bizarre. As if a white man realizing that he was privileged and wealthy is some how the manifestation of irrational "white guilt" is beyond me. How does that discredit his specific comments on taxes, being that he's the greatest investor ever? As far as effective rates, while it is true that there were loopholes, those loopholes were given AFTER the person fulfilled the requirements of the tax break. The effective rate was still much higher, and taxes are at 15% of GDP, a historic low. As far as your interpretation of global trade competition, this is an erroneous argument because the United States even post NAFTA remains the most technologically advanced economy, they should have by all accounts maintained this advantage according to your view of trade dominance.

3.The stock market is not "rigged", the tax code is, that is what this discussion is about. Not as to whether it is possbile for someone to make money on Wall Street.You also said you want less regulation on Wall Street, and that invariably creates volatility. You want people to give money to firms in this volatile climate where 2008 can happen again? What kind of bi-polar analyses are you giving here?

First of all, you need to drop your condescending tone about my alleged "inane assumptions," because your rebuttals show a lack of understanding of what you're even talking about.

Secondly, do you think Peter Thiel purposely makes investments in startups he thinks will remain small and won't grow his equity? The size of a tech company certainly is a barometer of its success, obviously from the standpoint of its founders and investors, but for society in general. Ceteris paribus, a company generating $2 bn in revenue with a $10 bn market value will add more jobs to the economy versus a company 1/10th its size in market value and sales volume. Sounds like an indication of success to me.

I'll get to your other points later. It's fukking late.

 

[the cac mamba]

Can somebody explain why the hell y'all got such low taxes for rich people? Or people in general for that matter.. Why the hell are low taxes so freaking important for americans? shyt is status for me.

Over here you pay around 30 % taxes on everything you make and if you make over ~4000 dollars a month you pay an additional 20 % in taxes for the amount you make over it..

our walfare system is

because if they dont spend it all on taxes theyre more likely to invest, spend, etc

and becasue they all run the governemnt and fukk us over on a regular basis

 

[Non Sequitur]

You may call them entitlements and government handouts, but in the grand scheme of things, everybody has their hand out because they feel entitled to something; whether lax regulations, tax cuts, or food stamps.

 

[Da_Eggman]

i don't really understand whos running the republican party....i mean after the sarah palin disaster you would think they would research everything they could about their candidates

 

[acri1]

 

[RicanFury]

Money Mayweather?

No....Money Mitt

LOL You cant spell Romney, without money

 

[beenz]

i don't really understand whos running the republican party....i mean after the sarah palin disaster you would think they would research everything they could about their candidates

Really they don't have anyone else to put up there. I mean they'd like to have Chris christy run, but he doesn't have a snowballs chance in hell with him being so fat.

 

[Malta]

i don't really understand whos running the republican party....i mean after the sarah palin disaster you would think they would research everything they could about their candidates

They know the majority of their base (poor southern whites) are fukking stupid, and the fact Romney even has a chance is disturbing.

 

[Rarely-Wrong Liggins]

Trailer Park Trillionaires

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I997 using Tapatalk 2

 

[iMajor]

"ye voice" "Mitt Romney don't pay no tax, Mitt Romney don't pay no tax"