NO MORE RUNAROUND, ANSWER THE QUESTIONS!

imaginethat

Forum Staff
Oct 2010
71,626
32,177
Colorado
Where? Show me. Nat and others have. I asked for straight, simple answers with numbers and figures. If you know that the questions are rhetorical then you can answer rhetorically or is because they are rhetorical that they are so difficult to answer?

Are you the Captain and/or owner of this ship?

Is that a soft threat? Do you plan to find a way or ways or no reason at all to eliminate me and I should be appreciative that I am still here? Even if so, this is considered a desperate attempt to give the runaround nonetheless.

Let me simply and put it in to 1 and 1/2 questions:

Should those who are successful, be punished for being successful through higher taxation for working harder and smarter at a higher % and if so, why?
There. Honesty, and an admission your questions were ...... leading. Once more:

I noticed many people here are the kind who wants free things for everyone but never consider the price tag or who is paying. I ask the same few questions but never get a simple straight answer bug pages of runaround. I will ask then again and also set an example by answering them myself. Please feel free to pose your own question(s) but only after you have answered mine, no runarounds, please.

Questions:
1. Why do the rich have to pay their fair share?
2. How much is rich?
3. What % is a fair share and why?
4. What is the legal definition of Middle Class? (What is the starting and ending salary requirement to qualify for Middle-Class status?)


~snip~

Bonus question: How much do you have to make after taxes to be in the 1%?
Bonus question #2: Do you want to be successful in life and make as much as you and do what you want with what you make?
1. Everyone should pay their fair share.

2.. Immaterial.

3. The percentage figure associated with "fair share" is to be determined, and modified as needed, though actions taken by the government of the people.

4. A legal definition of "middle class" is immaterial, and giving it any value serves those who seek to create division, in this case, ironically, you are one of those.

Bonus question #1: The one percent category can be determined empirically.

Bonus question #2: Yes.

And, the question that cuts to the chase:

Should those who are successful, be punished for being successful through higher taxation for working harder and smarter at a higher % and if so, why?

I would appreciate a system free of tax loopholes that expensive lawyers devise for their clients, "clients" being used as a category.of citizens. Some in this category hold elected positions through which they create and pass the legislation filled with these loopholes..

Do you deny that America was at its greatest when the taxes on the "harder working and smarter" were the highest?

Do you deny that the Vietnam War, wealthy America's first war brought to us by he military-industrial complex, marked the beginning of America's slow decline to today's debt-ridden, wealth unequal, economy-on-life-support shadow of what we once were?

America once had an honorable wealthy population, people who thought of more than I, me, and mine, Americans who put America and Americans first, entrepreneurs who understood success can never be measured in dollars alone, business leaders who provided good-paying jobs for Americans because they loved America.

Those days are long gone. The legions of business-degreed Americans who now control America's economy put making more dollars above every other business consideration, as they were taught. They worship bigness. They send jobs overseas. They elect presidents whose daughter lands exclusive Chinese patents during a tariff war, so that she can sell her sweatshop-made goods at a tremendous profit in the US ... and they see nothing wrong with her doing so.

In fact, given the chance they'd do exactly the same thing.

This group of neo-entrepreneurs deny the climatic effects of releasing fossil carbon. They deny the industrial human impacts on the environment. They make excuse after excuse for the wealth inequality they promote, while they laugh at those who've seen their income remain stagnant as the price of everything steadily increases.

These neo-entrepreneurs are a despicable lot. They whine incessantly. The lack compassion. Their greed creates a paranoia which drives them to see a world full of dumber and lazier people, billions of them, who relentlessly pursue their pocketbooks.

They ignore that their ultra-competitive, dog-eat-dog credo, a credo practiced for millennia, has produced the sorry state of the planet and the sorry state of America 2020. The dub every attempt made to solve the problems their competitive credo has created through cooperative action as "socialism."

Their immature self-centeredness is the primary factor preventing the positive evolution of humankind.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RNG and Clara007
Mar 2020
1,429
371
Land of Freedom
[/QUOTE]...

There. Honesty, and an admission your questions were ...... leading. Once more:



1. Everyone should pay their fair share.
OK, but why should higher earners pay for those who earned less? If we have the same job but I decide to work more hours, why should I have to pay you for your lack of hours put in?
2.. Immaterial.
If you say immaterial it then you are not giving and answer.
3. The percentage figure associated with "fair share" is to be determined, and modified as needed, though actions taken by the government of the people.
This is another nonanswer. I asked you for a fair % and why that %
4. A legal definition of "middle class" is immaterial, and giving it any value serves those who seek to create division, in this case, ironically, you are one of those.
If it is immaterial then why are politicians on both sides using this term to get the most votes? They are seeking division. They want to speak the biggest crown only as the bottom and the highest do not vote. There is no legal definition of the middle class and that is why the middle class does not legally exist. Political use this term because they know that everyone from the single guys making $25/ a year to the family making millions feel they are in the middle class. So when you are talking about the middle class, do you not what to know who are you are taking about and if you, yourself, are in it?

Bonus question #1: The one percent category can be determined empirically.
No, You'd need to make at least $515,371 a year to be in the top 1% of taxpayers and not the millions or billions of people think.
Bonus question #2: Yes.

And, the question that cuts to the chase:

Should those who are successful, be punished for being successful through higher taxation for working harder and smarter at a higher % and if so, why?

I would appreciate a system free of tax loopholes that expensive lawyers devise for their clients, "clients" being used as a category.of citizens. Some in this category hold elected positions through which they create and pass the legislation filled with these loopholes..
That would be a flat tax across the board.

Do you deny that America was at its greatest when the taxes on the "harder working and smarter" were the highest?
Yes. I believe America was at its greatest before income tax, welfare, and social security. And before the democrat presidents got us into the great wars and Vietnam. In case you are talking about the 91% tax rate on those above a certain income then wouldn't it be better if it were 92%? Or why nit 100%

Do you deny that the Vietnam War, wealthy America's first war brought to us by he military-industrial complex, marked the beginning of America's slow decline to today's debt-ridden, wealth unequal, economy-on-life-support shadow of what we once were?
That was another ware that democrats got us into and republicans ended. This is runaround.

America once had an honorable wealthy population, people who thought of more than I, me, and mine, Americans who put America and Americans first, entrepreneurs who understood success can never be measured in dollars alone, business leaders who provided good-paying jobs for Americans because they loved America.
It still does. The wealthy donate much more than the poor. Also, there is nothing wrong with "more than I, me, and mine" thinking. How do you think they got so rich so that they can be taxed like hell? Without "more than I, me, and mine" thinking there would be no capitalism and no rich or poor.

Those days are long gone. The legions of business-degreed Americans who now control America's economy put making more dollars above every other business consideration, as they were taught. They worship bigness. They send jobs overseas. They elect presidents whose daughter lands exclusive Chinese patents during a tariff war, so that she can sell her sweatshop-made goods at a tremendous profit in the US ... and they see nothing wrong with her doing so.
Again, interjecting Trump and now his daughter. this is runaround and derailment. I covered sweatshops here:


This group of neo-entrepreneurs deny the climatic effects of releasing fossil carbon. They deny the industrial human impacts on the environment. They make excuse after excuse for the wealth inequality they promote, while they laugh at those who've seen their income remain stagnant as the price of everything steadily increases.
As an America, We have a right to opinion and to deny what we want. Should we take the deniers outback and kick their asses? Or should they have you shot for denying what they think?

These neo-entrepreneurs are a despicable lot. They whine incessantly. The lack compassion. Their greed creates a paranoia which drives them to see a world full of dumber and lazier people, billions of them, who relentlessly pursue their pocketbooks.
This is more runaround. How are they creating paranoia with and of course, when given equality of opportunity, the dumb and/or lazy will not go as high as others

They ignore that their ultra-competitive, dog-eat-dog credo, a credo practiced for millennia, has produced the sorry state of the planet and the sorry state of America 2020. The dub every attempt made to solve the problems their competitive credo has created through cooperative action as "socialism."
I didn't know you were that old to remember. I would imagine the time of the Greeks must have been amazing. Capitalism is what we are all born with and it is natural. Who says anyone must do evil with their money? Runaround!
Their immature self-centeredness is the primary factor preventing the positive evolution of humankind.
If the Theory of Evolution is real, it would take 10s of millions of years to change the human mind not a few decades.

Now, are you the captain of this ship and/or the owner of this forum?
 

imaginethat

Forum Staff
Oct 2010
71,626
32,177
Colorado
There. Honesty, and an admission your questions were ...... leading. Once more:



1. Everyone should pay their fair share.
OK, but why should higher earners pay for those who earned less? If we have the same job but I decide to work more hours, why should I have to pay you for your lack of hours put in?
2.. Immaterial.
If you say immaterial it then you are not giving and answer.
3. The percentage figure associated with "fair share" is to be determined, and modified as needed, though actions taken by the government of the people.
This is another nonanswer. I asked you for a fair % and why that %
4. A legal definition of "middle class" is immaterial, and giving it any value serves those who seek to create division, in this case, ironically, you are one of those.
If it is immaterial then why are politicians on both sides using this term to get the most votes? They are seeking division. They want to speak the biggest crown only as the bottom and the highest do not vote. There is no legal definition of the middle class and that is why the middle class does not legally exist. Political use this term because they know that everyone from the single guys making $25/ a year to the family making millions feel they are in the middle class. So when you are talking about the middle class, do you not what to know who are you are taking about and if you, yourself, are in it?

Bonus question #1: The one percent category can be determined empirically.
No, You'd need to make at least $515,371 a year to be in the top 1% of taxpayers and not the millions or billions of people think.
Bonus question #2: Yes.

And, the question that cuts to the chase:

Should those who are successful, be punished for being successful through higher taxation for working harder and smarter at a higher % and if so, why?

I would appreciate a system free of tax loopholes that expensive lawyers devise for their clients, "clients" being used as a category.of citizens. Some in this category hold elected positions through which they create and pass the legislation filled with these loopholes..
That would be a flat tax across the board.

Do you deny that America was at its greatest when the taxes on the "harder working and smarter" were the highest?
Yes. I believe America was at its greatest before income tax, welfare, and social security. And before the democrat presidents got us into the great wars and Vietnam. In case you are talking about the 91% tax rate on those above a certain income then wouldn't it be better if it were 92%? Or why nit 100%

Do you deny that the Vietnam War, wealthy America's first war brought to us by he military-industrial complex, marked the beginning of America's slow decline to today's debt-ridden, wealth unequal, economy-on-life-support shadow of what we once were?
That was another ware that democrats got us into and republicans ended. This is runaround.

America once had an honorable wealthy population, people who thought of more than I, me, and mine, Americans who put America and Americans first, entrepreneurs who understood success can never be measured in dollars alone, business leaders who provided good-paying jobs for Americans because they loved America.
It still does. The wealthy donate much more than the poor. Also, there is nothing wrong with "more than I, me, and mine" thinking. How do you think they got so rich so that they can be taxed like hell? Without "more than I, me, and mine" thinking there would be no capitalism and no rich or poor.

Those days are long gone. The legions of business-degreed Americans who now control America's economy put making more dollars above every other business consideration, as they were taught. They worship bigness. They send jobs overseas. They elect presidents whose daughter lands exclusive Chinese patents during a tariff war, so that she can sell her sweatshop-made goods at a tremendous profit in the US ... and they see nothing wrong with her doing so.
Again, interjecting Trump and now his daughter. this is runaround and derailment. I covered sweatshops here:


This group of neo-entrepreneurs deny the climatic effects of releasing fossil carbon. They deny the industrial human impacts on the environment. They make excuse after excuse for the wealth inequality they promote, while they laugh at those who've seen their income remain stagnant as the price of everything steadily increases.
As an America, We have a right to opinion and to deny what we want. Should we take the deniers outback and kick their asses? Or should they have you shot for denying what they think?

These neo-entrepreneurs are a despicable lot. They whine incessantly. The lack compassion. Their greed creates a paranoia which drives them to see a world full of dumber and lazier people, billions of them, who relentlessly pursue their pocketbooks.
This is more runaround. How are they creating paranoia with and of course, when given equality of opportunity, the dumb and/or lazy will not go as high as others

They ignore that their ultra-competitive, dog-eat-dog credo, a credo practiced for millennia, has produced the sorry state of the planet and the sorry state of America 2020. The dub every attempt made to solve the problems their competitive credo has created through cooperative action as "socialism."
I didn't know you were that old to remember. I would imagine the time of the Greeks must have been amazing. Capitalism is what we are all born with and it is natural. Who says anyone must do evil with their money? Runaround!
Their immature self-centeredness is the primary factor preventing the positive evolution of humankind.
If the Theory of Evolution is real, it would take 10s of millions of years to change the human mind not a few decades.

Now, are you the captain of this ship and/or the owner of this forum?
Along with th other moderators, yes we are the captains. We enforce the rules. We make the judgement calls.

You don't.

I've nothing further to add. You and I are fundamentally different people. Likely, we were raised by parents with different sets of values. Likely, we raised our children with the differing value sets we were raised with.

We can share opinions, but neither of us will bring the other around to our point of view.

Tens of millions of years....

G'day.
 
Mar 2020
1,429
371
Land of Freedom
I've nothing further to add. You and I are fundamentally different people. Likely, we were raised by parents with different sets of values. Likely, we raised our children with the differing value sets we were raised with.
Obviously, or else I would be your brother.

Me and you can get along fine as long as we respect each other's money. I allow you to do whatever you want with your earning and you, likewise. We also allow each other to give as much as we want to others on a voluntary basis. How do you know that I wouldn't give 99% of what I make?

And, I have no children and don't plan to see how the future looks.
 

imaginethat

Forum Staff
Oct 2010
71,626
32,177
Colorado
Obviously, or else I would be your brother.

Me and you can get along fine as long as we respect each other's money. I allow you to do whatever you want with your earning and you, likewise. We also allow each other to give as much as we want to others on a voluntary basis. How do you know that I wouldn't give 99% of what I make?

And, I have no children and don't plan to see how the future looks.
And you don't see that the dog-eat-dog, i, me, mine, money-grubbing credo to which you subscribe is the reason why we have a world that makes a person think twice and then think again about bringing children into it?

You needn't answer. Of course you don't.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RNG
Mar 2020
1,429
371
Land of Freedom
I do not understand what you mean by dog-eat-dog. If I own a business then I will be able to hire more people if I am taxed less or not at all. Those people who work for me will be able to move up faster if they are taxed less or not at all.

You think that big business and corporations are run by evil Satanic people? They are run by everyday people like you and me who want a better future for their children too.

What is your opinion of what I say below and do you own any Apple products?:

Last year Apple made 265.6 billion U.S. dollars generated in revenue. Apple employs 147,000 employees worldwide. Apple CEO, Tim Cook made $11,555,466 in total compensation(including salary). So if you divide Tim's compensation by the number of employees, they each get less than 80 bucks. Not much of enough to do anything. But now if you divide Apple's revenue by Tim's compensation, he only made .0004% of what his decision brought in for Apple. The guy is WAYYYYYYYYYY underpaid and I don't think that is fair at all. He should be making at least 10-25%. That is how much I would pay the visionary of my company, at the very least!
 
Dec 2018
6,742
1,985
New England
Should those who are successful, be punished for being successful through higher taxation for working harder and smarter at a higher % and if so, why?
This question does cut to the chase, but it's also a question that cuts both ways.

Let us suppose that you and I, among others, agree to contribute to a basic level of public infrastructure. Good roads. Effective policing. Fair judicial system. Rigorous food inspection system, etc. Let's also suppose that ImagineT' has a change of heart and decides to keep all his money wrapped up in his freezer, opting out of contributions to that infrastructure.

Given there is no practical way to segregated Imagine' from most of the infrastructure, wouldn't he be freeloading off of the hard work you, I, and others are doing?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Kate
Feb 2020
1,748
643
Houston
This question does cut to the chase, but it's also a question that cuts both ways.

Let us suppose that you and I, among others, agree to contribute to a basic level of public infrastructure. Good roads. Effective policing. Fair judicial system. Rigorous food inspection system, etc. Let's also suppose that ImagineT' has a change of heart and decides to keep all his money wrapped up in his freezer, opting out of contributions to that infrastructure.

Given there is no practical way to segregated Imagine' from most of the infrastructure, wouldn't he be freeloading off of the hard work you, I, and others are doing?
You illustrate a problem of statism, not libertarianism

Or more correctly, the fact that statism creates problems that libertarianism cannot solve is a flaw in statism, not libertarianism.

The problem with your scenario is that IT would have no way not to freeload. As soon as he leaves his house, he's on a tax-funded road. if he moves to the mountains, he can live off the land and avoid using any tax-supported resources. But there is no way he can avoid the protection offered by the military.

But your scenario is completely fictitious. Neither IT, nor anyone else "agrees" to government tax and spend, because there is no meaningful way to disagree with it.