The Conservative Cave
Current Events => The DUmpster => Topic started by: Karin on May 19, 2022, 03:20:33 PM
-
The economic illiteracy is always hilarious.
https://www.democraticunderground.com/100216707912 (https://www.democraticunderground.com/100216707912)
clementine613 (472 posts)
How about a wealth tax of 100%
on any amount over $30 million?* Seriously, does anyone need any more than that?
After some preliminaries, Ed here tries to engage:
Star Member edhopper (28,988 posts)
5. Because it would mean the government
Would be confiscating many businesses and corporations.
Should the government own Tesla or Amazon, because most of Bezo and Musk wealth is in stock.
clementine613 (472 posts)
8. They shouldn't have stolen the wealth to begin with.
Do you want to let them keep their ill-gotten gains just because you're afraid of the government having it?
:lmao:
Star Member edhopper (28,988 posts)
13. The government is then running the companies
That is a ridiculous idea.
clementine613 (472 posts)
16. Or it could sell the stock...
... and use the money to help out the common taxpayer instead of the super-rich.
Star Member edhopper (28,988 posts)
18. This is such a stupid idea
I can't discuss it in any earnestness
Star Member edhopper (28,988 posts)
20. Who are they selling it to
If you took most of the wealthy money?
And you do know what will happen to the market when you sell 90% of all stocks at the same time.
Your idea is the basis for Marxism.
clementine613 (472 posts)
22. The average people, who might buy a few shares each.
:lmao:
inthewind21 (703 posts)
29. Ill gotten gains?
So any company worth over 30mil in your mind is ill-gotten?
clementine613 (472 posts)
17. Someone's "right" to have unlimited wealth
shouldn't trump our *right* to healthcare, housing, education and public infrastructure.
You have no *right* to any of those things, actually. I'm not sure if this is a mole or what. If so, the character he's portraying is dumb as dirt.
-
Here's an idea DUpipo, try creating some wealth of your own.
-
I’ve seen this many times before on DU.
Some newer primitive comes out and says out loud what they are supposed to only whisper behind closed doors and others have to come out and shut them down. And they’ll do it even if it means going against their own ideology because the damage caused is worse than not saying anything at all.
.
-
For any lurking DUers. If you have the balls to watch....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=661pi6K-8WQ
-
Here's an idea DUpipo, try creating some wealth of your own.
I’ve seen this many times before on DU.
Some newer primitive comes out and says out loud what they are supposed to only whisper behind closed doors and others have to come out and shut them down. And they’ll do it even if it means going against their own ideology because the damage caused is worse than not saying anything at all.
:hi5: s earned and issued!!!
-
clementine613 (472 posts)
How about a wealth tax of 100%
on any amount over $30 million?* Seriously, does anyone need any more than that?
Why? Cause one, exactly who gets to decide how much is enough and two, how long will it take for whoever that is to decide that "enough" needs to be lowered? Then how low will "they" take what is "enough"? History says "enough" drops pretty fast once someone gets that kind of power.
-
Stupidest thread, YET.
-
Stupidest thread, YET.
Yep. There's always tomorrow, and DUmmies can never wrap their wee heads around the First Rule of Holes...
:popcorn:
-
werdna (46 posts)
11. It depends -
If everyone in the country has adequate:
Food
Shelter
Health care
Education
Basic necessities
Retirement security
Wanna know why this communistic bullshit is a bad idea? Because I couldn't give a shit if you lived or died, as callous as that is. I don't know you. You're not in my group of family or friends. This is why Communism ALWAYS fails. You expect someone else to care enough about you to provide these things. Fact is, we don't. If they cut ALL welfare it wouldn't bother me. Do I think they should? No, but it should get back to being a safety net instead of a f'n hammock. If you bring up Social Security.....as you mouth breathers always seem to do, people pay INTO that ponzi scheme. Anyone who's never worked a day doesn't get SS unless they're collecting for someone who did. "I" am not responsible for your healthcare, education, food, shelter (I'm asuming you want the taxpayer...ME...to buy you a house, or basic necessities. That is YOUR job.
-
Why? Cause one, exactly who gets to decide how much is enough and two, how long will it take for whoever that is to decide that "enough" needs to be lowered? Then how low will "they" take what is "enough"? History says "enough" drops pretty fast once someone gets that kind of power.
That's why the bullshit term "fair share" is used by the leftists. By definition, that is not a definable term as it is completely ambiguous.
-
So far.
There's still 5 hours and change left.
:-)
-
That's why the bullshit term "fair share" is used by the leftists. By definition, that is not a definable term as it is completely ambiguous.
And both flexible and fungible.
-
That's why the bullshit term "fair share" is used by the leftists. By definition, that is not a definable term as it is completely ambiguous.
Just like "common sense gun laws".
-
Just like "common sense gun laws".
And "Planned Parenthood".
-
Yo DUmmies.
If you reduce your reefer budget by $166.00 per month at age 20 and put it in an index fund and contribute that amount for 30 years total payed is $60,000.00 Then at age 50 stop contributing but leave it there and assume 5% annual interest (should be more like 9%) at age 60 you will have $202,000.00 Keep it there to age 65 you have $258,588.00 at age 70 $330,031.00 You cannot do this is a democratic/socialist economy.
-
Someone's "right" to have unlimited wealth
shouldn't trump our *right* to healthcare, housing, education and public infrastructure.
You have a "right" to earn the $$$ to pay for your food, housing and other necessities of life.
As for the public "education" and infrastructure you also have the "right " to vote for politicians who will spend your tax $$$ the rigt way to provide these services like they are elected to do.
Instead you left wing progressives are to concerned about bull shit like lgbt and trans gender stupidity and pissing our $$ away on stupid shit does none of the average person any good.
-
Yo DUmmies.
If you reduce your reefer budget by $166.00 per month at age 20 and put it in an index fund and contribute that amount for 30 years total payed is $60,000.00 Then at age 50 stop contributing but leave it there and assume 5% annual interest (should be more like 9%) at age 60 you will have $202,000.00 Keep it there to age 65 you have $258,588.00 at age 70 $330,031.00 You cannot do this is a democratic/socialist economy.
:runaway: It's Math!!! :runaway:
-
Here’s an idea, how about you have Biden reverse about 150 Executive orders he issued in the first couple weeks then see what happens. Simple, huh?
KC
-
clementine613 is a product of our institutions of "higher learning".
-
Wanna know why this communistic bullshit is a bad idea? Because I couldn't give a shit if you lived or died, as callous as that is. I don't know you. You're not in my group of family or friends. This is why Communism ALWAYS fails. You expect someone else to care enough about you to provide these things. Fact is, we don't. If they cut ALL welfare it wouldn't bother me. Do I think they should? No, but it should get back to being a safety net instead of a f'n hammock. If you bring up Social Security.....as you mouth breathers always seem to do, people pay INTO that ponzi scheme. Anyone who's never worked a day doesn't get SS unless they're collecting for someone who did. "I" am not responsible for your healthcare, education, food, shelter (I'm asuming you want the taxpayer...ME...to buy you a house, or basic necessities. That is YOUR job.
Sing it sister, lol
-
That's why the bullshit term "fair share" is used by the leftists. By definition, that is not a definable term as it is completely ambiguous.
Easily definable: Anyone whose net income or assets are more than mine is not paying Their Fair Share.
-
Easily definable: Anyone whose net income or assets are more than mine is not paying Their Fair Share.
'I'm not greedy, everyone else is greedy. I just want what they have.'