5 ms·
The upper class can go without a few luxuries so that the lower class can actually afford necessities. Don't be such a selfish pussy.
by debt 18y ago
The upper class can go without a few luxuries so that the lower class can actually afford necessities. Don't be such a selfish pussy.
- DanielBMarkham 18y agoAside from your language, which violates board terms, can I point out that captialism, the thing that drives startups, is dependent on people acting in their best interests. "Selfish" is a loaded, emotional, subjective term. Not something to base a policy on (and I don't think Obama or McCain is doing that)
- debt 18y agoYou contradict yourself. You're saying that politics has a place in my self-interest yet my self-interest doesn't have a place in politics. Capitalism is based almost ENTIRELY on acting selfishly. However, as we can clearly see, people suffer greatly from the near literal implementation of capitalism. Therefore, there needs to be a system in place to help those people who have become victims of it.
- anamax 18y agoThe last time I looked, said luxuries were produced by the lower class, allowing them to buy necessiities. Why do you want the lower class to lose their jobs? The "yacht tax" a few years ago provides a useful lesson. The federal govt in its infinite wisdom added an significant tax to pleasure boats. Surprise - folks who could afford to buy outside the US did so. Folks who couldn't cut back. Folks building boats in the US lost their jobs.
- debt 18y agoThat logic is completely asinine and you know it. If yacht makers sell a $20 million yacht, it doesn't mean half that money goes to the workers and the other half goes to the CEO. No. It's called profit maximization. They pay the workers barely enough to live on while the board gets 30 times that amount. Maximize profits. The Yacht tax didn't work because yacht owners found loopholes in the tax code such as declaring their yacht as a second home, etc. Yacht owners buy high-quality, high-value yachts. It doesn't matter if they were made in Missouri or Malaysia, as long as they're expensive and are made of some rare resource. Stop spreading your bullshit half-baked "ideas" about capitalism. Read the damn business section of a newspaper sometime.
- ceafefg333 18y agoYou obviously know nothing about economics, but if you're getting your ideas from the business section of a newspaper that's understandable.
- krschultz 18y agoAdditionally to not knowing anything about economics, you know nothing of the yacht tax. As some one in the yacht industry, I can tell you it was devestating. And if you think the CEO of a yacht building company rakes in money like the yacht buyers - well you just haven't seen many of their homes. Realize we are competing with China on a significantly slimmer profit margin than your average startup, on a boom or bust industry with fickle buyers. And nearly all boat yards are sole proprietor private enterprises, so their is no board to pay out to. And there is no loophole in the tax code. Go to another country, buy a boat flagged their. Keep it outside US waters. Fly to it when you want to go on vacation. People rarely cruise in the US anyway, it is Bahamas, the Med, etc. The loop hole you are referring to if anything is flagging yourself as commercial vs private, and it has to do with income tax on charters - not the initial purchase.
- miked 18y agoWanting to keep most of what I've worked hard and taken risks to earn --> "selfish". Voting to take most of someone else's money for myself and/or those whose beliefs I approve of, and to call agents of the government to arrest those who resist --> "caring, altrusitic, benevolent".
- krschultz 18y agoMost? 35% is ok but 40% is not? 5% is the difference between "limited government" and marxism? If McCain had a plan to realisticly bring federal taxes down to 15% without a big deficit, I'd be all for it. But the reality is the Bush tax cuts are tax cuts without spending cuts. Obama takes money from the rich and refunds it to the poor. Some call this buying their votes. Bush took out loans and gave the cash to the rich. Isn't that basically the same thing?
- viggity 18y agoBetween 2001 and 2004 Obama gave 1% of his income to charity. Biden gave .3% of his income to charity. John McCain gave 26% of his income to charity. So remind me, who is it that is the selfish pussy? Democrats are only generous with other people's money.
- debt 18y agoAgain, with the completely asinine logic. 1. Charity is not a pissing contest and you know that. 2. The McCain's sit on a $100 million company. They have some money to throw around. Ask his wife to release her tax returns from the last few years, and then we can talk about "charity". 3. The amount of money given to a charity does not translate into number of problems fixed or alleviated and you know that. 4. A selfish pussy is a cheapskate that would rather watch a person starve than spend one penny on food to feed him. While extreme, this is essentially a selfish pussy.
- ceafefg333 18y agoWow, you somehow managed to discredit the Democrats' whole platform there. Which side are you on again?
- anamax 18y ago> A selfish pussy is a cheapskate that would rather watch a person starve than spend one penny on food to feed him. Since McCain spent far more feeding (and housing) other people than Obama and Biden combined.... Then again, that's true of conservatives vs liberals in the US - US conservatives give a larger percentage of their income to charity. > The amount of money given to a charity does not translate into number of problems fixed or alleviated and you know that. Is the same true of money taken by govt?
- viggity 18y agoObama has a brother living in Kenya that lives off a dollar a month. He also has an aunt living in the projects in Boston. Does that make him a selfish pussy?