Do the wealthier American owe something to the non-wealthy Americans?

[Cicero]

Also, do you think that businesses have a social responsibility to give back to the community? Why? Personally, I don't think that just cause someone is wealthier, means they must do more, or give more, or even have more of a responsibility to give back to the community. I also believe that the only responsibility a business has, is to be successful. On a side note, do you know of any good quizzes about politics and ethics and all that type if stuff? I have taken almost everyone I've seen in this section.

[MisterSix]

They don't have to give anything, but it's better for the economy if they spend, donate or something to put their money into circulation

[Lost in the Echo]

They don't have to give anything, but it's better for the economy if they spend, donate or something to put their money into circulation

Yeah, I agree with this. ^

Raising taxes on the wealthy, and lowering them on the middle class would be a good idea too.

The wealthy can spare some money.
A little tax increase wouldn't hurt them.
Overall, the economy would be better if the wealthy were more charitable with their money.
It's not like they need all of it.

[FreeFall]

I hate how we scream "share you rich people!" You know at least half or maybe a quarter of those who are screaming, wouldn't share if they were as rich as the ones they're screaming at.

Why do they owe us? It's nice to share, it'd be nice if they "helped" us poorer folk, but we are not entitled to their money. Granted half of it is old money and they were born into it. Granted we see Kim Kardashian resting on a beach, and we're wondering how that, doing nothing, earned her a bunch of money. Granted we're tired of hearing how some/most celebs and rich people have like 2 or 3 homes while we fret over our one. Perhaps that's why we scream share, we feel they're undeserving of it? But then if that's it, who are we to decide that?
But that money is not ours. Some still managed to get rich through hard work. I just don't understand.

[Gandalf]

Well I think the wealthier should help those who would benefit long term and be able to actually improve/help themselves.

Those who will just take the money and not attempt to resolve personal problems/make no attempt to use it wisely don't deserve it.

Just my opinion :)

[Zaposchk]

As far as America is concerned, there's a whole lot the rich owe to the rest of the population.

[Taryn98]

It doesn't matter how anyone gets their wealth, be it the lottery, inherritance, or hard work, it's THEIR money! They owe nothing to anybody! They shouldn't have to pay higher taxes or donate more simply because they have more.
People are not entitled to anything. If you want something then you should work your ass off to get it!
The sole purpose of a business is to make profits for the owners. It's not to provide jobs, or to give back to the community. That is what non-profit organizations do.

[IAMWILL]

I do not think the wealthy owe anything to the lower or middle class, but America does best when the wealthy spend money and invest in American people and products. So in a sense I think it is wealthy American's duty to spend money on America, even if it is cheaper to buy products or operate overseas, but I don't think that should come about through taxes.

The main problem America has now though is that a lot of people are unwilling to work. Here in California every farm and a lot of services are done by mexicans, most of which here are illegal immigrants. They get these jobs because they have a desire to work hard and provide for their family. American teens or college grads have these opportunities, but instead a lot of them just sit in protest and complain that the "wealth should be evenly distributed" and pretty much bitch about why they don't have a 75k job with their degree in liberal arts. People have lost the drive to work hard, and thats what is really going to screw us in the long run.

[Cicero]

I hate how we scream "share you rich people!" You know at least half or maybe a quarter of those who are screaming, wouldn't share if they were as rich as the ones they're screaming at.

Why do they owe us? It's nice to share, it'd be nice if they "helped" us poorer folk, but we are not entitled to their money. Granted half of it is old money and they were born into it. Granted we see Kim Kardashian resting on a beach, and we're wondering how that, doing nothing, earned her a bunch of money. Granted we're tired of hearing how some/most celebs and rich people have like 2 or 3 homes while we fret over our one. Perhaps that's why we scream share, we feel they're undeserving of it? But then if that's it, who are we to decide that?
But that money is not ours. Some still managed to get rich through hard work. I just don't understand.
I can see your viewpoint, but how I see it, is people like the Kardashians invest their money in stuff like stock and even houses. If they buy a house for $4 million, when its actually worth $9 million, that is a $5 million profit. So that is a pretty basic way of making money. She does work pretty hard. I don't mean she's working hard in the same aspect as a factory worker, but in a different way. She's probably always busy. Think about the hard work she puts into her body, you don't just magically get the body she does. She's probably in the gym at least an hour a day. In a way, she's basically self made. She personally is worth $40 million. You may be thinking, well what about her dad. Well, her dad was probably worth a good $30 million. Which isn't even close to the net worth of just one of the daughters. Kourtney Kardashian is worth another $12 million,
Kris Kardashian is worth another $20 million, and Khloe Kardashian is worth another $11 million. I highly doubt a lawyer could be worth a total of $73 million. So when people say "Most of their wealth was from their dad" is completely false. They're just fortunate enough to get jobs that pay higher, more easily.

Now, I'm just saying, but because Obama is so against Wall Street. All the businessmen wanting to invest in Wall Street aren't investing. Cause they're scared where Wall Street is going to go under Obama. In total, there is $7 trillion being withheld from Wall Street, because they're scared under Obama. I'm sure $7 trillion in this economy would help it a Lot.

[Thunderstorm]

They don't need to give anything to anyone. If someone is wealthy they either inherited or made smart decisions in their lives. They SHOULD give back to communities and charities, but they don't have to. I think they should be paying a little more in taxes though, it won't hurt them. Like Romney.

[Cicero]

tey don't need to give anything to anyone. If someone is wealthy they either inherited or made smart decisions in their lives. They SHOULD give back to communities and charities, but they don't have to. I think they should be paying a little more in taxes though, it won't hurt them. Like Romney.

So the wealthy should, whole the unhealthy shouldn't?

[Thunderstorm]

So the wealthy should, whole the unhealthy shouldn't?

The last part of that response made absolutely no sense. Whole the unhealthy shouldn't? Sorry if I'm acting dumb. I really do not know what you're trying to state.

[chrisawesome]

Yeah, I agree with this. ^

Raising taxes on the wealthy, and lowering them on the middle class would be a good idea too.

The wealthy can spare some money.
A little tax increase wouldn't hurt them.
Overall, the economy would be better if the wealthy were more charitable with their money.
It's not like they need all of it.

No, that is a stupid idea. Why do you have to punish them just because they are smarter and more successful than the rest. It is very stupid and inconsiderate to say, "a little tax increase would't hurt them or its not like they need all of it" People who make $3 million deserve every bit of it as someone who makes only $30 thousand. There is no reason to tax someone who make more money and saying that they dont deserve to have all of it just because you make a higher salary!

People who make about $400 thousand have to pay nearly 40% of their entire income in taxes. That is stupid, someone who makes $400,000 has an income after taxes that is the same as someone who makes $300,000.

Once you make the wealthy pay more in taxes, their income decreases. Without a high income they wont feel so proud of their company and eventually their business goes downhill. You have to remember, a homeless person doesnt own succesful businesses, and super rich operate successful businesses. Businesses that employ most of all your parents and pay for their healthcare !!!! What is free enterprise when you dont get to keep all of your income?

My parents own a business and each make $400,000 a year and only keep $240,000. They pay $160,000 of their income in taxes! That tax increase will prevent my parents from writing a $30,000 check every year to their company's fund!

SO YOU CANT ASSUME EVERY RICH BUSINESS OWNER IS THERE TO MAKE MONEY ONLY AND NOT GIVE A CRAP ABOUT REINVESTING INTO THEIR COMPANY ! ! !

[TheBigUnit]

The last part of that response made absolutely no sense. Whole the unhealthy shouldn't? Sorry if I'm acting dumb. I really do not know what you're trying to state.

Unwealthy** switch the h

Wealthy americans owe nothing to unwealthy americans that being said I b elieve warren buffet should have the same tax rate as his secretary just for fairness ha, I mean sure the rich are job makers but those who make like $40000 has to give up a good chunk to tax, wealthy may need the money to support and make jobs but they should pay equal tax rate as the unwealthy who needs to support and feed family

Also those wealthy people needed the education to get where they are (execeptions kardashians, trump) I believe they if anywhere should give money to education

Business should do what they like with profits but give away money is good PR

[LouBerry]

I don't think so. I mean, people worked hard to get where they are, rich or poor. Even kids who grow up in money were given that by their family, and I don't think they owe anyone. It mean, if some rich guy wants to throw some money my way, bring it on, but I don't think they should be forced.

[Human]

well they earned the money so no.

[Cicero]

The last part of that response made absolutely no sense. Whole the unhealthy shouldn't? Sorry if I'm acting dumb. I really do not know what you're trying to state.

Oh sorry, must've been auto correct.

So the wealthy should, while the unwealthy shouldn't?

[PinkFloyd]

I believe that families that don't eat very well and can't afford things like diapers should get some help from wealthier families. I know wellfare does that but an extra boost would help.

[Lost in the Echo]

No, that is a stupid idea. Why do you have to punish them just because they are smarter and more successful than the rest. It is very stupid and inconsiderate to say, "a little tax increase would't hurt them or its not like they need all of it" People who make $3 million deserve every bit of it as someone who makes only $30 thousand. There is no reason to tax someone who make more money and saying that they dont deserve to have all of it just because you make a higher salary!

People who make about $400 thousand have to pay nearly 40% of their entire income in taxes. That is stupid, someone who makes $400,000 has an income after taxes that is the same as someone who makes $300,000.

Once you make the wealthy pay more in taxes, their income decreases. Without a high income they wont feel so proud of their company and eventually their business goes downhill. You have to remember, a homeless person doesnt own succesful businesses, and super rich operate successful businesses. Businesses that employ most of all your parents and pay for their healthcare !!!! What is free enterprise when you dont get to keep all of your income?

My parents own a business and each make $400,000 a year and only keep $240,000. They pay $160,000 of their income in taxes! That tax increase will prevent my parents from writing a $30,000 check every year to their company's fund!

SO YOU CANT ASSUME EVERY RICH BUSINESS OWNER IS THERE TO MAKE MONEY ONLY AND NOT GIVE A CRAP ABOUT REINVESTING INTO THEIR COMPANY ! ! !

What you said in the beginning of your post is stupid.
It's not punishing them. And just because they're wealthy, doesn't mean they're "smarter and more succesful than the rest".
Most of the wealthy didn't work hard for their money.
Most of them inherited that money, or won the lottery.

It won't hurt them to pay more, since they have a shitload of money.
It would help lower and middle class families.
What do they need millions or billions of dollars for?
I don't understand why paying more taxes is such a big deal for them.

There is enough money to go around, if the wealthy were more charitable with their money, then there would be way less people losing their homes, and more people would be able to support their families, instead of living paycheck to paycheck.

[Cicero]

What you said in the beginning of your post is stupid.
It's not punishing them. And just because they're wealthy, doesn't mean they're "smarter and more succesful than the rest".
Most of the wealthy didn't work hard for their money.
Most of them inherited that money, or won the lottery.

It won't hurt them to pay more, since they have a shitload of money.
It would help lower and middle class families.
What do they need millions or billions of dollars for?
I don't understand why paying more taxes is such a big deal for them.

There is enough money to go around, if the wealthy were more charitable with their money, then there would be way less people losing their homes, and more people would be able to support their families, instead of living paycheck to paycheck.

Just cause people can't keep their home doesn't mean the wealthy should be punished and pay for their home. You can't say most inherited their money. Most worked hard for it, and even if they did inherit it, why should they be forced to give it off to people who aren't wealthy? Imagine your grandparents working their butts off so that they're kids and grand kids can have better lives. Imagine having to pay more, just cause they're more wealthy. Sure, they don't need it. But that's no excuse for them to just get it off. In the end, someone worked they're ass off to gain that money, and who knows, maybe that person who inherited it, is adding to the wealth.

If someone is living paycheck to paycheck, it's their fault. Not the wealthy people's fault, in fact, if they're living paycheck to paycheck, most likely, they have a paycheck cause a wealthy person is giving it to them. When you say "I don't know why it's such a big deal for them?" It's a big deal cause more money is coming out of their pocket. Why is it such a big deal for the middle class to pay more taxes? Well, because more money is going to the government, and they get to keep less of it. When you say "them" it makes it sound like they're not human, when they are. When you say "there is enough money to go around" that is the ideas of the socialist party, they wanna spread the wealth of the wealthy. "Oh, your grandparents spent their whole lives making the wealth you have today" let me take that and give it to someone else who don't make as much as you". The majority of the people who aren't getting paid are to lazy to get off of their lazy asses. The wealthy are the ones supplying most of the jobs, sooner or later, the government is gonna tax them to death. What happens when they do that? Jobs will be lost. If we do the "spread the money around" idea, people like the Walton family would lose all of their money (founders of Wal-Mart and Sams Club), what will happen when they lose all of their money? All the Wal marts will be closed, and millions of jobs lost. People like the Walton's inherited their money, but their dad spent his life, working his ass off to earn that money. So basically, when you say "why do they need millions..." It's putting all that hard work he spent his entire life, in the dumpster.


As I've said, imagine your dad working his entire life so you can have the best life possible. And when he dies, you inherit all he did, just for you. But another person comes and says, "You don't deserve that, you never worked hard for it. Give it to other people who are to lazy to work, or give it to people who can't have a house." I'm sure you (or if not you, most other people) would be pretty pissed, especially when you saw how hard your dad worked for that. You would probably be thinking "My dad worked his ass of his whole life, and you want me to just give it away". Or even those who are self made. If I were a self made billion air I would be like "So you want me to give money to people who are either to lazy to work, or people who can't pay the bills, when I worked my entire life for this money! Hell no. They can do what I did, and rise up the ladder. They can work their ass off like I did. I deserve this because I put the time in."

And the wealthy are actually already extremely charitable. Bill Gates has donated BILLIONS of dollars to charities. In fact 90% of all he is worth is going to charity when he dies (or 95%). So is that uncharitable to you? charities around the world would be getting over $45 billion from a guy who worked his whole life to make that money. People like Sheldon Adelson also donates hundreds of millions of dollars, and you say "if the wealthy we're more charitable". That seems above and beyond charitable. People who aren't wealthy don't even give a crap about those less fortunate. If you make $50,000 a year. You can surely afford to give a few thousand dollars (which is NOTHING compared to people like Adelson who give hundreds of MILLIONS of dollars to charity). Looks like the wealthy/upper class are 20x more charitable than people who make way less than them. I think an across the line tax fee would be better, I think all classes should pay 15% of what they make a year. Not the wealthy pay more, while the less wealthy pay less. Without people like Gates or Adelson, hundreds of people would have NO jobs. So instead of attacking them, lets thank them for providing jobs.

This is kinda like the sacrifice the few to save the many theory. How? Well, sacrifice the few, is taxing the middle class or lower class more, and saving the many is saving the wealthier class to save the jobs they provide. if one family like the Walton's were to lose all of their wealth, then over 2,000,000 people would lose their jobs. Whereas if 1 middle class family of four were to lose their wealth and jobs, then 4 people would suffer. So which is better 4 people suffering hard times and hunger and houselessness, or 2,000,000 suffering hard times, hunger and houselessness? So that's a perfect example. So that's what old happen if we spread the wealth. Everyone who works at Wal mart would lose their jobs. Everyone who works for Microsoft would lose their jobs, everyone who works for the Sands would lose their jobs. So obviously the wealthy do need their money, so they can continue providing jobs to their employees (especially through these hard times). (http://www.statisticbrain.com/wal-mart-company-statistics/)

I see where you're coming from tho

[Lost in the Echo]

Just cause people can't keep their home doesn't mean the wealthy should be punished and pay for their home. You can't say most inherited their money. Most worked hard for it, and even if they did inherit it, why should they be forced to give it off to people who aren't wealthy? Imagine your grandparents working their butts off so that they're kids and grand kids can have better lives. Imagine having to pay more, just cause they're more wealthy. Sure, they don't need it. But that's no excuse for them to just get it off. In the end, someone worked they're ass off to gain that money, and who knows, maybe that person who inherited it, is adding to the wealth.

If someone is living paycheck to paycheck, it's their fault. Not the wealthy people's fault, in fact, if they're living paycheck to paycheck, most likely, they have a paycheck cause a wealthy person is giving it to them. When you say "I don't know why it's such a big deal for them?" It's a big deal cause more money is coming out of their pocket. Why is it such a big deal for the middle class to pay more taxes? Well, because more money is going to the government, and they get to keep less of it. When you say "them" it makes it sound like they're not human, when they are. When you say "there is enough money to go around" that is the ideas of the socialist party, they wanna spread the wealth of the wealthy. "Oh, your grandparents spent their whole lives making the wealth you have today" let me take that and give it to someone else who don't make as much as you". The majority of the people who aren't getting paid are to lazy to get off of their lazy asses. The wealthy are the ones supplying most of the jobs, sooner or later, the government is gonna tax them to death. What happens when they do that? Jobs will be lost. If we do the "spread the money around" idea, people like the Walton family would lose all of their money (founders of Wal-Mart and Sams Club), what will happen when they lose all of their money? All the Wal marts will be closed, and millions of jobs lost. People like the Walton's inherited their money, but their dad spent his life, working his ass off to earn that money. So basically, when you say "why do they need millions..." It's putting all that hard work he spent his entire life, in the dumpster.


As I've said, imagine your dad working his entire life so you can have the best life possible. And when he dies, you inherit all he did, just for you. But another person comes and says, "You don't deserve that, you never worked hard for it. Give it to other people who are to lazy to work, or give it to people who can't have a house." I'm sure you (or if not you, most other people) would be pretty pissed, especially when you saw how hard your dad worked for that. You would probably be thinking "My dad worked his ass of his whole life, and you want me to just give it away". Or even those who are self made. If I were a self made billion air I would be like "So you want me to give money to people who are either to lazy to work, or people who can't pay the bills, when I worked my entire life for this money! Hell no. They can do what I did, and rise up the ladder. They can work their ass off like I did. I deserve this because I put the time in."

And the wealthy are actually already extremely charitable. Bill Gates has donated BILLIONS of dollars to charities. In fact 90% of all he is worth is going to charity when he dies (or 95%). So is that uncharitable to you? charities around the world would be getting over $45 billion from a guy who worked his whole life to make that money. People like Sheldon Adelson also donates hundreds of millions of dollars, and you say "if the wealthy we're more charitable". That seems above and beyond charitable. People who aren't wealthy don't even give a crap about those less fortunate. If you make $50,000 a year. You can surely afford to give a few thousand dollars (which is NOTHING compared to people like Adelson who give hundreds of MILLIONS of dollars to charity). Looks like the wealthy/upper class are 20x more charitable than people who make way less than them. I think an across the line tax fee would be better, I think all classes should pay 15% of what they make a year. Not the wealthy pay more, while the less wealthy pay less. Without people like Gates or Adelson, hundreds of people would have NO jobs. So instead of attacking them, lets thank them for providing jobs.

This is kinda like the sacrifice the few to save the many theory. How? Well, sacrifice the few, is taxing the middle class or lower class more, and saving the many is saving the wealthier class to save the jobs they provide. if one family like the Walton's were to lose all of their wealth, then over 2,000,000 people would lose their jobs. Whereas if 1 middle class family of four were to lose their wealth and jobs, then 4 people would suffer. So which is better 4 people suffering hard times and hunger and houselessness, or 2,000,000 suffering hard times, hunger and houselessness? So that's a perfect example. So that's what old happen if we spread the wealth. Everyone who works at Wal mart would lose their jobs. Everyone who works for Microsoft would lose their jobs, everyone who works for the Sands would lose their jobs. So obviously the wealthy do need their money, so they can continue providing jobs to their employees (especially through these hard times). (http://www.statisticbrain.com/wal-mart-company-statistics/)

I see where you're coming from tho

You made some really good points, but I disagree with you when you say that middle class families are too lazy to get off their asses and work.
They work hard, but they still struggle, they don't make enough money.
I wasn't trying to make the wealthy seem like bad people, I wasn't saying we should "punish" them, but a little tax raise really wouldn't hurt them.
There are middle class families who work hard, but struggle to make ends meet. So the wealthy wouldn't just be "giving money away", they would be helping hard working, struggling families.

I really do see where you're coming from, but you make the middle class sound like low-life lazy pieces of shit, when in reality most of them are hard working good people who deserve more.

[Cicero]

You made some really good points, but I disagree with you when you say that middle class families are too lazy to get off their asses and work.
They work hard, but they still struggle, they don't make enough money.
I wasn't trying to make the wealthy seem like bad people, I wasn't saying we should "punish" them, but a little tax raise really wouldn't hurt them.
There are middle class families who work hard, but struggle to make ends meet. So the wealthy wouldn't just be "giving money away", they would be helping hard working, struggling families.

I really do see where you're coming from, but you make the middle class sound like low-life lazy pieces of shit, when in reality most of them are hard working good people who deserve more.

No, I was talking about the homeless or people on the streets that are to lazy. Not the middle class. Yes, they do deserve more, that's why they should work that much harder to earn it. The wealthier shouldn't just give it to them. They shouldn't deserve more if the wealthier are paying for it.

[chrisawesome]

I agree with Cicero.

That is completely right. You see how the system works. That is great that I'm not the only one to see how the truth really is! You take money away from the top and spread it among the rest of the people. So who will be at the top, writing paychecks? Like I said before, homeless people dont sign paychecks.

People like Steve Jobs was a self proclaimed nerd and worked hard to get where he is at. He was smart and not lazy. He paid attention in class and made good grades.

The Kardashians have a worldwide brand that they own. Doing what they do, so you cant say they have money for no reason.

I agree with that leaked audio about Mitt Romney saying "I dont feel responsible to take care of that other 47%" That is so true. The lazy asses who sit on the couch all day and take out welfare checks should not get government help!

Ambitious people who have the ambition to start a business, go in debt for a higher college education, and pay attention in class, dedicate themselves to enriching their brains do not deserve to pay higher taxes.

And yes, making a law for someone to pay more money in taxes is descrimination, poor judgement, and it is punishing them
Because they have to pay, for example, nearly half of their income in taxes. Because it is against the law and you will get audited if you dont pay your taxes.

People say that they dont need all of that money. They worked for it, so they deserve it. If you can say that they have to pay more taxes because they make too much money.

Then I can say, "Who cares about the middle class, their are enough of them to take care of themselves!" That is not the way I feel, but If you raise the taxes on wealthy, then I really dont care!!!!

People who make $400,000 can pay up to 40% in taxes. And only keep 60% which is only $240,000

If someone making $400,000 only gets to keep 60%= $240,000
Then someone making $2,000,000 should only keep 60%= $1,200,000
Then someone making $100,000 should only keep 60%= $60,000
Then someone making $25,000 should only keep 60%= $15,000
People making $10,000 should only keep 60%= $6,000

Obama wants the taxes to be fair, I dont consider tax payment percentages to be in the range of 5% - 40% of their income. OBAMA IS A COMMUNIST, SOCIALIST, HIPPOCRIT In these next, "fowe mowe yeeeyaz" Dont say I didnt warn you

[chrisawesome]

If the wealthy are forced to pay more in taxes, then their tax money should be used as a "crutch", not a pre-paid check awarding you for being a professional-lazy-ass!!

[FreeFall]

I can see your viewpoint, but how I see it, is people like the Kardashians invest their money in stuff like stock and even houses. If they buy a house for $4 million, when its actually worth $9 million, that is a $5 million profit. So that is a pretty basic way of making money. She does work pretty hard. I don't mean she's working hard in the same aspect as a factory worker, but in a different way. She's probably always busy. Think about the hard work she puts into her body, you don't just magically get the body she does. She's probably in the gym at least an hour a day. In a way, she's basically self made. She personally is worth $40 million. You may be thinking, well what about her dad. Well, her dad was probably worth a good $30 million. Which isn't even close to the net worth of just one of the daughters. Kourtney Kardashian is worth another $12 million,
Kris Kardashian is worth another $20 million, and Khloe Kardashian is worth another $11 million. I highly doubt a lawyer could be worth a total of $73 million. So when people say "Most of their wealth was from their dad" is completely false. They're just fortunate enough to get jobs that pay higher, more easily.
No, actually I wasn't wondering about her dad/step-dad whomever. In fact I very apathetic about the Kardashians, Paris Hilton, Diana Ross or Kid Rock. I gave an example of the "typical" American mindset that celebs are lazy bags of flesh that sit around and do nothing.

That granted thing I was doing before each "point", didn't come off right over the internet, but it was supposed to be sarcasm.
I was not reflecting my own personal view on those people, I do not have one.

What I do have to say is her money, however much work, however much is made or however she gets it, is her's. Not our's.

[Cicero]

I agree with Cicero.

That is completely right. You see how the system works. That is great that I'm not the only one to see how the truth really is! You take money away from the top and spread it among the rest of the people. So who will be at the top, writing paychecks? Like I said before, homeless people dont sign paychecks.

People like Steve Jobs was a self proclaimed nerd and worked hard to get where he is at. He was smart and not lazy. He paid attention in class and made good grades.

The Kardashians have a worldwide brand that they own. Doing what they do, so you cant say they have money for no reason.

I agree with that leaked audio about Mitt Romney saying "I dont feel responsible to take care of that other 47%" That is so true. The lazy asses who sit on the couch all day and take out welfare checks should not get government help!

Ambitious people who have the ambition to start a business, go in debt for a higher college education, and pay attention in class, dedicate themselves to enriching their brains do not deserve to pay higher taxes.

And yes, making a law for someone to pay more money in taxes is descrimination, poor judgement, and it is punishing them
Because they have to pay, for example, nearly half of their income in taxes. Because it is against the law and you will get audited if you dont pay your taxes.

People say that they dont need all of that money. They worked for it, so they deserve it. If you can say that they have to pay more taxes because they make too much money.

Then I can say, "Who cares about the middle class, their are enough of them to take care of themselves!" That is not the way I feel, but If you raise the taxes on wealthy, then I really dont care!!!!

People who make $400,000 can pay up to 40% in taxes. And only keep 60% which is only $240,000

If someone making $400,000 only gets to keep 60%= $240,000
Then someone making $2,000,000 should only keep 60%= $1,200,000
Then someone making $100,000 should only keep 60%= $60,000
Then someone making $25,000 should only keep 60%= $15,000
People making $10,000 should only keep 60%= $6,000

Obama wants the taxes to be fair, I dont consider tax payment percentages to be in the range of 5% - 40% of their income. OBAMA IS A COMMUNIST, SOCIALIST, HIPPOCRIT In these next, "fowe mowe yeeeyaz" Dont say I didnt warn you

Each and every word you said I agree with. Ambition and will is the difference between entrepreneur and a lazy person. Most every self made guy never took no for an answer.

[Hockeykid96]

people need to get off there asses. stop collecting welfare and earn some of their own money.

[CharlieFinley]

From a religious standpoint, I believe that one should always be willing to give to those less fortunate. In fact, I would support raising taxes on the very wealthy to accomplish this. Furthermore, I think it's disingenuous to take the one example of the most visible philanthropist and say, "look, see? Wealthy people are generous!" Because the fact of the matter is, when you compare the amount they give to their disposable income as a percentage, the very wealthy are not, as a group, especially generous. There's a scientific basis for that, as well. Science has shown that the happier you are, the more selfish you are.

Each and every word you said I agree with. Ambition and will is the difference between entrepreneur and a lazy person. Most every self made guy never took no for an answer.

Oh my dear sweet zombie Jesus. Lord, please forgive them, because I am positive they know not what they do.

Chrisisawesome, what you said was so thoroughly vile and off-base that I truly did believe you were parodying Cicero. In fact, I still believe you may be a parody of Cicero.

Cicero, the fact that you agreed so thoroughly with Chris horrifies me. That anyone could be so insensitive to the plight of his fellow man shocks and infuriates me. Do you know what Bill Gates did? What made him a self-made man? How hard he worked to make his billions?

I'll tell you. He worked incredibly fucking hard. That's not all he did, though. He also had parents who were wealthy, and who sent him to a school that had access to computer time well before that was anything approaching common in the US. Then, after the computer time was exhausted, he was lucky enough that the PTA decided to have a drive to fund acquiring a computer for the school. Then, after he went to college (paid for by his parents) he was lucky enough to have a computer company in the area that let him use the downtime for free.

To be blunt, he could have worked as hard as he liked, but without those incredible strokes of luck, he would never have become rich. I strongly encourage you to read Outliers. I hope it will cure you of your misapprehensions about the nature of wealth and the very rich.

[Abigballofdust]

No, they don't, why would they? It's their money. Also, what defines a rich? Your happy life with 2 cars and a house may sound like the grand hotel to a hobo, but you don't owe them money, don't you?
Rich people should invest however. Invest in each and every way, but put their money in circle: raise pays, sponsor new projects, etc... Charity is not for the working class, charity is for the ones that can't afford basic food.
Also, say I'm your employee, you're rich as fuck and decide to share your money with me, you take out your wallet and hand me $1k. My first reaction is 'wtf I'm not a beggar and I won't have your money'. However, if you put that $1k as an incentive on my paycheck because I did something good during this month, then I'm happy, because you've invested in me.

[Cicero]

From a religious standpoint, I believe that one should always be willing to give to those less fortunate. In fact, I would support raising taxes on the very wealthy to accomplish this. Furthermore, I think it's disingenuous to take the one example of the most visible philanthropist and say, "look, see? Wealthy people are generous!" Because the fact of the matter is, when you compare the amount they give to their disposable income as a percentage, the very wealthy are not, as a group, especially generous. There's a scientific basis for that, as well. Science has shown that the happier you are, the more selfish you are.



Oh my dear sweet zombie Jesus. Lord, please forgive them, because I am positive they know not what they do.

Chrisisawesome, what you said was so thoroughly vile and off-base that I truly did believe you were parodying Cicero. In fact, I still believe you may be a parody of Cicero.

Cicero, the fact that you agreed so thoroughly with Chris horrifies me. That anyone could be so insensitive to the plight of his fellow man shocks and infuriates me. Do you know what Bill Gates did? What made him a self-made man? How hard he worked to make his billions?

I'll tell you. He worked incredibly fucking hard. That's not all he did, though. He also had parents who were wealthy, and who sent him to a school that had access to computer time well before that was anything approaching common in the US. Then, after the computer time was exhausted, he was lucky enough that the PTA decided to have a drive to fund acquiring a computer for the school. Then, after he went to college (paid for by his parents) he was lucky enough to have a computer company in the area that let him use the downtime for free.

To be blunt, he could have worked as hard as he liked, but without those incredible strokes of luck, he would never have become rich. I strongly encourage you to read Outliers. I hope it will cure you of your misapprehensions about the nature of wealth and the very rich.

It's great giving to the less fortunate. But not being forced to give money, especially when people are to damn lazy to work. Since you think giving to the less fortunate is good, we should also tax the middle class more.

The rich are the job providers, not the middle class. You wanna get rid of the job providers, then there will be no jobs. There was actually one billionair who said if Obama won. He would shutdown his company, and thousands of jobs HE provided would be lost. If all the wealthy people were to shutdown their company (and get all the money out of it before) billions would lose their jobs. That shows how fortunate we are to have rich people.

When we destroy the job creators, then no one will be creating the jobs other than the government. You know who pays the majority of people's bills? The wealthy, because they administer the checks to the middle class. When their is no wealthy people, then there is no one administering the checks. When there is no one administering the checks, then the middle class families aren't getting payed, when they're not getting payed, they cannot pay then bills. When they cannot pay the bills, they become homeless. See how that works, it's like dominos.


So when a wealthy family gives more than 10% of their earnings to charity. It's not being generous? So using the same principle. If a middle class family gives more than 10% of their earnings to charity, that's not being generous.

Face it, the wealthy are th jobs providers. If America wants to get rid of the job creators (and send them to china or another country) then no one will have jobs outside of the government. If there aren't job creators, there isn't jobs. The wealthy are the job creators.

Forcing the wealthy to pay more is discrimination. It's like saying the blacks or Asians should pay more in taxes. All classes should have even taxes. Like what Reagan did. Each class should also get tax breaks every now and again.

[Magical]

I'll poke my foot in.

America has low taxes. They should be raised, and you should get taxed a larger amount the more they earn.

So yes, they do owe something to other Americans. Higher taxes for public spending.

[anyone50]

The way i see it the top 2 or 3 percent lets call the wealthy they are the ones for the most part that control big buisness and if you throw in another couple percent or so of people that make close to or just over the 250,000 dollar amout that accounts for the majority of small buisnesses. Has anyone stopped to think were in such a mess now because of the greed of those people. The Republicans want to protect them from paying any more taxes
( most of them pay a tax rate well below that of your average middle class wage earner )
and the Democrates just want to spread the burden evenly so the middle class dosn't have to carry the whole burden. When the bad times hit us in 2008 and 09 big compaanys cut back on employees and asked who was remaining to fill the gap with little or no additional compensation. Now that these companies are enjoying windfall profits do they use those profits to bring those workers back. No they don't and that is why unemployment is still high and the economy hasn't rebounded. Just think of all the jobs Sheldon Addleson could have created in his company with the 100 million dollars he spent on trying to get a Republican in the White House and it appeared he didn't care which one got in he followed the popular candidate. So do the wealthier American owe something to the non-wealthy Americans I think they do in the respect that since they have control over most of the jobs and have a greater influence over the economy they should be willing to step up to the plate and help instead of asking the middle class to carry they weight.

for those of you that feel the homeless is lazy and don't want to work you clearly are not in touch with todays homeless. it's not the same demographics of a decade ago many are homeless now because of the greed i have just talked about and only a small percent make up the panhandlers you see on the corner just wanting enough for their next drink or the mentally ill you find on the streets

[Maverick]

If you want to easily destroy an economy tax the rich at extremely high levels and watch them take their money, innovation, businesses, and investments out of the country to some place else. Raising taxes on the rich does not mean it will generate more revenue for the government in fact the opposite can occur due to them either leaving or moving businesses abroad.

France had recently passed a 75% tax rate on the super rich set to go into effect next year and their wealthiest citizens have been leaving the country and taking their money with them. Now the French government gets no tax revenue and all their money that was once in the economy now gone.

Instead of raising taxes for anybody we need to cut the size of government so that we can have tax rates low enough to encourage people to start up their own business in America and to invest their money here.

[Taryn98]

The way i see it the top 2 or 3 percent lets call the wealthy they are the ones for the most part that control big buisness and if you throw in another couple percent or so of people that make close to or just over the 250,000 dollar amout that accounts for the majority of small buisnesses. Has anyone stopped to think were in such a mess now because of the greed of those people. The Republicans want to protect them from paying any more taxes
( most of them pay a tax rate well below that of your average middle class wage earner )
and the Democrates just want to spread the burden evenly so the middle class dosn't have to carry the whole burden. When the bad times hit us in 2008 and 09 big compaanys cut back on employees and asked who was remaining to fill the gap with little or no additional compensation. Now that these companies are enjoying windfall profits do they use those profits to bring those workers back. No they don't and that is why unemployment is still high and the economy hasn't rebounded. Just think of all the jobs Sheldon Addleson could have created in his company with the 100 million dollars he spent on trying to get a Republican in the White House and it appeared he didn't care which one got in he followed the popular candidate. So do the wealthier American owe something to the non-wealthy Americans I think they do in the respect that since they have control over most of the jobs and have a greater influence over the economy they should be willing to step up to the plate and help instead of asking the middle class to carry they weight.

for those of you that feel the homeless is lazy and don't want to work you clearly are not in touch with todays homeless. it's not the same demographics of a decade ago many are homeless now because of the greed i have just talked about and only a small percent make up the panhandlers you see on the corner just wanting enough for their next drink or the mentally ill you find on the streets

The top 1% pays 38% of Federal taxes, The top 10% pays over 70% of federal taxes, The bottom 50% pays only 3% of the taxes, The middle class is not burdened with the tax load. The rich already pay more than everyone else combined.
Also you point out that the richest people own most of the businesses either privately or via stocks, etc, which is correct. If you raise their taxes, they will simply pass the cost of those taxes down to the middle class.
If I own a store and make $250000 a year and my taxes go up, am I just going to pay more in taxes, no! I will raise the prices of whatever I'm selling in my store to cover the difference. So basically it's an indirect tax on the middle class instead.
Additionally when the big recession hit a few years ago, the top 2% of earners lost 16% of their average pay, whereas the people below the top 2% (2-50%) had an average loss of 8% in pay. When the top 2% pays over 50% of the taxes and has double the loss of income, it creates a huge loss in revenue for the government. There is a major problem with the governement, they're too reliant on the richest people. Just think if the top 2% all moved (not that it would happen or anything) but our government would lose almost 50% of its income.

[Cicero]

The way i see it the top 2 or 3 percent lets call the wealthy they are the ones for the most part that control big buisness and if you throw in another couple percent or so of people that make close to or just over the 250,000 dollar amout that accounts for the majority of small buisnesses. Has anyone stopped to think were in such a mess now because of the greed of those people. The Republicans want to protect them from paying any more taxes
( most of them pay a tax rate well below that of your average middle class wage earner )
and the Democrates just want to spread the burden evenly so the middle class dosn't have to carry the whole burden. When the bad times hit us in 2008 and 09 big compaanys cut back on employees and asked who was remaining to fill the gap with little or no additional compensation. Now that these companies are enjoying windfall profits do they use those profits to bring those workers back. No they don't and that is why unemployment is still high and the economy hasn't rebounded. Just think of all the jobs Sheldon Addleson could have created in his company with the 100 million dollars he spent on trying to get a Republican in the White House and it appeared he didn't care which one got in he followed the popular candidate. So do the wealthier American owe something to the non-wealthy Americans I think they do in the respect that since they have control over most of the jobs and have a greater influence over the economy they should be willing to step up to the plate and help instead of asking the middle class to carry they weight.

for those of you that feel the homeless is lazy and don't want to work you clearly are not in touch with todays homeless. it's not the same demographics of a decade ago many are homeless now because of the greed i have just talked about and only a small percent make up the panhandlers you see on the corner just wanting enough for their next drink or the mentally ill you find on the streets

That's Sheldon Adelsons private money, what, do you wanna tell him how he can spend his money? If so, you're a communist. Sheldon Adelson can do whatever he wants with his money. Why? He's earned it. How? He built up a multi billion dollar company from scratch. As Maverick said, if you wanna tax the rich more. They're just gonna take they're money, their business, and their employees and move to a place, like I have already said, such as China or India. He brought up an excellent point about France hiking up their taxes, but that's not gonna affect the wealthy. Cause most of them are gonna be gone.

If it weren't for the wealthy, most of America would be out of jobs. Sheldon Adelson shouldn't have to hire more employees with his extra profit. Because he doesn't need more employees. How so, you may be thinking. Well, it's simple, there aren't that many people going to Vegas to gamble. When you don't have as much gamblers and customers, you don't need as much employees.

It's like supply and demand. If there are enough customers demanding employees, then the company will supply those employees. But now, supply has exceeded demand. As I've said, we should do what Reagan did and send an even tax break. If there are ways for people to pay less taxes. Then let it be. Most people give to charity so they may have lower taxes, or they might set up a bank account in another country that has low taxes, and use a debit card here in America. There is nothing wrong with that, it's just another way to save money. Face it, if someone were given an opportunity to pay less taxes, EVERYONE would take up that opportunity.

[Cicero]

The top 1% pays 38% of Federal taxes, The top 10% pays over 70% of federal taxes, The bottom 50% pays only 3% of the taxes, The middle class is not burdened with the tax load. The rich already pay more than everyone else combined.
Also you point out that the richest people own most of the businesses either privately or via stocks, etc, which is correct. If you raise their taxes, they will simply pass the cost of those taxes down to the middle class.
If I own a store and make $250000 a year and my taxes go up, am I just going to pay more in taxes, no! I will raise the prices of whatever I'm selling in my store to cover the difference. So basically it's an indirect tax on the middle class instead.
Additionally when the big recession hit a few years ago, the top 2% of earners lost 16% of their average pay, whereas the people below the top 2% (2-50%) had an average loss of 8% in pay. When the top 2% pays over 50% of the taxes and has double the loss of income, it creates a huge loss in revenue for the government. There is a major problem with the governement, they're too reliant on the richest people. Just think if the top 2% all moved (not that it would happen or anything) but our government would lose almost 50% of its income.

I completely agree. Democrats use the argument that everyone pays as little taxes as Mitt Romney, when that isn't true. The wealthy have always payed the majority. And I highly doubt most family businesses are making $250K a year. Thanks to the recession/depression.

Honestly, I think all this comes from one thing. Jealousy. People are jealous because the wealthy are doing better than them. Especially when people say the wealthy owe something to the non wealthy. That is blatant jealousy. Most middle class people want everyone to spread their wealth, so that they may be less wealthy, and more middle class. So that everyone is of the same class, and nothing better or lower. It's a pity people cannot feel happy for someone else, whether they just bought a new Ford Mustang or they just bought a new Porsche 911.

One of my teachers at school always likes making me feel like a dumb ass, like whenever I'm looking at the news of Forbes.com he will look at my computer and say "Hey get off that. That's not school related. We all know you wanna be rich some day" and he'll say that about most anything I look at. Cars, websites, etc. and that proves just how wealth hating he really is. He's a democrat too.

Lets not forget that Obama isn't so "I'm middle class too" he has a net worth of $11.8 million.

On a side note, someone said that "the wealthy are more successful..." And in response someone else posted "they're not more successful". Obviously the wealthy ARE more successful because they are worth however much they are. Lets face it, the more you're worth, the more respect you'll get, the better treatment/service you'll get, and the more society will care about you. This has been proven over and over. Even shows acknowledge this. Of course it truly is sickening. But it shows just how money hungry people can be. Sometimes I get jealous, but very rarely. My friend used to be living the high life back in 2007, he had a mansion, a beach house in Mexico, a big boat, all the nicest cars you could only dream of getting. Until most of that went away. Approx. 90% of their wealth was lost. I feel heartbroken for them, whereas some middle class person like my school teacher would be like "So who cares, now they get a taste fl what the real world is like" (my friends family was self made btw). I know one day all of that will come back and I know for a fact, I will be happy for them, of course a little jealous (like 92% happy 8% jealous).

[ash1520]

I must confess that i don't pretend to have the answers as you all seem to have it figured out but after ready thru this thread i now have a better understanding why are elected officials can't reach a deal. If everybody is right and no body is wrong what are we left with. The answer of course is a dysfunctional government which we clearly have today.
History shows us that almost all governments of the past have collasped from within from the Roman Empire to the USSR and I feel we are headed off a much bigger cliff than the fisical one.

[ash1520]

It doesn't matter how anyone gets their wealth, be it the lottery, inherritance, or hard work, it's THEIR money! They owe nothing to anybody! They shouldn't have to pay higher taxes or donate more simply because they have more.
People are not entitled to anything. If you want something then you should work your ass off to get it!
The sole purpose of a business is to make profits for the owners. It's not to provide jobs, or to give back to the community. That is what non-profit organizations do.

Wow I'm left speechless by your remarks on the sole purpose of a business, thats completel reveresed from what they teach in my school. I wonder how many CEO's of Fortune 500 companies share your opinion, I'm guessing outside Donald Trump the number would be very low and if a company did perscribe to your way of thinking and their customers were made aware i'm sure the company wouldn't be in buissness very long.

[Taryn98]

Wow I'm left speechless by your remarks on the sole purpose of a business, thats completel reveresed from what they teach in my school. I wonder how many CEO's of Fortune 500 companies share your opinion, I'm guessing outside Donald Trump the number would be very low and if a company did perscribe to your way of thinking and their customers were made aware i'm sure the company wouldn't be in buissness very long.

Actually I think you don't know much about business. People don't start them simply for altruistic reasons. It's to make money and be profitable without having to work for someone else.
My dad runs several businesses and so do most of his friends. They're not greedy selfless people just trying to steal from consumers, but they do it to make money for themselves and their investors. If they didn't make money, they would go backrupt or not have investors. People don't risk their life savings and work 80 hours a week just to provide jobs for other people or for the good of mankind. If they do that's called charity or non-profit.

[CharlieFinley]

Face it, the wealthy are th jobs providers. If America wants to get rid of the job creators (and send them to china or another country) then no one will have jobs outside of the government. If there aren't job creators, there isn't jobs. The wealthy are the job creators.
I'm fairly sure that's untrue, and so I'm going to demand that you prove your claims.

Forcing the wealthy to pay more is discrimination. It's like saying the blacks or Asians should pay more in taxes. All classes should have even taxes. Like what Reagan did. Each class should also get tax breaks every now and again.Taxing someone who can't even afford to eat some days at 30% of his income is right and humane. Definitely.
Again, prove that the wealthy are job creators.

[ash1520]

Actually I think you don't know much about business. People don't start them simply for altruistic reasons. It's to make money and be profitable without having to work for someone else.
My dad runs several businesses and so do most of his friends. They're not greedy selfless people just trying to steal from consumers, but they do it to make money for themselves and their investors. If they didn't make money, they would go backrupt or not have investors. People don't risk their life savings and work 80 hours a week just to provide jobs for other people or for the good of mankind. If they do that's called charity or non-profit.

Well My Grandfather is one of those CEO's of a Fortune 500 company and while it is a publicly-traded company on the New York Stock Exchange and has to answer to shareholders he hasn't and would never make any of the kinds of claims you are making about the purpose of big buissness. I would be interested in your defintion of greed and greedy people if it's not someone that only thinks about themselves and how much money that can make for themselves and their friends. I'm guessing that Bill Gates in your opinion is a bad buisness person just because he has genuine concern for others and has giving large amounts of his wealth away like so many othere have in the past like him. Have you ever heard of Andrew Carnegie and just recently Warren Buffett and 11 others that gave Millions away to charity. No i'm sure you haven't. You see these people found away to make profits for their investors, run sucessfull companies and remain humane towards society and the less fortunate. So in response to me not know much about business I think you need to do some research yourself.

[Taryn98]

Well My Grandfather is one of those CEO's of a Fortune 500 company and while it is a publicly-traded company on the New York Stock Exchange and has to answer to shareholders he hasn't and would never make any of the kinds of claims you are making about the purpose of big buissness. I would be interested in your defintion of greed and greedy people if it's not someone that only thinks about themselves and how much money that can make for themselves and their friends. I'm guessing that Bill Gates in your opinion is a bad buisness person just because he has genuine concern for others and has giving large amounts of his wealth away like so many othere have in the past like him. Have you ever heard of Andrew Carnegie and just recently Warren Buffett and 11 others that gave Millions away to charity. No i'm sure you haven't. You see these people found away to make profits for their investors, run sucessfull companies and remain humane towards society and the less fortunate. So in response to me not know much about business I think you need to do some research yourself.
Read about how Bill Gates made his money. About how many companies he had shut down, bought out so they couldn't compete, forced out of the market place, or stole their technology and used knowing they couldn't sue him because he had a competitive advantage.

Like I said earlier these people are not greedy and trying to screw others, but they only operate their businesses if they turn a profit. If Bill Gates and Warren Buffet never made a profit they wouldn't be billionares now. They make products at a cost and sell it at a higher price that consumers deem fair and pay it. The company makes money and the consumer gets what they want at a price they agree on. If they don't like it they can shop somewhere else or not buy anything. The company doesn't make a product and then sell it at the cost needed to make it. What's the motivation to do that?

Charity is a great thing, but it should be done voluntarily like what Bill Gates and Warren Buffet do, not by taxation and forcing people to give their money to the governement and then they decide who gets the money. If I did exactly what the governement did I would go to prison for extortion.

[ash1520]

Read about how Bill Gates made his money. About how many companies he had shut down, bought out so they couldn't compete, forced out of the market place, or stole their technology and used knowing they couldn't sue him because he had a competitive advantage.

Like I said earlier these people are not greedy and trying to screw others, but they only operate their businesses if they turn a profit. If Bill Gates and Warren Buffet never made a profit they wouldn't be billionares now. They make products at a cost and sell it at a higher price that consumers deem fair and pay it. The company makes money and the consumer gets what they want at a price they agree on. If they don't like it they can shop somewhere else or not buy anything. The company doesn't make a product and then sell it at the cost needed to make it. What's the motivation to do that?

Charity is a great thing, but it should be done voluntarily like what Bill Gates and Warren Buffet do, not by taxation and forcing people to give their money to the governement and then they decide who gets the money. If I did exactly what the governement did I would go to prison for extortion.

How Bill Gates made his fortune was by following the free enterprise system if you have a better idea it's going to force other's out of the market share. but this is not what i'm talking about. What I found offensive was your original post how buisness was there only to make profits for for themselves and their investors and not to create jobs or have any obligation to the community that supports that buisness. Ok first if you have a buisness don't you need a workforce That puts people to work. If your buisness is in a community and the community supports your buisness and you become profitable don't you have an obligation to those that got you there. alot of people would say yes because good PR is good for buisness grouth. The money that these guys like bill gates and others give to charity and other non-profit is their own money but what i was talking to is that they haven't forgot the people that made it possible for them to be charitable, There is no obligation for them to do this and there are some who don't and feel that every dollar they make should be kept for themseves and the hell with the less fortunate masses. Does this sound familiar? And last what your talking about the government extortingmoney from the rich. It's no such thing. It's a simple idea and has nothing to do with the fact that the rich pay a zillion more times in taxes already than the middle class it's has to do at the tax rate and the loopholes big buisnesses have which many were started for good reason but the reasons for them no longer apply. If a person making 60,000 a year pays a tax rate of 22% which is an average because so many factors can influence the actual rate. Mitt Romney payed a tax rate of 14% where is the equality. It's not extortion is called leveling the playing field and i have no doubt that if it ever happens and taxes goes up, the wealthier will find a way to recoop it and pass it on to the little guy like you said.

We are never going to agree becuse your views of the social economics in todays enviroment are radically different from my own and there's nothing either one of can say they will persude the other. I was just trying to show you that if buisness didn't create jobs there would be no workers to produce products to sell and where would that leave the buisness as well as the obligation most big companies feel they have to the community that made it possible for their buisness to thrive. I'm right your right from our own persectives and this is where the House and the Senate stand today which is why we have such a dysfunctioal goverenment.

[CharlieFinley]

How Bill Gates made his fortune was by following the free enterprise system if you have a better idea it's going to force other's out of the market share. but this is not what i'm talking about. What I found offensive was your original post how buisness was there only to make profits for for themselves and their investors and not to create jobs or have any obligation to the community that supports that buisness. Ok first if you have a buisness don't you need a workforce That puts people to work. If your buisness is in a community and the community supports your buisness and you become profitable don't you have an obligation to those that got you there. alot of people would say yes because good PR is good for buisness grouth. The money that these guys like bill gates and others give to charity and other non-profit is their own money but what i was talking to is that they haven't forgot the people that made it possible for them to be charitable, There is no obligation for them to do this and there are some who don't and feel that every dollar they make should be kept for themseves and the hell with the less fortunate masses. Does this sound familiar? And last what your talking about the government extortingmoney from the rich. It's no such thing. It's a simple idea and has nothing to do with the fact that the rich pay a zillion more times in taxes already than the middle class it's has to do at the tax rate and the loopholes big buisnesses have which many were started for good reason but the reasons for them no longer apply. If a person making 60,000 a year pays a tax rate of 22% which is an average because so many factors can influence the actual rate. Mitt Romney payed a tax rate of 14% where is the equality. It's not extortion is called leveling the playing field and i have no doubt that if it ever happens and taxes goes up, the wealthier will find a way to recoop it and pass it on to the little guy like you said.

We are never going to agree becuse your views of the social economics in todays enviroment are radically different from my own and there's nothing either one of can say they will persude the other. I was just trying to show you that if buisness didn't create jobs there would be no workers to produce products to sell and where would that leave the buisness as well as the obligation most big companies feel they have to the community that made it possible for their buisness to thrive. I'm right your right from our own persectives and this is where the House and the Senate stand today which is why we have such a dysfunctioal goverenment.
You show a stunning lack of knowledge about both basic economics and the dictates of style and mechanics in the English language.

[ash1520]

sorry but sometimes my spacebar and keys stick and i just don't go back and tidy it up like i'm in school and my post has nothing to do with basic economics, and the point i was making was about a statement that said companies have no obligation to create jobs which i have no idea where your from but a company that has no workers???. It's obvious you are like the person i responded to and we are on opposing sides so lets agree to dissagree. and by the way if you can make a statement that i show a lack of knowlege in basic economics either you can't read or can't understand what you read. Maybe at a later time we can have a debate on economics but my post wasn't intended to do that.

[Taryn98]

Business adds workers/jobs if the value added by the worker is greater than the cost of the worker.
If I pay someone $10/hr but they only sell $8/hr of product there's no reason to have that worker. If they are adding more value (either via direct sales or intellectual property or general labor) then I hire them. I don't do it for civil service for the community.

[ash1520]

Business adds workers/jobs if the value added by the worker is greater than the cost of the worker.
If I pay someone $10/hr but they only sell $8/hr of product there's no reason to have that worker. If they are adding more value (either via direct sales or intellectual property or general labor) then I hire them. I don't do it for civil service for the community.

But thats not what you said in your original post you said business don't create jobs. I know all about Profit and Loss and that was never what this discussion was about

[Taryn98]

Businesses don't create jobs for the sake of creating jobs. Business runs to create profit for the owners. Jobs are a byproduct of a successful business, they are not the objective of the business.

[Cicero]

How Bill Gates made his fortune was by following the free enterprise system if you have a better idea it's going to force other's out of the market share. but this is not what i'm talking about. What I found offensive was your original post how buisness was there only to make profits for for themselves and their investors and not to create jobs or have any obligation to the community that supports that buisness. Ok first if you have a buisness don't you need a workforce That puts people to work. If your buisness is in a community and the community supports your buisness and you become profitable don't you have an obligation to those that got you there. alot of people would say yes because good PR is good for buisness grouth. The money that these guys like bill gates and others give to charity and other non-profit is their own money but what i was talking to is that they haven't forgot the people that made it possible for them to be charitable, There is no obligation for them to do this and there are some who don't and feel that every dollar they make should be kept for themseves and the hell with the less fortunate masses. Does this sound familiar? And last what your talking about the government extortingmoney from the rich. It's no such thing. It's a simple idea and has nothing to do with the fact that the rich pay a zillion more times in taxes already than the middle class it's has to do at the tax rate and the loopholes big buisnesses have which many were started for good reason but the reasons for them no longer apply. If a person making 60,000 a year pays a tax rate of 22% which is an average because so many factors can influence the actual rate. Mitt Romney payed a tax rate of 14% where is the equality. It's not extortion is called leveling the playing field and i have no doubt that if it ever happens and taxes goes up, the wealthier will find a way to recoop it and pass it on to the little guy like you said.

We are never going to agree becuse your views of the social economics in todays enviroment are radically different from my own and there's nothing either one of can say they will persude the other. I was just trying to show you that if buisness didn't create jobs there would be no workers to produce products to sell and where would that leave the buisness as well as the obligation most big companies feel they have to the community that made it possible for their buisness to thrive. I'm right your right from our own persectives and this is where the House and the Senate stand today which is why we have such a dysfunctioal goverenment.

People like Romney aren't breaking the law. There are loop holes middle class people can do too, but they don't know all of them like the wealthy. Taxing the wealthy more will only hurt the economy. If they have to spend more money in taxes, then they will just fire a few dozen employees to compensate. Which makes the economy that much worse. Also, it takes just one wealthy person, to purchase a $6.4 million home. Whereas it would take 32 middle class people to purchase a $200,000 home. As you can tell, very few middle class people are buying homes. Whereas the wealthy are, the wealthy is the people that are buying the more expensive homes which help stimulate the economy. For the wealthy, it's a buyers market.

People like Romney need help in this economy too. Think about all the people they have to keep employed running their businesses. That takes a lot more money than feeding a family of 4.

As Maverick pointed out. France is having a 75% tax rate for its wealthy. The wealthy aren't going to pay that. You know why? Because they can move to another country. So France is basically running off its wealthy citizens. That's what Obama is doing, first example of proof. Apple (AAPL) moved all their jobs to China, because Obama is hiking up the taxes. So right there America lost thousands of jobs. All because people are to jealous to handle people being more successful than themselves. When Obama asked Steve Jobs to bring back the jobs, he replied and said that those jobs will never be back. He was that blatant about it. Steve Jobs has even said countless times how much Obama is hurting the economy. The middle class aren't the job providers, the wealthy are. Which one would we rather have on the streets, a family of 4, or a large company with over 1,000 different families on the streets? Sacrifice the few to save the many, is what I'm getting at. If we are gonna tax the wealthy a butt load of money, they're just going to shut down their business, and thousands will be out of a job.

Companies main objective is to make money. That's it. There may be smaller ones such as employees, but at the end of the day. They are there for the money.

[CharlieFinley]

People like Romney aren't breaking the law. There are loop holes middle class people can do too, but they don't know all of them like the wealthy. That's blatantly untrue. Writing off an extra home, taking a loss one year for tax purposes, or putting a few million dollars in a bank in the Caymans is not an action a middle-class family can take. Taxing the wealthy more will only hurt the economy. PROVE IT. I have asked you to prove that wealthy individuals and families are job creators, and you have not. If they have to spend more money in taxes, then they will just fire a few dozen employees to compensate. That MIGHT be accurate, if wealthy people personally employed those people. They do not. They employ these people through any companies they may happen to control, and firing people in response to a high income tax is a poor income tax decision.


People like Romney need help in this economy too. Think about all the people they have to keep employed running their businesses. That takes a lot more money than feeding a family of 4. No they damn well do not, because as I have said, they do not personally employ all these people you're referencing.


As Maverick pointed out. France is having a 75% tax rate for its wealthy. The wealthy aren't going to pay that. You know why? Because they can move to another country. So France is basically running off its wealthy citizens. Actually, they're not doing that. (http://www.latimes.com/news/world/worldnow/la-fg-wn-french-court-tax-rich-20121229,0,7376806.story)

That's what Obama is doing, first example of proof. So back in the 40s, when the highest income bracket had a marginal rate of 90% and an effective rate of 40-50%, where did all the wealthy individuals go? Oh, that's right. They stayed here.

Apple (AAPL) moved all their jobs to China, because Obama is hiking up the taxes. So right there America lost thousands of jobs. All because people are to jealous to handle people being more successful than themselves. You are incorrect. You'll notice that the executives (the people making lots of money) are STILL HERE. They moved construction to China because China is a shithole with no protection for its workers that allows employers to pay whatever obscenely low wage they can find someone to work for, and that's cheaper. In short, they left the US because WE HAVE A STRONGER ECONOMY.

When Obama asked Steve Jobs to bring back the jobs, he replied and said that those jobs will never be back. Prove it. Steve Jobs has even said countless times how much Obama is hurting the economy. I don't think he has, but even if he has, do you honestly think the person being affected by Obama's desired higher taxes on the wealthy is going to be pro-Obama? The middle class aren't the job providers, the wealthy are.Prove it.

[Cicero]

That's blatantly untrue. Writing off an extra home, taking a loss one year for tax purposes, or putting a few million dollars in a bank in the Caymans is not an action a middle-class family can take. PROVE IT. I have asked you to prove that wealthy individuals and families are job creators, and you have not. That MIGHT be accurate, if wealthy people personally employed those people. They do not. They employ these people through any companies they may happen to control, and firing people in response to a high income tax is a poor income tax decision.

No they damn well do not, because as I have said, they do not personally employ all these people you're referencing.

Actually, they're not doing that. (http://www.latimes.com/news/world/worldnow/la-fg-wn-french-court-tax-rich-20121229,0,7376806.story)

So back in the 40s, when the highest income bracket had a marginal rate of 90% and an effective rate of 40-50%, where did all the wealthy individuals go? Oh, that's right. They stayed here.
You are incorrect. You'll notice that the executives (the people making lots of money) are STILL HERE. They moved construction to China because China is a shithole with no protection for its workers that allows employers to pay whatever obscenely low wage they can find someone to work for, and that's cheaper. In short, they left the US because WE HAVE A STRONGER ECONOMY.
Prove it. I don't think he has, but even if he has, do you honestly think the person being affected by Obama's desired higher taxes on the wealthy is going to be pro-Obama? Prove it.
Prove that the wealthy supply jobs. Really? Without the Walton family, 2.1 million people wouldn't have jobs. (http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_employees_does_Wal-Mart_have)

It's common knowledge that the wealthy employee the most, look at Apple, Casinos, Microsoft. Adelson is worth over $25 billion and employs thousands at his Sands casino. (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/a/sheldon_g_adelson/index.html)

Sure the wealthy people stayed during the 40s, but they probably had bank accounts in other countries. Another great loop hole I'm in support of (ie. Mitt Romney and the Cayman Islands)

Yeah, they moved the jobs to china so they can be taxed less and so they can save money PAYING THE EMPLOYEES. So apparently moving the factory jobs to China is incorrect. No, your incorrect.


Mr. Jobs’s reply was unambiguous. “Those jobs aren’t coming back,” he said, according to another dinner guest. (http://www.politico.com/politico44/2012/01/obama-spars-with-steve-jobs-over-apple-outsourcing-111751.html)

You know nothing. It's common fucking sense that the wealthy citizens supply the most jobs. Who owns majority of Microsoft, Bill Gates, last time I checked he's worth $53 billion. Who owns the Sands Casino, Sheldon Adelson, who's worth $25 billion. Who owns Facebook, Mark Zuckerberg, last time I checked he was worth $8 billion. Who is the founder of Sony, Aiko Morito, who's worth $68 billion and employs of 21,000 people (http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/business/july-dec99/morita_10-4.html). As you may see, they're all insanely rich, and they employ thousands of people. That's my proof. Thought it was common sense, but guess not.

I'd go out on a limb and say that most of the people on here is employed by a wealthy person, or their parents are.

YES, THEY WERE GOING TO DO IT BUT IT WAS STOPPED (75% tax). (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-12-29/french-court-says-75-tax-rate-on-wealthy-is-unconstitutional.html)


Fuck, you no absolutely nothing about how jobs work and how the economy works.


Ill dumb it down for you even more.

Are the main shareholders of Sony middle class? No
Are the main shareholders of Apple middle class? No
Are the main shareholders of Vizio middle class? No
Are the main shareholders of Papa Johns Pizza middle class? No

A shareholder is the owner of shares in a company. Which (dumbed down a bit) means they own a percentage of the company. For each share they have, the more votes they get to cast on company decisions.

It'd have lots of irony if all the wealthy people decided to shut down their companies and all the people who were wealthy people haters lost their jobs. Then everyone would be like "Hey I guess the wealthy really did supply the majority of the jobs."

[chrisawesome]

I have to say again, Cicero is right! If all of Americas employers, wealthy Americans, were to be taxed more, they loose thier interest in owning a business. Businesses are not started primarily to fund charities or fund lazy bottom feeding democrats who feed on the government financed funds. Businesses are started and run primarily for one reason, TO MAKE A PROFIT.

1. Take that profit away from the business, the CEO invests more of their own money.
2. Take away extra money that the CEO has, they will loose interest in their business and before you know it, it is sold to much stronger foreign franchise companies. The company moves overseas and before you know it layoffs begin, all thanks to who, Liberals ! ! !

The same thing happend to the company my dad worked for. More and more jobs were sent overseas. He immediately took out all of his stock and quit. He then started his own company. And guess what, for the past 5 years, my dad's company's stock has been much higer than the old company he worked for, which employs about 55% foreigners

Every one of my posts may sound like they have the same platform. Thats because IM TRYING TO STRESS THE TRUTH.

You stupid ass Liberals dont know a damn thing about business. You try and tax business owners because you think "They dont deserve all of their money" because you think "They dont need that much money..." You dont understand the idea of free-enterprise do you? You are hurting American business which employs about 2/3 of the middle class. Before you know it, That 2/3 will become part of the lower class, uh that means the unemployed!!!!

God Bless America and God bless my 1st amendment right of freedom of speech. So here it is... %+$< Y O U L A Z Y A S S
L I B E R A L S, but you do have smart same sex marraige and gun laws though !

[Cicero]

I have to say again, Cicero is right! If all of Americas employers, wealthy Americans, were to be taxed more, they loose thier interest in owning a business. Businesses are not started primarily to fund charities or fund lazy bottom feeding democrats who feed on the government financed funds. Businesses are started and run primarily for one reason, TO MAKE A PROFIT.

1. Take that profit away from the business, the CEO invests more of their own money.
2. Take away extra money that the CEO has, they will loose interest in their business and before you know it, it is sold to much stronger foreign franchise companies. The company moves overseas and before you know it layoffs begin, all thanks to who, Liberals ! ! !

The same thing happend to the company my dad worked for. More and more jobs were sent overseas. He immediately took out all of his stock and quit. He then started his own company. And guess what, for the past 5 years, my dad's company's stock has been much higer than the old company he worked for, which employs about 55% foreigners

Every one of my posts may sound like they have the same platform. Thats because IM TRYING TO STRESS THE TRUTH.

You stupid ass Liberals dont know a damn thing about business. You try and tax business owners because you think "They dont deserve all of their money" because you think "They dont need that much money..." You dont understand the idea of free-enterprise do you? You are hurting American business which employs about 2/3 of the middle class. Before you know it, That 2/3 will become part of the lower class, uh that means the unemployed!!!!

God Bless America and God bless my 1st amendment right of freedom of speech. So here it is... F U C K Y O U L A Z Y A S S
L I B E R A L S, but you do have smart same sex marraige and gun laws though !
Once again your right, people think they don't need that much money. But they won't know how much the rich do until they all move to other country's.

[chrisawesome]

That's blatantly untrue. Writing off an extra home, taking a loss one year for tax purposes, or putting a few million dollars in a bank in the Caymans is not an action a middle-class family can take. PROVE IT. I have asked you to prove that wealthy individuals and families are job creators, and you have not. That MIGHT be accurate, if wealthy people personally employed those people. They do not. They employ these people through any companies they may happen to control, and firing people in response to a high income tax is a poor income tax decision.

No they damn well do not, because as I have said, they do not personally employ all these people you're referencing.

Actually, they're not doing that. (http://www.latimes.com/news/world/worldnow/la-fg-wn-french-court-tax-rich-20121229,0,7376806.story)

So back in the 40s, when the highest income bracket had a marginal rate of 90% and an effective rate of 40-50%, where did all the wealthy individuals go? Oh, that's right. They stayed here.
You are incorrect. You'll notice that the executives (the people making lots of money) are STILL HERE. They moved construction to China because China is a shithole with no protection for its workers that allows employers to pay whatever obscenely low wage they can find someone to work for, and that's cheaper. In short, they left the US because WE HAVE A STRONGER ECONOMY.
Prove it. I don't think he has, but even if he has, do you honestly think the person being affected by Obama's desired higher taxes on the wealthy is going to be pro-Obama? Prove it.

I'm going to quote my business hero's famous two words,

" Y O U R F I R E D"

[Cicero]

I'm going to quote my business hero's famous two words,

" Y O U RF I R E D"

Steve Jobs is mine :P

You should see the documentary on Steve Jobs on CSNBC. He was pretty cruel when it came to business. Cut throat, exactly how I want to be when I'm in business :P

[chrisawesome]

Steve Jobs is mine :P

You should see the documentary on Steve Jobs on CSNBC. He was pretty cruel when it came to business. Cut throat, exactly how I want to be when I'm in business :P

Yep, somebody put in perspective that Bill Gates was some sort of god, because he is kind of charitable. Huh, they must not know that he did pirate off of Apple Corp. Steve Jobs= beakon in innovation
Donald Trump= god of real estate
Conrad Hilton= genious in hospitality industry
My great grandfather= succesful but gererous banker of the great depression
Tilman Fertitta of Landry's Inc.= another one of my hospitality/real estate heros

Both of them are aso cut throat, but business is not to make friends, its to make money and provide jobs, products, and services to others.

[chrisawesome]

How Bill Gates made his fortune was by following the free enterprise system if you have a better idea it's going to force other's out of the market share. but this is not what i'm talking about. What I found offensive was your original post how buisness was there only to make profits for for themselves and their investors and not to create jobs or have any obligation to the community that supports that buisness.

Dont you know Bill Gates pirated technology from Apple. You dont have much knowledge nor education in business do you?

[Cicero]

How Bill Gates made his fortune was by following the free enterprise system if you have a better idea it's going to force other's out of the market share. but this is not what i'm talking about. What I found offensive was your original post how buisness was there only to make profits for for themselves and their investors and not to create jobs or have any obligation to the community that supports that buisness.

Dont you know Bill Gates pirated technology from Apple. You dont have much knowledge nor education in business do you?

Who are you talking to ? :P

[chrisawesome]

Who are you talking to ? :P

I'm adding new threads becasue I dont want 1 of them to add up like a shopping spree reciept.

Sorry, the top part was copied and pasted from another persons post. The bottom part was me talking, or making a smart comment

[ImAJock]

the wealthy owe the poor nothing! most wealthy people worked hard to get to where theyre at. most poor people are poor cause theyre lazy. wealthy people should donate money and that type of thing though

[SarahSB]

I hate how we scream "share you rich people!" You know at least half or maybe a quarter of those who are screaming, wouldn't share if they were as rich as the ones they're screaming at.

Why do they owe us? It's nice to share, it'd be nice if they "helped" us poorer folk, but we are not entitled to their money. Granted half of it is old money and they were born into it. Granted we see Kim Kardashian resting on a beach, and we're wondering how that, doing nothing, earned her a bunch of money. Granted we're tired of hearing how some/most celebs and rich people have like 2 or 3 homes while we fret over our one. Perhaps that's why we scream share, we feel they're undeserving of it? But then if that's it, who are we to decide that?
But that money is not ours. Some still managed to get rich through hard work. I just don't understand.

This girl has a point, nobody is entitled to anything they havent earned or worked for.

[ProudConservative]

Simply put, no, they don't. It's their money, they can spend it how they want.

[ash1520]

Ok I know when to cut my losses since the majority of you are much smarter than I and know everything but i did want to know what a real buisnessman would think about what was in this post so i copied and pasted the thread and sent it to him in an email yesterday. I received an email back this afternoon and i'm pasting it in my post here. I don't want any feedback as i'm pretty sure what you guys think already. I joined this site thinking it might be fun an educational but instead on my first day i post my opinions and i get beatup and when you dissagree with me you don't hestiate to give me negative points for expressing my 1st ammendment rights as a few of you have pointed out is so cherrished. I read one post where a person diisagreed with someone and he called her a communist where was her 1st ammandment rights. Well this is my last post here


My Granddaughter emailed me several pages to read and asked my opinion so I took some time this morning to read through what appears to be a post from an Internet site regarding the responsibility wealthier American have to the middle class. My understanding is that these were all written by young people in their mid to late teens as it was suppose to be a site strictly for teens.

Being a business man myself for over 40 years I was eager to see what our young people thought about this subject since it seems to be at the heart of so many at this critical time where so many Americans are facing an uncertain future.

As I read, It became apparent that the views I see on these pages mirror those of many adults in America today which were undoubtedly where they originated from. I am a little sadden by this fact because as the next generation you are the future. To repeat the mistakes made over the last couple decades into the next generation would surly be a mistake of global consequence.

As of the many different views I have read on this topic, "Responsibility the Wealthy Have" there seems to be a lot of misinformation on this post. I will not go into any in detail, but suffice to say I didn’t find any to be truly accurate. There are bits and pieces of truisms in every post but seems like everyone has missed the big picture. I will talk on one remark that stood out among all others which was the reasons for creating a business. There is no one single answer to this. While it is true a business has to show a profit and make money, financial gain is seldom the main reason. There are easier ways to get rich. The risk of starting a new business which statistics show that 90% fail within the first 5 years makes a 9-5 job look pretty good. I started my business 30 years ago because I was an entrepreneur who saw a niche and filled it. I didn’t start it because I dreamed of being rich. I became rich because I was successful.

I would like to leave you with one thought and that is don’t always believe what everyone else believes in. It looks like a lot of you were just repeating what the other person said adding a word here and there to make it your own. Go out do some research and form your own opinions. You might be surprised at what you find.

[CharlieFinley]

Prove that the wealthy supply jobs. Really? Without the Walton family, 2.1 million people wouldn't have jobs. (http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_employees_does_Wal-Mart_have)

It's common knowledge that the wealthy employee the most, look at Apple, Casinos, Microsoft. Adelson is worth over $25 billion and employs thousands at his Sands casino. (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/a/sheldon_g_adelson/index.html) Those are companies. Those companies would continue to exist without their wealthy leaders. They would continue to exist if their owners were taxed 40% higher. The wealthy do not spend their own, personal money creating jobs.

Sure the wealthy people stayed during the 40s, but they probably had bank accounts in other countries. Another great loop hole I'm in support of (ie. Mitt Romney and the Cayman Islands) "But... but... it'll be different this time! Even though it totally wasn't last time!" -- You

Yeah, they moved the jobs to china so they can be taxed less and so they can save money PAYING THE EMPLOYEES. So apparently moving the factory jobs to China is incorrect. No, your incorrect.
Because China is an absolute shithole for the lower class that has weak currency compared to the US. The taxes aren't an issue, because their income is STILL earned in the US. They still pay income taxes IN THE US.


Mr. Jobs’s reply was unambiguous. “Those jobs aren’t coming back,” he said, according to another dinner guest. (http://www.politico.com/politico44/2012/01/obama-spars-with-steve-jobs-over-apple-outsourcing-111751.html) Thank you. It STILL has nothing to do with higher taxes on the wealthy.

You know nothing. It's common fucking sense that the wealthy citizens supply the most jobs. Who owns majority of Microsoft, Bill Gates, last time I checked he's worth $53 billion. Who owns the Sands Casino, Sheldon Adelson, who's worth $25 billion. Who owns Facebook, Mark Zuckerberg, last time I checked he was worth $8 billion. Who is the founder of Sony, Aiko Morito, who's worth $68 billion and employs of 21,000 people (http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/business/july-dec99/morita_10-4.html). As you may see, they're all insanely rich, and they employ thousands of people. That's my proof. Thought it was common sense, but guess not.Actually, Bill Gates does not own even close to the majority of Microsoft. Do your research.

You're equating "owning a company that creates jobs" with "creating jobs." You know what the problem with that is? I will make this a couple sizes larger so you can't fucking miss it. Becoming rich is a by-product of making a company that employs millions, not a cause. Not only do the wealthy not directly employ these people (companies they head do) but these companies would continue employing people if the wealthy were not involved. The wealthy are not required for this process; rather they become wealthy BY employing these people as part of their companies. Taxing the wealthy more would have no negative impact on the performance or employment of these companies, because, and this is the part you're not getting, rich people don't use their own fucking money to pay "their" employees. Bill Gates doesn't write a check from his bank account each month for the Microsoft employees.

Are the main shareholders of Sony middle class? No
Are the main shareholders of Apple middle class? No
Are the main shareholders of Vizio middle class? No
Are the main shareholders of Papa Johns Pizza middle class? No
A shareholder is the owner of shares in a company. Which (dumbed down a bit) means they own a percentage of the company. For each share they have, the more votes they get to cast on company decisions.

It'd have lots of irony if all the wealthy people decided to shut down their companies and all the people who were wealthy people haters lost their jobs. Then everyone would be like "Hey I guess the wealthy really did supply the majority of the jobs."
This travesty against reason and common sense that you're putting forth essentially amounts to "if we tax rich people, they'll retaliate by NO LONGER DOING THE THINGS THAT KEEP THEM RICH." It's dishonest, and it's foolish. In fact, it's downright idiotic.


This girl has a point, nobody is entitled to anything they havent earned or worked for.

Really? Well screw you. You're not entitled to anyone's respect. You're not entitled to free speech. You're not entitled to sovereignty over your own body. You're not entitled to anything you've not earned or worked for.

[Avenida105]

I believe partially in the gospel of wealth, the fact that the rich have a moral responsibility towards society, and they should use their money in a moral way. I'm more than happy when people donate enormous quantities towards libraries, universities, infrastructure, public spaces or students that is great and it should be encouraged, I just hate how the government has lost its grip on the money that is being donated and they give so much to people who don't need the money, I have heard stories of how some people usually use food stamps and how they manage to get money back from taxes, those are what I call the lower middle class and working class pigs, those who are offered a bite and take away a whole meal and harm other social groups that really need the money, instead of giving away so much in welfare it should be distributed towards education so those who are in a struggle can study and out do themselves so one day they won't have to need help, so one day they can become self sufficient.

[Cicero]

Those are companies. Those companies would continue to exist without their wealthy leaders. They would continue to exist if their owners were taxed 40% higher. The wealthy do not spend their own, personal money creating jobs.
"But... but... it'll be different this time! Even though it totally wasn't last time!" -- You
Because China is an absolute shithole for the lower class that has weak currency compared to the US. The taxes aren't an issue, because their income is STILL earned in the US. They still pay income taxes IN THE US.
Thank you. It STILL has nothing to do with higher taxes on the wealthy.
Actually, Bill Gates does not own even close to the majority of Microsoft. Do your research.

You're equating "owning a company that creates jobs" with "creating jobs." You know what the problem with that is? I will make this a couple sizes larger so you can't fucking miss it. Becoming rich is a by-product of making a company that employs millions, not a cause. Not only do the wealthy not directly employ these people (companies they head do) but these companies would continue employing people if the wealthy were not involved. The wealthy are not required for this process; rather they become wealthy BY employing these people as part of their companies. Taxing the wealthy more would have no negative impact on the performance or employment of these companies, because, and this is the part you're not getting, rich people don't use their own fucking money to pay "their" employees. Bill Gates doesn't write a check from his bank account each month for the Microsoft employees.

This travesty against reason and common sense that you're putting forth essentially amounts to "if we tax rich people, they'll retaliate by NO LONGER DOING THE THINGS THAT KEEP THEM RICH." It's dishonest, and it's foolish. In fact, it's downright idiotic.




Really? Well screw you. You're not entitled to anyone's respect. You're not entitled to free speech. You're not entitled to sovereignty over your own body. You're not entitled to anything you've not earned or worked for.

If Places like Wal mart lost all of their stock holders, Wal mart would be forced to shutdown. And wow, that's real mature saying "you're not entitled to anyone's respect. You're not entitled to free speech..."

Obviously you know nothing about business. Most wealthy people put their money they earn, in banks outside of the USA, typically in banks where that country has low tax rates. That way, they just use a debit card in the US and they can avoid getting taxed on it here.

Bill Gates owns the majority of Microsofts stock which is close to 441,000,000 shares. So your wrong and do your research. (http://finance.yahoo.com/q/mh?s=MSFT+Major+Holders) you obviously know nothing. I have done my research, and it just disproved your non existent research. I'm doing big letters too, cause obviously you need a little assistance yourself. Here's how a company works (when they go public) for every share that person has, they get one vote for every share they have. Those votes help to decide decisions within that business. If all the wealthy stockholders who own the majority were to suddenly sell their stock due to the economy and getting taxes a shit load. Then it would result in what happened in the depression (you probably didn't know this, but a leading cause of the depression was due to stockholders selling all their stock at once). So if people in those companies were to do that, that company would lose out on tons of money, and would be forced to shut down. You don't know how business works obviously, and it shows. The wealthy still provide the jobs. Because if the wealthy were to sell all their stock at once, the effects of the Great Depression would happen within that company.

I have addressed all of your errors and I will be shutting this thread, you obviously don't know anything about real world business and finances, and it's pointless talking to someone who can't even provide descent evidence like I have. You have idiotic arguments yourself, and that is a real jerk thing to say that that girl isn't "youre not entitled to free speech. You're not entitled to respect."
But hey, shows your maturity level if your saying that to someone.

[ImCoolBeans]

OP requested :locked: