[QUOTE=N-12_Aden;38616438]That has to be a parody or something[/QUOTE]
Why?
[QUOTE=Stopper;38616449]Why?[/QUOTE]
Because that was one of the most naively unrealistic things I have ever read.
[QUOTE=N-12_Aden;38616465]Because that was one of the most naively unrealistic things I have ever read.[/QUOTE]
Doesn't make it any less right.
[QUOTE=Camundongo;38606722]Money is useless to the dead, put it to good use before you die.[/QUOTE]
So basically buy a large lake and fill it with Jell-O and then drown yourself in it
[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;38616520]So basically buy a large lake and fill it with Jell-O and then drown yourself in it[/QUOTE]
I'd pay to watch that.
Why is he not in charge of that shit, get on it obama
but those rich people need all that money that they will never spend!!
I'd be more impressed if he actually paid the taxes he owes now...
[QUOTE=H8Entitlement;38618159]I'd be more impressed if he actually paid the taxes he owes now...[/QUOTE]He does, but I'm sure you know that.
[QUOTE=Strider*;38605737]Perhaps noble.
Easy for him to urge for higher taxes though, why wasn't he advocating them when he was just a start-up investor?[/QUOTE]
maybe he did and no one reported it because he wasnt in any way noteworthy back then
[QUOTE=Doctor Zedacon;38618482]He does, but I'm sure you know that.[/QUOTE]
Just a few articles that seem to disagree with you....
[url]http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=ca9_1331338051[/url]
[url]http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/08/29/warren-buffett-taxes-berkshire-hathaway_n_941099.html[/url]
If one was so inclined theres plenty more info out there (will admit these sources arent the greatest but a bit busy atm)
[QUOTE=ironman17;38616353]Plutocracy is a horrible thing, and what's worse is that we've been spiritually-emaciated by a culture of pleasure, apathy, procrastination and an overall lack of balls. This might sounds violent and horrible, but if more people were violently upset by the current plutocratic situation, there'd probably be some actual conflicts going on with the aim of smashing rich hoarders in the guts with baseball bats.
On the flipside, we need mandatory transparency about finances, so we can actually know what the rich are using their big monies on, because at the moment we are in the dark about what the big wigs are doing with humanity's tax money. They should just tell us "we are building a fleet of nuclear subs with which to war against Russian and China" or "we have been funding a secret genetics project with which to combat rampant population growth" or "I can only eat private yachts, ok?! Why are you laughing; it's a serious dietary problem! *single greasy tear*"; at least that way we know what the hell they are doing with the people's money and judge them appropriately.
On a less violent and communist note, having the tax hike on folks that have +$500k salaries is probably a fair strategy for taxing the rich; the multi-millionaires have their tolls to pay, whilst the "lower-income rich" get a reprieve from the higher taxes, before the ceiling of raised taxes lowers to boost their taxes as well.
Actually, considering we're in an economic crisis, and that the poor are making personal cuts just to survive, if the rich have a surplus of money, they should consider spending more so that all those dollars, pounds, roubles, yen, euros, etc, re-enter circulation and restimulate the economy. Also, the UN should drop the war on terror and begin a new "war"; the "war" on plutocracy, taking action against fat cats who hoard their monies in offshore bank accounts. If we cracked down on money-laundering schemes like we cracked down on those supposed terrorist organisations in the Middle East, we'd hopefully have arrests of the thieving dragons who dared to hoard the people's money (not just the people's money, but the nation's money) in those glistering Alpine caverns, and all that stolen gold is returned to the nations from whom they were stolen.
That'd be the plan, but in all actuality we'd probably need an internationally-funded military organisation like UNATCO or XCOM (not the best examples but whatever), dedicated to hunting down money launderers (we're coming for you Switzerland), paedophile rings (watch out Vatican City), massive hate crime (Uganda would piss itself), and other such degeneracies that plague humanity (including terrorist cells because hey why not). If anything, it would work well as a pitch for a surprisingly-dark tongue-in-cheek version of G.I. Joe to be aired on [adult-swim].
In short, do the rich really NEED all that money unless they have expensive [B]needs[/B] rather than expensive wants? If they can metabolise the same foods as us, get entertainment from the same sources as us, and wipe their asses with the same toilet paper as us, why do they think they need all this expensive stuff? It's not like their behinds can only bear the velvet touch of a 50 dollar bill, or that they can only metabolise liquid gold, or that they can only get it up if they have a lapdance from an altar boy; they're still human so they should lower their standards a little. Instead of stuffing your face in a bucket of crabs every week, why not get a bucket of fried chicken? Instead of a glass of champers after work, why not enjoy a glass of lemonade with a splash of spirits? Instead of maintaining a harem of gorgeous Filipino boys, why not keep a hooker full-time as a "concubine on a salary", or even simply get a girlfriend/boyfriend? Ok, I lied about this being "in short", but my point still stands; the rich could stand to lower their standards and not treat luxuries as a regular thing, thus lowering their need for money and extravagant things, and making them more "inclined" towards lowering their salary.
Having a nice thing every now and then makes the experience all the more satisfying, and making one's pleasures routine ruins their "magical" quality; being on a chocolate bar a day is kind of bleh, but if you only have it every now and then, like a personal treat at the end of the week, it tastes all the sweeter, not to mention you feel better about things that you've put a lot of effort into, like how I'd feel indifferent to any old footstool, yet I feel somewhat attached to my own blue footstool that I "crafted" myself back in 2007-9 (it was some time back then, and I made it myself as part of design technology at Drapers). The more effort you put into getting something, the more appreciation you have for it, like spending so many hours harvesting Sandstone and Gold in Minecraft to painstakingly recreate the Great Pyramid of Giza as opposed to going into Creative Mode and just selecting Sandstone and Gold Blocks from the Creative Inventory.
Long story short, rich people don't need all these expensive things all the time; sure they can have it once in a while, but otherwise they could afford to become a bit more humble and less eager to hoard and squander vast piles of gold.
Unless it's for furthering science. Then it's ok in my books.[/QUOTE]
I like how you reference video games and generalize science.
[QUOTE=H8Entitlement;38624390]Just a few articles that seem to disagree with you....
[url]http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=ca9_1331338051[/url]
[url]http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/08/29/warren-buffett-taxes-berkshire-hathaway_n_941099.html[/url]
If one was so inclined theres plenty more info out there (will admit these sources arent the greatest but a bit busy atm)[/QUOTE]
Not the greatest? Calling those bullshit would be an affront to shit everywhere. They're like the written form of guzzling chimp semen.
One has no source beyond Americans for Limited Government, [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Americans_for_Limited_Government#Controversies"]an organization which demonstrably lies whenever it suits them[/URL], deciding to read between the lines about BH being audited and making a tax appeal, deciding that[URL="http://www.berkshirehathaway.com/2010ar/2010ar.pdf"] recognition of potential tax liabilities[/URL] ([URL="http://www.fasb.org/summary/finsum48.shtml"]something that is mandatory for you to do to be a publicly owned business in this country[/URL]) means they actually owe that amount.
The other is misconstruing a business model dispute. What NetJets is considered to be doing as a fractional ownership model changes how they're taxed, they claim they're one thing, the government claims they're another, it's currently unclear who's correct and legislation is current in the air that might change the rules anyway.
There's plenty more... whatever the fuck that is out there I'm sure, but spare us, please.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
