Germany's rich ask to be taxed more

[Denny Crane]

Bill Gates and Warren Buffett sure are hoarding their wealth.

My bad, they're giving it all away (their choice).

Your bad, they're not giving it to the government - likely they don't trust it to use the money fruitfully.

Even your favorite, Ken Lay, donated huge sums to charity (like enough to build opera houses in Dallas).

Stanford University is the recipient of huge charitable grants. Like David Packard donating (literally) $billions. That'd be THE Packard of Hewlett-Packard.



Not only do these super rich guys give to charity, so do people Obama likes to target ($250K+).

 

[CelticKing]

There's a lot of corruption with the money that Gates and Buffett give, Denny. If they were to be taxed instead with a higher percentage, and then that money turned around to help the poor here rather than have it go to through charity organizations (which are all corrupted IMHO, half the time they don't know where they money went).

 

[yakbladder]

What was the point of your posting?

That unlike many of the American rich (or Chinese rich or Mexican rich, etc. etc.) at least some Germans seem to have some strong ideals about how much money they need to live and how it can best be used. I wasn't asking anybody here to give anything. That would make me a socialist fascist communist scum apparently...

 

[maxiep]

That unlike many of the American rich (or Chinese rich or Mexican rich, etc. etc.) at least some Germans seem to have some strong ideals about how much money they need to live and how it can best be used. I wasn't asking anybody here to give anything. That would make me a socialist fascist communist scum apparently...

And what several of us are saying is why don't you give more yourself before asking others to bear a greater burden?

 

[barfo]

And there is a major difference between you and me. I give my money without expecting others to do so to charities and causes I believe serve the common good. You only want to give money if everyone else has to. I would also wager my charities use their money more efficiently than does the Federal Government.

I would also wager that government and charities serve different purposes. I haven't noticed charities invading Iraq or sending up space probes or building bridges.

barfo

 

[yakbladder]

And what several of us are saying is why don't you give more yourself before asking others to bear a greater burden?

And what if I do give more? Then what?

 

[maxiep]

I would also wager that government and charities serve different purposes. I haven't noticed charities invading Iraq or sending up space probes or building bridges.

barfo

And some of those things I'm willing to pay for. "Provide for the common defence" is in the Consitution. Plenty of private companies send things into space. Infrastructure should be funded with tolls. There are all sorts of things we can choose that are better done collectively. Paying for someone else's health insurance or prescriptions because they don't want to sacrifice their standard of living isn't one of them.

What I don't think we should pay for are programs that reward bad behavior. If you wish to continue to punish the achievers in this society, you will eventually create a situation where there is no one left to tax.

Incentives matter.

 

[blazerboy30]

That unlike many of the American rich (or Chinese rich or Mexican rich, etc. etc.) at least some Germans seem to have some strong ideals about how much money they need to live and how it can best be used. I wasn't asking anybody here to give anything. That would make me a socialist fascist communist scum apparently...

Well you did a terrible job proving your point. Because I don't see any evidence showing that the American rich don't give a lot of money away. Just because the American rich aren't asking to be taxed more doesn't mean they don't give a lot to those that need it.

You are making quite a leap in logic there.

 

[maxiep]

Well you did a terrible job proving your point. Because I don't see any evidence showing that the American rich don't give a lot of money away. Just because the American rich aren't asking to be taxed more doesn't mean they don't give a lot to those that need it.

You are making quite a leap in logic there.

But giving money to charity is illegitmate, according to Yakbladder. Only money that the government takes is considered to be right and fair. He just wants those who makes more than he does to pay for all of his programs.

 

[yakbladder]

But giving money to charity is illegitmate, according to Yakbladder. Only money that the government takes is considered to be right and fair. He just wants those who makes more than he does to pay for all of his programs.

And why is it that you want to see people beaten to death in the streets for being poor?

You never answered my original question, so what if I give more money?

 

[maxiep]

And why is it that you want to see people beaten to death in the streets for being poor?

Ironically, your "compassion" is what's keeping the poor in their current state.

You never answered my original question, so what if I give more money?

If you write a bigger check to the government, you at least wouldn't be a hypocrite. Be the change you wish to see. If you want higher taxes, pay more money. They won't stop you.

 

[yakbladder]

Ironically, your "compassion" is what's keeping the poor in their current state.

My compassion for wanting them to have health care? Yes, I can see now how denying someone care that doesn't bankrupt them for lung cancer will make them rich beyond their wildest dreams, but only if they are selling the morphine they get for the pain.

 

[maxiep]

My compassion for wanting them to have health care? Yes, I can see now how denying someone care that doesn't bankrupt them for lung cancer will make them rich beyond their wildest dreams, but only if they are selling the morphine they get for the pain.

When you give people things they can earn themselves you only enslave them. It's a simple lesson, but one an entire side of the political spectrum has yet to learn.

So, are you going to be a hypocrite or are you going to voluntarily pay more in taxes?

 

[bluefrog]

When you give people things they can earn themselves you only enslave them. It's a simple lesson, but one an entire side of the political spectrum has yet to learn.

So, aren't you enslaving people when you donate to charity?

 

[maxiep]

So, aren't you enslaving people when you donate to charity?

I give to Habitat for Humanity. A hand up, not a hand out.

I know you were just giving me a little grief, but let's be clear: I'm fully in favor of a social safety net. The difference is that I want it to be a bare minimum--food, clothing, shelter--and I want people to work for any welfare they receive. That may mean cleaning gov't offices, planting trees, cleaning streets, etc. There's a dignity in work that too many people never realize.

 

[bluefrog]

I give to Habitat for Humanity. A hand up, not a hand out.

Yeah, I was bustin your balls a little.

Habitat for Humanity is a great organization. I've done a lot of volunteering with them and seen the good they. H4H revitalized a whole neighborhood in my hometown. It was arguably the worst part of town and H4H completely turned it around with a few houses and a thrift shop. The next year people were buying land and building houses in the area for the first time in a generation.

I'm fully in favor of a social safety net. The difference is that I want it to be a bare minimum--food, clothing, shelter--and I want people to work for any welfare they receive. That may mean cleaning gov't offices, planting trees, cleaning streets, etc. There's a dignity in work that too many people never realize.

I agree, but I would add health care and education to that list.

It's too bad that we as a society look down on manual labor jobs. My teachers often said "If you don't study, you'll end up as a janitor or working at McDonald's." The dignity of work has definitely been lost on my generation.

 

[yakbladder]

I give to Habitat for Humanity. A hand up, not a hand out.

I know you were just giving me a little grieg, but let's be clear: I'm fully in favor of a social safety net. The difference is that I want it to be a bare minimum--food, clothing, shelter--and I want people to work for any welfare they receive. That may mean cleaning gov't offices, planting trees, cleaning streets, etc. There's a dignity in work that too many people never realize.

Why is it so hard for you to add health care to food, clothing, shelter? Something that doesn't break them financially for the rest of their lives?

And what about disabled people. Not hey I'm a little slow but hey I'm physically unable to do anything...?

 

[yakbladder]

When you give people things they can earn themselves you only enslave them. It's a simple lesson, but one an entire side of the political spectrum has yet to learn.

You honestly believe that everyone can earn affordorable health insurance and that those that can't won't be hit with a major health-related financial blow? Interesting..and delusional.

So, are you going to be a hypocrite or are you going to voluntarily pay more in taxes?

I already pay voluntarily more in taxes through govt. programs that I give extra money to.

Again, I'll ask you the same question I ask all the other opposed to these measures - so how do I go about getting back, say, 50% of the money I put into the defense dept? Because I certainly don't think we need all of that.

 

[maxiep]

Why is it so hard for you to add health care to food, clothing, shelter? Something that doesn't break them financially for the rest of their lives?

And what about disabled people. Not hey I'm a little slow but hey I'm physically unable to do anything...?

If someone gets sick, and they truly need help, I have no problem paying for it. I wrote a paragraph, not a policy prescription. The problem is that government assistance is like heroin; you get a little taste and you lie, cheat and steal to get more.

There are so many people who receive government assistance that shouldn't it's a tragedy. We have raised successive generations of people addicted to it, and we've crippled them. They don't believe they can succeed on their own. They believe they're owed something. They don't understand how gratifying an honest day's work can be. Worse yet, there is an entire party dedicated to continuing to enable this behavior, because it's their most reliable voting bloc.

I invite you to read "Rosa Lee" by Leon Dash. His policy prescriptions are off, but it describes the plight of the welfare class better than any book I've ever read.

As for disabled people, you'd be surprised what they can do. There are all sorts of government work we could give them that wouldn't be physically taxing. Answering phones, for example.

People aren't built to sit around and do nothing. Why do you think drug addiction, alcoholism and obesity are more prevalent in the welfare class than any other? They're anestheticizing themselves to fill the day. Tie work to welfare and you've gone a long way to making life better for a group of people being used for political ends.

 

[yakbladder]

If someone gets sick, and they truly need help, I have no problem paying for it. I wrote a paragraph, not a policy prescription. The problem is that government assistance is like heroin; you get a little taste and you lie, cheat and steal to get more.

There are so many people who receive government assistance that shouldn't it's a tragedy. We have raised successive generations of people addicted to it, and we've crippled them. They don't believe they can succeed on their own. They believe they're owed something. They don't understand how gratifying an honest day's work can be. Worse yet, there is an entire party dedicated to continuing to enable this behavior, because it's their most reliable voting bloc.

I don't disagree that there are some people who are addicted to government handouts. I don't, however, think it's quite as prevalent a picture as you make it out to be. I find that too often people go, something to the effect of, "Well, there's going to be 4% fraud / waste, so let's just eliminate the whole thing before all those scammers cheat the system!". It's the old measurement of what is the worst effect your decision could have - on one hand you have some cheats, some people who are not motivated to succeed, etc. on the other hand you have people starving and dying in the streets and you've reverted back to medieval Europe.

I think there is room for reform in welfare. I just disagree strongly that it has anything at all to do with health care. You can't feed off of health care to sustain yourself unless you start faking illnesses 24/7 for the rest of your life. And I'm sure either the doctors can spot that or those people can enlist in the free mental care and be discharged. You will always have SOME fraud/waste..public or private.

BTW, I receive unemployment, aka government assistance. I don't recall the last time I've lied, stolen, or cheated to get more. In fact, I hate being on it. Maybe I'm the exception that proves the rule, maybe I just need more hits?

 

[barfo]

BTW, I receive unemployment, aka government assistance. I don't recall the last time I've lied, stolen, or cheated to get more.

Government handouts have destroyed your memory.

barfo

 

[barfo]

People aren't built to sit around and do nothing.

You assume that everyone is like you. They aren't.

I, for one, am built to sit around and do nothing. I've never had the opportunity, but I am confident I'd be quite good at it if I had the chance.

barfo

 

[maxiep]

You assume that everyone is like you. They aren't.

I, for one, am built to sit around and do nothing. I've never had the opportunity, but I am confident I'd be quite good at it if I had the chance.

barfo

Don't kid yourself; your opportunity began January 20, 2009.

 

[barfo]

Don't kid yourself; your opportunity began January 20, 2009.

Are you saying that Obama has created a huge welfare state? Or that now that we've got a democrat in the white house I no longer need to put forth effort politically? Both, I think, are false.

barfo

 

[Denny Crane]

With taxes the way they are...

USA population 300M, maybe 310M

USA workforce 120M minus the jobs Obama's policies have cost us

Makes 180M people WHO DON'T WORK AT ALL.

They can't all be disabled and children.

 

[barfo]

With taxes the way they are...

USA population 300M, maybe 310M

USA workforce 120M minus the jobs Obama's policies have cost us

Makes 180M people WHO DON'T WORK AT ALL.

They can't all be disabled and children.

And elderly. You forgot the old farts.
And stay-at-home moms. With the population 99% conservative as you suggest, there must be a lot of those.
And then there are those who work but don't pay taxes and so they aren't counted as employed.

barfo

 

[Denny Crane]

And elderly. You forgot the old farts.
And stay-at-home moms. With the population 99% conservative as you suggest, there must be a lot of those.
And then there are those who work but don't pay taxes and so they aren't counted as employed.

barfo

They're counted as employed.

The point being that 120M pay the way of those 180M. We're quite charitable to our own, as well as the rest of the world (see foreign aid budget).

 

[barfo]

They're counted as employed.

Which are counted as employed? The elderly, the stay-at-home moms, or the cash-economy workers?

barfo

 

[Denny Crane]

Which are counted as employed? The elderly, the stay-at-home moms, or the cash-economy workers?

barfo

Cash economy workers.

In 1900, 95% of the people worked (in agriculture). Elderly and young included.

In 2090, 95% of the people will work gathering "green" energy.

 

[barfo]

Cash economy workers.

In 1900, 95% of the people worked (in agriculture). Elderly and young included.

In 2090, 95% of the people will work gathering "green" energy.

So, you are pining for the good old days of 1900?

barfo