Hey! Serfs! Don't get mad, but this is a great time and place in which to be rich!!

And whatever you do, don't take to the streets. Trust your elected leaders to look out for your best interests. And keep working hard and playing the lottery. You, too, can be one of the Ultra-HNWIs. Honest. The door opens for all who deserve it.

http://finance.yahoo.com/family-home/article/110113/how-the-rich-are-winning?mod=family-love_money&sec=topStories&pos=4&asset=&ccode=

How The Rich Are Winning
by Brett Arends
Tuesday, July 20, 2010

<edit>

And who pays the top rate anyway?

Right now it only kicks in on each dollar of ordinary income over $374,000 a year. A recent study by the Congressional Budget Office found that the top 1% of Americans paid an average federal income tax rate of just 19% in 2007, the last year when data were available. The top 5% of earners paid an average rate of less than 18%. There are ways and means to minimize tax -- like calling your income "capital gains." That's what private equity honchos do, where possible. In many cases, it means people making tens of millions a year are paying lower tax rates than their chauffeurs and receptionists. (There are proposals to change that, with predictable screaming).

<edit>

The truth is, this is a great time and place in which to be rich. The average Fortune 500 chief executive pocketed $10.5 million in 2008, the last year for which data are yet available. That's more than 300 times the average worker's pay. Back in the Dark Ages -- the 1940s through 1980 -- the ratio was typically about 40 times. From 1979 through 2007, says the CBO, the top 1% saw their average household income skyrocket from $346,000 to $1.3 million in constant, 2007 dollars. That's after taxes. Meanwhile the average middle-class family saw their income rise from $44,000 to $55,000.

And according to an analysis by the Central Intelligence Agency, the U.S. has one of the most unequal income distributions in the world. In this field, most of the developed world is pretty much in line -- Japan, Italy, Australia, Canada, Norway, Great Britain. Some are more unequal than others, but all are comparable. In each case, of course, the rich make more than the middle class, sometimes a lot more. But they generally occupy the same economy.

The U.S.? Our income distribution is more in line with Zimbabwe, Argentina, and El Salvador. We think of Russia as the land of oligarchs, but America's inequality is actually slightly greater than Russia's.

"Pay no attention to our Zimbabwe-like wealth distribution. It's just a byproduct of the freest, most just and honest country in the world!"

:rofl:

Not a condemnation of the sentiment in the OP, BUT wealth exists. The difference between being taxed on ordinary income and capital gains lies in getting taxed on the portion of your profit that you USE. Presumably you USE all of your ordinary income, while you leave capital investments in the market where they help drive economy, provide jobs, underwrite pensions and retirement planning, etc. If you consistently tax investments at the same rate as ordinary income you will consistently reduce investment capital and anyone willing to take a risk on new business - it's that simple.

Net effective tax rate is a funny critter - if you have a large portion of your income in the form of capital investments and you are taxed capital gains on the profit of those investments, presumably the lower rate against the larger income PLUS your ordinary income taxes gives you a "net" tax rate that appears lower than somebody being taxed on ordinary income alone.

It's misleading or at best misinforming to say that "wealthy" people pay lower tax rates than poor people without clarifying how that might be, or invoking some bogeyman uber-plot to harvest "the poor".

:nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity:

It ain't no plot, it's just capitalism.

There are alternatives for those who would rather not be harvested and turned into crackers and foie gras. Personally I like my peasants deep fried on a stick, with a dab of grey poupon. Pardon me, do you have any?

:P

Shall I pencil you in for an 8PM serve time?

but as long as we're having dinner I'd like to supersize my order please. Mmmmm. Villagers. Chewy on the outside, crunchy in the middle.

;)

We give big business all kinds of subsidies and protections they would never have under real capitalism. We make it a crime for individuals to question business or interfere with their profit making ability.

If not for corporate welfare a lot of businesses (liek Halliburton) would be bankrupt. How do you like paying your tax dollars to Dick Cheney, so that his employees can rape and murder?

I think your post provides an object lesson in why many unrecers stay anon--unless your intention was to set up a straw dog that the rest of us could knock down. If so, keep up the good work.

So in otherwords, without capital, there can be no labor? Labor depends upon capital for efficiency (since it "drives it)"? Does capital therefore deserve primary emphasis and reward?

That was your conclusion. Capital drives expansion in manufacturing and sales, underwrites debt and allows companies to make payroll.

Among other things. The point being that individuals who leave money in the market, presumably in public companies, keep those companies in business for a lot of complicated reasons. The profit they make from use of that money is treated differently if the use of that money is reinvestment.

Sounds like you probably know that though.

Pretty much. :)

We live in a alien, fucked system, in my honest opinion. Glorifying capital can only safely be done if you are in the capitalistic context, accepting the premise that the system creates an aggregate benefit for man in the first place.

But capital is merely a representation of the net wealth/value created through labor during production, which could never have existed without that initial labor. It was not necessary to drive the manufacturing that initially took place before it existed, and doesn't have to be a necessity going forward. To argue for its continual emphasis is very much to argue for the continual existence of capitalism itself. And if we are in a different room to begin with, any appeals to treating returns on capital investment will fall upon deaf ears.

of our economic system.

Still I wonder. I am a lukewarm socialist democrat or whatever the appropriate label is. I believe in strong government oversight of shared and nonrenewable resources, commercial travel, and the government administering to the public health, welfare, and security of its people. I do not believe in controlling manufacturing orders or the more arcane side of socialist economics.

If the average anti-"the rich" joe had their needs taken care of in terms of healthcare, employment, retirement, access to resources, affordable travel, fair pay and labor practices, and public assistance in the event of ill fortune, I wonder if "the rich" would still be hated, just reflexively, and what that would imply about what our real motivations and values describe.

I'm not saying unfettered capitalism is the answer to anything. I hate privatization for the most part. I don't think we pay enough in taxes to underwrite the "greatness" of nation we believe ourselves to be, and that we spend far too much on foreign policy and military objectives in place of investing in ourselves.

I am saying that "the rich" are not the reason for the ills of the world and if "the rich" were gone tomorrow, those ills would still exist, and then we'd be faced with having to conduct some deeper introspection.

So you don't want a controlled economy and want to leave the private sector in charge of production of goods? Sure. Fine by me. But is capitalism the only way to have an uncentralized economy? I don't think so at all.

I think a lot of these problems would be greatly controlled if you were to merge labor and capital, and have employee-owned private enterprise (which offers finite reward on capital by buying back ownership over a set schedule). In this scenario, you get the advantages of an unplanned economy, you can allow private investment (with finite ROI), and you have executives that eventually answer directly to the employees. Models to maximize profits, at the costs of the workers and long-term success, will fall to the wayside. Shareholders (workers) will be as concerned about their pay as they are about their retirement (secured by selling back ownership to the successful company they build).

Co-ops...I think they are something to shoot for. Something to mandate. But what do I know. Im know Utopian dreamer, and Im first to admit they aren't implemented on a grand scale. I realize they will not eliminate all the problems of capitalism too (though, they will work to equalize wealth and fight against disparity, factors that contribute to corporatism).

:thumbsup:

I understand the point about differences in tax treatment of ordinary income versus capital gains. But in a nice bit of tax code legerdemain, investment bankers and financial honchos, who derive their income from the money they invest on behalf of other people. That income is taxed at the lower capital gains rate rather than the income tax rate.

How does that not work out as anything except an über-plot to harvest "the poor"? And don't get me started on the earnings cap for social security withholding.

Wealth exists, but it's not the sole property of its holder; some of that must pay for the system that enables a person or entity to accumulate that wealth. There are a lot of unpaid-for externalities that allow for the accumulation of wealth, and basic fairness in the system demands that those who realize the greatest gains should pay the lion's share for those externalities.

in the case of the investment manager, their income is usually predicated on performance and some threshold that performance must exceed. The way to pay a fund manager is to qualify the manager and his "participating" management interests (i.e., the accountants, brokers, analysts, etc., and yes, sometimes "FOF" or "Friends of Family") as "Management Interest" and that income is specified typically as a Managing Partner entity or as the General Partner in a Limited Partnership.

The idea is that investing activities that pay a net dividend for the entire investment fund, over some level like 8 or 9% gets a marginally higher "capital gain" for the managing partner.

What that means is if you go from 2% to 2.5% of a multibillion dollar fund depending on performance, your income on 5 billion in profit is something like merely 100 million versus 125 million. Because that money is part of the value of the fund "realizing" it means taking it out of the fund or future seed investments. Remember some of the very evil corporations that participate in some of these funds are CalPers (California Pension Fund), TIAA_CREF, unions, retirement plans, environmental organizations, and yes some rich fat cats too.

What makes more money for the manager makes more money for everyone, BUT having explained the business underpinning, what REALLY happens?

Blocker and Pass through corporations - the Limited Partner (those investing entities, funds, retirement plans) all benefit right alongside individuals. Money is shipped to domestic, foreign AND offshore sub corporations, props up a valuation, satisfies a debt, is recovered in a balloon payment and is net zero coming out the other end but recharacterized from ordinary income (depending on treaty) to capital gains in terms of its associated tax burden, which means MORE MONEY distributed to CalPers, TIAA, and said fat cat.

It is symbiotic, maybe even parasitic, but it does impact performance and profitability for a much wider audience than those fat cats, and it is a core underpinning of how money flows in private equity and private investment. The numbers are mind boggling, but only because of scale. Do we hate superstars who take a fraction of a percent of a movie and end up being multi-millionaires? Rap artists? Artists of any kind? Why wouldn't we consider someone savvy in the art of finance to be an artist in kind?

I don't think there are easy clear cut answers. Some fat cats are bad, some fat cats are good, some profit arrives on the back of a good idea and being first to market, and other profit is earned on the backs of underpaid near-slavery level labor from foreign markets. The world is complicated and unfair and blanket judgments just don't fit in every case, and that's really my main insight.

I think we do our principles harm when we accuse a class of people of being evil just for existing, without addressing the real world underlying issues that are at fault.

It's that the income of fund managers (as just one example of inequities built into the system, and a fairly egregious one at that) got transformed into "capital gains" income rather than ordinary income solely to be treated at a lower tax rate. Considering the ruin visited upon our economic system by these very fellows, I haven't seen too many of them down at the unemployment office. They are paid vast sums of money, but when their tinkering with the economic system ruins millions of lives and disappears billions of dollars, they still get paid those vast sums of money.

Their compensation is clearly not tied to performance. Would they still go to work each day if their annual take home was a mere $100 million instead of $125 million? I'm inclined to think that yes, they would manage to haul themselves out of bed in the morning, even for such paltry consideration. Could an additional $25 million available to the government (several times over) make a difference in helping to ameliorate the damage these titans of finance visit on us? Oh yeah.

Hear! Hear!

LOL

I declare you to be an accountant and not a financial analyst.

LOL right back atcha.

Maybe if I can simplify: UNREALIZED revenue less expense is not taxable in a cash basis operation. Accrual basis - that's another story but even so it is indeed treated differently depending on when the accruals are actually reversed and other administrivia.

An investment has risk and expense. It is NOT the same thing as a loan. Not just bad people make investments. Sometime pension funds and charities and endowments invest and they all profit by the same difference in earnings characterization and they would all suffer from the same cathartic knee jerk mob rule "redistribution" rationale.

It IS a symbiotic relationship and to say otherwise is oddly a form of saying that corporations should have more rights than individuals, if you intend to make exceptions for "good" investors such as pension funds and endowments.

UNEARNED INVESTMENT GAINS?

Please explain the rationale for taxing EARNED wages at a HIGHER rate than UNEARNED investment gains.

If you "earned" the money from hourly labor to make those investments and you already presumably paid taxes on them how would you feel?

Earned implies "labored for", I'm guessing. I'm not trying to be a contrarian or change anyone's point of view. I'm just pointing out that the rest of the world sees things differently and that is the real problem, not the tax rate.

Why is this so hard for you to understand?

If I earned the money from hourly labor to make those investments and I already presumably paid taxes on them, I still would not have paid any taxes on the appreciation of my investment.

So what is the rationale for taxing my WAGE EARNINGS at a HIGHER rate than the rate used to tax the appreciation on my investments?

Please explain your rationale.

You can try to pin him down. You could ask the same question a dozen times, rephrase and elaborate it to your heart's content.

But you won't get a straight answer, just more rhetorical misidrection and trickery.

I hate to say it, but once these dishonest sophist types out themselves, their tactics seldom if ever change because they are so comforatble, easy to apply, and tailor-made for those who don't want to waste a lot of time thinking and creating arguments & hypotheses. That's HARD WORK. Spewing misdirection is much easier on the ol' brainpan for them.

Now that I've called attention to it, he may try to be civil and pretend to take the high ground. But when you whittle away all the non-sequiturs and bullshit rhetorical trickery you will find he has not answered your simple question at all, once again.

Watch and see...

you seem to think you are refereeing points in the discussion but you're basically demonstrating that you have no opinion or knowledge of your own. I have been civil and so have many people here, with you as the exception, so I have to ask you directly, who the fuck are you and why should ANYONE give a shit what you think?

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

about what? Do you even KNOW what the OP is about?

My guess is that you are too used to people kissing your ass all the time. Because of that, you are probably used to getting away with dishonesty and misdirection because no one will call you on it.

I do understand now so much better than when we started this.

You need to get back to the environment where you're THE BOSS and people are afraid to tell you when you're full of shit.

Not to worry, your underlings' agreeing with you are just because you're always right Right?

:rofl:

P.S. The OP was about the current increasing wealth maldistribution that is continuing even as the bottom falls out for the lowest 60-80% of people in this country.

Here's something to chew on - wealth redistributionists ONLY look at extremes. The biggest gap is actually people living below the poverty line to what is defined as the upper middle class, who incidentally are MORE against "wealth redistribution" than the uber rich, for complex reasons that your psych 101 coursework can't address.

Are you purposefully trying to be obtuse, or just continuing on as you have, misdirecting and plying sophistry.

Who are you to make a blanket statement about what "wealth redistributionists" look at? That's as obviously false and misleading as everything else you've been saying, on the rare occasions when you have actually tried to say something.

P.S. You're RW Talking Points are showing - "wealth redistributionists". Yeah, like that Communist Franklin Delanio Roosevelt! You despise him, don't you? You can admit it.

as I really pay zero attention to right wing commentators and conservatives having long ago decided that their tactics for arguing partial truths and conflating topics means they have nothing to say. Kind of like you.

So the only "wealth redistributionists" I'm referring to are the naive wishful ones I've met on DU. It's not going to happen, it can't happen, and there is nothing you can do about it. So if that is your solution to making the world a better place, you need to start looking for a solution that can work, and you don't seem to be addressing that.

As I said, you seem to be a partial truth person with a need to conflate and generalize and mischaracterize --- absolutely EVERYTHING I associate with conservative blowhards, and a waste of perfectly good heartbeats.

You must be getting desperate to steal my observation about you and flip it. Even if it were true about me, it in no way lessens the fact that my initial observation about you talking like a RW "blowhard" is true.

Next time, maybe you should just go with "I know you are but what am I?"

:rofl:

P.S. What can be done about it? Before 1980, it was called FDR's New Deal. Now that has been shredded, much to your benefit, I'm sure. I could ask you to respond to that which disproves your assertion that "nothing can be done about it", but given your previous responses, it seems unlikely that you would answer directly or honestly.

my point is what is qualitatively better about "work rendered" versus "investment risk"?

Notice how he doesn't answer your question, but, without actually saying anything, puts the onus back on you.

To mhatrw:

See? I told you he wouldn't answer your question in a straightforward manner. Instead he answered your question with another question.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

In order for me to respond to your argument, YOU WOULD HAVE HAD TO MAKE ONE.

But you didn't. You just sidestepped again and answered a question with a question.

Typical.

Keep going. You really are an amusing fellow. Curse at me some more. Really, please. I want you to. I am thoroughly enjoying this.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

When you answer my questions, I'll answer yours. Nice try at putting the onus on me.

failed again.

if you demanded an answer to an irrelevant or leading question on a conversation in which you were no part of initially, and didn't get the answer, I'm not sure I understand what it is that you think I owe you, nor do I care.

I'd lay it out again, as I did in the first post, or the one in which I presented you with numbered questions.

But what would be the point? You haven't answered and won't answer.

Please explain why you think earned income should be taxed at a HIGHER rate than unearned income.

and a good way to think about that. I think the answer is that if you took the middle road between a higher earned income rate and a lower invested income rate to create a middle rate taxed across the board (indexed to income of course), it would still be a tax increase on people who don't have investments, and that would hurt a lot of people.

Maybe a better solution is if you have investments that perform at less than 50% (or some percent) of your earned income, then you get the capital gains lower tax on your invested income.

If you are in a higher earnings bracket or you have investment income that exceeds your earned income, you get the blended (higher) rate applied to both.

That sounds like it would be more fair.

Come again?

Why not simply tax capital gains using the income tax rate and use the extra money generated to lower the national debt and hence the interest paid on this debt?

How will this hurt those without investments again?

they too will be taxed on those more fragile investments at the higher rate - see my other answer. There is a fair middle ground that nets more money for tax revenue without hurting lower income bracket investors.

Why should earned wages be taxed at a higher rate than unearned capital gains?

Why? Why do you support a tax rate preference for unearned investment gains over earned wages? What is your rationale for this?

you have it in your head that I'm the enemy or some other stupid shit.

That's your answer. You keep turning this around but you're not following your own illogic all the way through. I want what is fair for everyone, and you want what's fair only for you. That's your other answer, bred from impatience with your prodding.

Why do you ask leading questions? Why do you intentionally misinterpret my answers? Because YOU are the one with the agenda.

Stop twisting my words.

I am simply trying to understand your rationale for wanting to tax earned wages and a higher rate than unearned investment gains.

So far, I haven't heard it. What is it?

so your statement implies that everyone should be treated equally right? taxing earned wages at the same rate as "unearned" investment gains would mean that anyone who ISN'T wealthy but could normally stand to invest is discouraged from investing.

The answer is not a blanket rule. I'm not offering a rationale for YOUR phrase.

And I really do have a problem comparing "hard labor" to "investment risk" because my "earned wages" might just be hours worked at $200 or $300 dollars an hour for 2000 hours a year and next I imagine you'd like a maximum wage so that "earned wages" are more equitable with janitorial or construction wages.

You can't qualify "earned wages" as better than other kinds of wages, but investments require risk and people who have less to invest shouldn't have to pay capital gains taxes that are higher than their "earned wages" rates. I really don't understand what point you are driving at, so just go ahead and say what YOU think would be fair across the board, not just to one end of the board or the other.

Right?

And if so, "anyone who ISN'T wealthy but could normally stand to invest" would have a little more money to invest. Right?

I did not say anything about a maximum wage. Why are you putting words in my mouth. A can see a rationale fro higher tax rates on "windfall" wages from your point of view, but that's not my argument.

Earning money requires risk across the board. Furthermore, I never said capital gains should be taxed at a higher rate than earned income, but rather should simply be treated as such.

I wasn't making an argument. I was proposing something that would lead to more tax revenue from wealthier individuals who can invest and less tax revenue from lower income people who have more to risk by investing.

What exactly was so awful about that? I am on our side, you know, so get it out of your head that after a brazillion years on DU and a progressive and GLBT poster that I would suddenly fucking troll out and "out myself" and all the other mind blowing bullshit I've seen on this thread. Sorry if I sound cranky but I really am NOT the monster the villagers are looking for.

Would you like to try again?

about pension funds, charities, and endowments investing makes no sense to me. Tax-wise, all three examples would be treated differently than the individual's wealth being invested and taxed at whatever rate. Charitable organizations would not pay income taxes the same as individuals.

Since I have investments, I am relieved to know that I am not a bad person. And since I feel guilty when I make money in an investment and I have done nothing to deserve it, I would not stop investing even if the taxes on capital gains were higher. Nor would the others.

anyway, I'm not saying it's the way should be, just the way it is. Personally I prefer a lower capital gains tax and a higher ordinary income tax. If you make money on an investment and you feel guilty because you have "done nothing to deserve it" then I wonder if you feel guilty if you lose your investment and have done nothing to lose it.

You know not every investment makes money right? The point of 'doing something' with that money is that you risk losing it for any number of reasons beyond the mere wisdom of your choice. Not all reward comes from breaking your back in the fields, so why they guilt? It is what it is. If really feel guilty then why don't you take the ENTIRE profit and give it charity instead of grandiosely offering to pay 10 percent more as ordinary income tax?

What do you have against earning money by working for it?

I am not egalitarian or proletariat or whatever your question implies I should be in order to be a good person. What do YOU have against earning money by using your intellect?

I don't see that there is any difference. To say there is would be to say that laborers are more better than investors, or vice versa and both statements are morally absurd and wrong.

Right?

basically, if you don't make a significant portion of your income in the form of capital gains, then you pay a lower rate. If you do make a significant portion then your capital gains rate should be some average of the difference between the lower bracket capital gain and the higher bracket earned income rate. Simultaneously that higher bracket income should come down marginally in that case since the larger tax gain from a high net worth individual will come from the blended rate. It's fair to everyone and doesn't discourage investing for lower income individuals.

I think we're in the same ballpark.

Why? What is fair about that? Why are you trying to discourage hard work?

But before you answer that it's not all one or the other and that is my point you keep obtusely and intentionally avoiding.

I am NOT discouraging hard work. Read my answers again and try a less accusative tack.

You still have not provided any rationale for taxing earned wages at a higher rate than unearned investment gains.

Why do you prefer a higher tax rate for earned wages? Why not let me in on your rationale for this instead of always acting the victim, changing the subject or trying to turn the table on me?

Why do you prefer to keep putting words in my mouth? You are being passive aggressive. Have you stopped beating your wife? Why won't you tell me if you've stopped beating your wife? "Quit playing the victim" stuff it sister. I'm not playing victim I'm playing fed up.

I've repeated myself a dozen times and you keep pretending to be stupid, which is offensive at this point. I will say without playing verbal games that I am for raising taxes on the more affluent, and for encouraging investment from people who have more to risk without taking away what lesser profit-minus-fees they might earn in the form of a higher flat capital gains tax. Why is that so hard for you to digest?

Oh right, you're still playing games.

for taxing earned wages at a higher rate than unearned capital gains.

If you are talking about only earned wages over $200,000 or something like that, I can think of some good rationales for doing so. But you have yet to share your rationale. Why encourage investment at the expense of discouraging working for a living?

I am not for taxing earned wages at a higher rate than capital gains. But I explained that several times.

It's not a matter of the existance of wealth but how it is distributed.

And your explanation of how capital gains vs. income taxes work is not only off topic, but most people on DU already know how that works.

I remain an FDR Democrat, which means I believe in well-regulated capitalism for the same reason football games need rules and referees.

In fact, as I read your post again, looking for something to respond to, I realize how genuinely empty the reply was. Ignoring that wealth DISTRIBUTION is at issue, not the existance of wealth itself.

Disingenuous in the extreme. Try addressing your next reply to the point at hand, rather than engaging in in deceptive bait and switch tactics.

was pretty smarmy, actually.

YOUR point is about distribution of wealth which is juvenile, and most people on DU know that distribution of wealth arguments are cathartic but a dead end.

I prefer simpler terms than disingenuous: how about stupid. It's more to the point.

Try conversing in the form of "but have you considered", instead of posturing like a ninny, and if you have nothing to say then don't. If you truly believe my posts to be vapid then responding to vapor is kind of . . . .well, stupid.

:shrug:

Not only is it an opinion, but a ridiculous opinion at that. Almsot takes my breath away. Very Hannity of you. Yep, no difference in a society with the wealth distribution of Zimbabwe or the wealth distribution of Sweden.

I responded to nothing you said because your entire post was a pointless misidrection. You deserved no less than you got.

But, in fact, you did indirectly answer my first question. You are almost certainly one of the two categories I postulated in my initial post.

Thanks for outing yourself.

I explained my rationale. I didn't ask anyone to agree. I said why I unrecced. But you swung in like shit flinging monkey from the rafters and started spouting judgmental bullcrap all over instead of discussing.

*(Edited for civility, such as it is.) If you have a point that you can make without pejorative or some ad hominem I'll be happy to consider it honestly, and ratchet up the civility, but otherwise I'll sling shit back at you faster than you can blink.

The only person "outing" themselves is you. Everyone else has been civil, but you are being disruptive and not really contributing anything to the conversation.

Eat some sugar and play nice.

the difference in how capital gains vs. income taxes as being relevant to the topic of wealth distribution.

Better yet, explain WHY you would disregard the idea that wealth distribution is a relevant topic, and why you would reply with a nonsequitur to the OP, which is about wealth maldistribution in the first place.

When you reply with some substance, I will reply with substance. You have yet to do so, including your first post which, I remind you, was a complete nonsequitur, and a misidrection off the topic. Yeah, it bears repeating.

There. And yes, I get pissed when people try to misdirect instead of debating on topic. If you actually try to stay on point and on topic, I will respond in kind. I will also remain civil.

Please start with that. Elaborate that first post of yours, and explain yourself further.

lay down the crack pipe. I see you have NOBODY backing you up. Lone ranger, huh? Tom Paine against the world. Heroic Paladin and sole arbiter of debate. You deserve nothing more than mockery. You sound like a not very bright adolescent, and an angry one at that.

I actually feel genuine pity for you.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

but I'm glad you are such an expert on Hannity, because I will admit that I am not. You aren't capable of verbal "shatting" - the sheer lack of intellect in your responses, coupled with your repeated roffles is about as smart as a !!!1!

Your only speed in disruption - I've read some of your other posts and have concluded that you are a sad and very unhappy person, and moreover you don't really have an opinion on anything, almost without exception. You measure yourself by what you believe verbal combat to be - because negative attention by being disruptive and repeating assertions is easier than learning anything of substance about a topic or arguing on the merits of logic.

You really are a pathetic sad person.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

:silly:

:eyes:

Wipe your tears away, calm down and do some thinking.

You can come up with something new, can't you?

Keep going! We're having fun now.

Wipe those tears away and dust yourself off, man. For God's Sake!

Given that this whole dust-up stems from your inability to stay on topic and address the OP or questions posed to you in anything remotely like honesty and straightforwardness, I am simply staggered.

You say you've never seen Hannity. Whether or not that's true, you sure talk like him.

I am betting it has helped you to rise to where you are in a fundamentally corrupt business.

I make money FROM banks. So in a sense correct, I prey upon the predators, which is a form of corruption. You? Employed? See I can be judgmental too, but on a case by case basis in your case.

If you were typing less and looking for work more you'd be "rising" too.

Of course you are, your hairsplitting notwithstanding.

and I keep telling you I'm not. Am I wearing boxers or briefs? I do like that my arrow hit home though. Thanks for that.

now we're back to THAT!

:rofl:

Beautiful. Round and round we go!

You're not a banker like Blackwater thugs aren't soldiers.

Technically you aren't...but you are.

I admire your unwillingness to acknowledge reality.

Still not a banker, but you are clearly a telepath and superior human. I humbly abase myself for disagreeing with you. You are completely right about everything, no matter what the topic. It is only appropriate that you fling shit and call people names, and accuse them of trollery because to do anything else would mean you were a grown up and not some silly self important wannabe on DU.

Please, continue to stalk me in other threads - everyone needs a good sycophantic world-building stalker. Bring your AD&D dice and quote Gygax next time or something RUUULLY intellectual and enlightening. Is Tom Paine your hero? now it's my turn to :rofl:

:eyes:

me. I didn't realize that's how you felt about yourself. I mean, I took an educated guess but that moniker of yours...really! Wow! Just lays it all out there, doesn't it?

In fact, I didn't remember at all what sui generis meant, having last encountered the term more than 20 years ago, but upon your infantile parting shot at my DU moniker, I figured yours must be VERY self-revealing.

Imagine my surpise at the definition of "sui generis":

constituting a class of its own; unique; "a history book sui generis"; "sui generis works like Mary Chestnut's Civil War diary"
wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

Oh, ho ho hah hah hah hah! :rofl: VERY revealing of yourself. Yes, indeed you are so special and unique! Oh, ho ho hah hah hah hah ho ho ha ha ha hah! Great stuff!

Thank you so much for this last post, and for projecting yourself one last time in a way which gives me much insight into you, you special, unique flower!

That was great! Do it again!

What is it you think I need an excuse for? Do you ask a reporter what they need an excuse for when they tell you it's raining?

What if your underlings see you? Oh, that's right. If they mention you spending all your time typing on DU when you should be working, you'll fire their assess. (for something unrelated, of course)

and it actually keeps people fairly productive on the whole, with myself being the exception today.

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

passive income?

And it is NOT misleading to say that wealthy people pay lower tax rates than poor people it's the damn truth.

I had to go do a little research, because I didn't really believe that at first.

Wow...just wow. How did we get here? :shrug:

Don't you know THEY can hear you!!

"Literacy is the path to Communism"

Then it is too late. :cry: I think I'm a commie.

Join today!

It's much easier than snapping at bubbles in the bathtub.

I'll give you a few clues:
1980, 1984, 1988, 2000, and 2004.

You can only get so much blood from a stone--even with decades of practice!

First of all, the Wealthy are "very savvy businessmen".
Their obscene paychecks and low taxes are "part of the free market system."

And we must NEVER make the Giant Invisible Hand angry.

the ability to fire thousands of Americans making $20 an hour and replace them with Chinese workers making 50c an hour without any pang of conscience whatsoever. And how smart are they! Clearly only top minds can understand the good business sense this makes.

just remember: If God wanted you to win, you would only need to buy one ticket.


You can't lose if you don't play.

Statistically I'd say you have a better chance of being struck by lightning, having your car struck by a meteorite, and being attacked by a polar bear all in the same day.

It's too bad people don't realize this.

:thumbsup:

Thanks for referencing the Poor People Tax lottery. Just another way to fleece suckers with one hand while the other hand ensures they don't understand math/statistics enough to realize they're being taken.

It's easier to argue (same rate for everybody), and it's actually more "progressive" than the progressive income tax. Do the math and see for yourself!

And they really hope it will be Warrior Jesus and not Farmer Jesus riding on that white horse.

I like to think if we were all sitting at a table having a couple of beers we would have a verbal form of this conversation and it would be a pleasant, if somewhat intense experience.

But some people like to come to the table and throw your drink in your face, call you names for not agreeing with them, and then start shoving you in hopes of causing a drunken romper room ruckus.

I don't get it. Thanks to the rest of you for your civility and decorum - it's the way it should be on DU no matter how much you agree or disagree on a particular subject.

n/t

:rofl:

you really are a piece of work.

:rofl:

Banker who denies he's a banker.

should you choose to accept it is to define "banker" concisely, and define your opinion of it without generalizing. I am still not a banker just because you add "or sui generis" to the end of your definition.

Or you could self destruct as you have been. Carry on. I'll be back in a couple of hours.

Such a rare, special flower. You are truly "sui generis".

:rofl:

So revealing! So very revealing! Tell me more about yourself.

And keep pretending that servicing the banks isn't being part of the banking industry. That one is really an argument "sui generis". (the term sui generis, not you)

You're so special!

I point that out as a favor to you - why don't you read aloud what you write and see how the words hang in the air. In a spoken conversation you would be directly laughed at, not with.

:puke:

fucking disgusting.

I completely respect anything you have to say. Like the person you think you are defending you add nothing but posturing to the conversation. See if you were at happy hour having a conversation would you ride in and speak the same way you type?

Probably not. Why is it easier to be uncivil than try to add to the conversation? That's my complaint with the other poster, and with you.

You are now in the kitchen toots.

:shrug:

too late to r