Good Guy Gates

I know I'm gonna get thumbed down for this, but I've never understood why not liking being forced to give money away is considered being a greedy asshole..

Because the economy works on everyone paying their fair share, millionaires and billionaires keep their money in tax havens just so they can keep all their money but the things which taxes pay for such as the police, fire service and more they still get these things while they aren't actually contributing to the paying of it.

Aren't statistics supposed to equal 100? Your statistics make no sense.

Top 10% make up 71%. Bottom 26-99% make up 13%. That leaves the top 11-25% to fill in the gaps. What's so hard.

Did he call all rich people greedy assholes?

No, he ended the quote before he wrote that

Microsoft doesn't donate money, Bill gates donates part of his cut. Also user friendly operating system depends on the user.

Who wouldn't dick ride Bill Gates with those reasons

haha if anons have something against Microsoft, argue like an intelligent human being with points and counters instead of sounding like a butt hurt faggot

Almost lost a finger feeding this troll...better be careful

*liked

They don't name bridges after living people.

Made the moral argument AND knows who Milton Friedman is.

"However, forcing people to give their money away is neither moral nor fair."
That alone should end this argument once and for all.
Fucking shame for all of humanity it doesn't.

Thank you for this excellent comment, good sir.

Agreed. Very, very well put. Thumb to both of you sirs.

In theory, I would agree with you. However, because this country is so far in debt and cant make money to save its life, I think we need to raise taxes on the rich in order to solve the debt problem. It should be done more out of necessity rather than any "moral" reason

You're looking at that problem the wrong way. Our country is in so much debt that tax rates are pretty much irrelevant--like rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. Even if we increased income tax rates on the rich to 100% we still wouldn't have enough. It's the spending that's the problem. Our government responds to the problems created by improper spending by spending more. Even when politicians talk about "cutting" spending, ie Paul Ryan, they're not really cutting anything--they're just reducing the growth of the spending. And then they go and print more money which just compounds the problem.

We have to look at our spending problem if we want to fix any of this. All this talk about tax rates is silly. It's really just fodder for the presidential debates--providing an easy way to distinguish between "liberal" and "conservative".

I agree that we do need to drastically cut spending if we are to have any hope of solving the debt problem. What I think the problem is that Democrats think we ONLY need to increase taxes and Republicans think we ONLY need to decrease spending. We need both to solve the debt crisis

just pointing this out because i think it is funny, but Bill Nye is considered a liberal by the republican party, even though he doesn't really like branding

You, sir, deserve this thumb and a good portion of respect. Kudos!

Pic somewhat related. Whenever you wonder why your own government did a certain thing, this picture is usually one of the few things that can aptly describe why they did what they did, regardless of context.

That picture represents the Apple community.

But people won't be generous on their own. Most rich people do not give a single fuck about anyone.

Yea, the government fucks up on everything recently. That needs to be fixed, then have the upper bracket pay higher taxes.

"Most rich people do not give a single fuck about anyone."

You're evidence for that is...? You based that statement on stereotypes, not facts.

The government does fuck up on everything. But the thing is--it's almost better that way. If the federal government actually got good at governing, it would be the end of personal liberty as we know it. That's why, if you do want higher taxes on the rich, that decision should really be left up to the states. Individual states know how to spend their money much better than the Fed does, plus states will feel the ramifications of their actions much sooner.

Most extremely wealthy people in America get rich off investments and are part of firms. They run and work for businesses that lobby congress to benefit themselves and no one else.

Just because the rich want to make money does not invalidate the idea that they also want to give money away.

And again, you're marginalizing. You're basing your opinions on cynical stereotypes.

It has nothing to do with making money. It has to do with the fact that most extremely wealthy Americans make their money from investment firms/banks that lobby politicians. Any reason you are ignoring that part?

You're using a Straw Man argument. Just because one fact is true does not mean another fact is false. I know the rich make their money through investments and so forth. That does not mean they can't also be generous.

First off a straw man is when you ignore the argument and replace it with a exaggerated or fake argument.

Secondly, they may be generous but there is no evidence of that. There is evidence of them being selfish due to the fact they work for investment firms that purposely screw over the American people for their own gains.

Yeah, I know, that's what you did. Your argument wasn't necessarily "exaggerated" or "fake"--which aren't defining features of a straw man--it was just irrelevant.

"They may be generous but there is no evidence of that." That's a strange statement. Do you even know what this content is about?

I said the majority. Not every single rich person.

How is my argument irrelevant? That makes no sense.

You have no evidence of that. Youre being ignorant if you really think all rich people are uptight selfish assholes. Youre only saying that because the only ones you can name, are. Like politicians.

Most rich people are selfish assholes. Sorry but that is just true. Look at all the lobbyists they hire to push programs to benefit hem and their business.

Do you have any evidence that there are enough people that give to charity to not have to worry about taxes? Ill be waiting.

"Do you have any evidence that there are enough people that give to charity to not have to worry about taxes? Ill be waiting."
So giving to charity is what qualifies a person as good? Well, shit, then all the poor that cant afford to give to charity must be horrible. What does taxes have to do with whether someone is good or bad? So if I jump in front of a bullet for someone, but never gave to charity, I'm a bad person?

The post I replied to first made the argument that people are good enough to give away money, and charity organizations can replace taxes. That is why I asked if you have any evidence that there are enough people that give away money to not have to worry about taxes. And I am still waiting.

I never made that argument. My argument has nothing to do with taxes. All I said was that not all rich people are bad. You said they all dont give a single fuck about everyone else, which is a stereotype. I'm waiting too. Waiting for you to make a logical argument to mine.

Did you miss the part where I said they hired lobbyists to push their own selfish goals?

The mass majority of rich people make their money from investment firms that lobby congress for their own goals.

Thats a stereotype right there. Where is your proof of that? Youre saying rich people are bad people, on a post that proves they all are not. Plenty of rich people donate to charity. You just see the way the media portrays the rich. The liberal media portrays them as selfish and evil, which is not true. Sure many of them are. But many of them are not.

A few of them are not selfish. I said the majority, not all of them.

It is fact that most rich people make their money from investment firms. It is also fact that investment firms lobby congress for selfish goals that do not benefit America.

I don't watch any "liberal media." That sounds like something someone from Fox would say in a argument.

Someone form Fox? No. Its true. There is no normal media. Fox is republican/conservative media, ABC, CNN, NBC (especially NBC) lean to the democrat/liberal side. Thats just how it is. So unless you watch fox, you watch liberal media. You have to watch both and form your own opinion.

How is ABC and CNN liberal? I understand NBC due to MSNBC, but ABC and CNN?

I don't watch any TV media regardless.

ABC has George Stephanopoulos. That guy is the ultimate liberal, and his segments are like watching FOX for liberals. CNN always twists numbers and such in favor of Obama.

How does it make the entire network Liberal because they have a single liberal news host?

How does CNN twist numbers in favor of Obama? I remember CNN making a number of segments about how Iran has nukes and will attack us, which is strongly in favor of what republicans believe.

Hi, I'm the child of two generations of military families, and fuck you.

just ignore the troll guys,

and OP could we kindly get a delete on this comment

Aren't half of the songs on that album for the Rev?

"Nightmare"?
No,some of their songs are sad and meaningfull.
But only the song "So far away"is for the rev.

Yeah....Fiction wasn't about or for him AT ALL.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't the Rev write fiction by himself? And wasn't it originally intended for Pinkly Smooth, not A7X ?

He gave it to Matt three days before he died yeah, it was originally for Pinkly Smooth but he wanted to play with Avenged Sevenfold's style more like they did on their self-titled album.

Fiction always gives me a huge feel. It's like the Rev is talking to his friends, apologising for dying before he even knew he would...

Favourite song on the album

one of my favorite songs

<3

He didn't make the song for him, the song was already half written when Jimmy was still alive, as it was originally for his Granddad. He just dedicated it to him after it was completed.
R.I.P.

Most of the people who don't pay income tax are already paying taxes in the form of sales tax. If you don't qualify for income tax then paying for food, rent, and gas probably takes up pretty much all of your money, so in a way you are paying a high percentage of your income in taxes.

If that weren't the case, then yes they should pay some percentage right off the top.

I have never understood how a country could survive without taxing a percentage based on your income. Then I looked at the States and saw that you indeed cannot.

Well, in America, the ultra-rich control everything, so they slowly convinced people over the past century that higher taxes for them means they will not have enough to stimulate the economy with. They are very greedy. This was going on really well for them in the 1920s, then the Great Depression happened and FDR and the New Deal's reforms tried to make sure it never happened again. All was going okay, but then, Lyndon B Johnson wanted to fight a war in Vietnam and keep helping people rise out of poverty, and inflation started happening. So, by the time Ronald Reagan came along, people were assuming the problem was the high taxes on the rich, and not the fact that we started to go and invade any country that we thought would end up communist, and that those invasions were huge wastes of time, money, and human lives. So, Reagan helped the ultra-rich by re-convincing everyone that lower taxes were good for economic growth. The government is in huge debt as a result of that and the increased military spending, and afterwards they deregulated the banking system that the New Deal worked so hard to secure, so that these risky investment bankers could couple commercial banking (normal people's personal accounts) with their investment banking, and then everyone's money went to shit when the stock market crashed, but these ultra-rich who were doing all of this tax policy and deregulation lobbying (paying off government officials to vote a certain way) somehow changed the system so that they still made money when the rest of the country was losing it.

And now, if you suggest the rich should pay more taxes to make up for this and balance the system, they call you a socialist and say that you hate the American way of life. The ultra-rich have half the normal people in the country convinced that they need lower taxes. Many normal people associate liberals with higher taxes, but conservatives would raise taxes for the middle class to make up for lower taxes for the rich.

It is a thing in Amerifat, the problem is that the taes are still extremely low for richfags compared to poor fags. But here's the thing, if you put basic bills and food into the equation, percentage wise, poorfags have to let go of more of their money than richfags, because the richfags tax levels are just a bit higher. Fuck USA.

It is......

so basically don't give a fuck

yup, speak your mind and don't give a fuck....lol Just cause someone dont like what you have to say don't mean you shouldn't say it.

Because Republicans

lol. "people" giving the most powerful gov't position to Barack Obama in '08 just to prove they weren't racist... That's the second most nonsensical thing i've heard today. Congrats dude!

xp was a damn good operating system, not like that Vista crap

The thing is, it is far easier to pay half of your taxes when you're making a million dollars a year, versus when you make $30,000 a year.

Thats why most european countries have different tax rates for the different income groups. so the more you earn the higher the tax percentage. In my opinion its ridiculous that someone like Mitt Romney who is filthy rich pays only 15 % of taxes while people who need two jobs to feed their family pay an higher percentage of taxes.....