Should there be a cap on attainable wealth?

[beenthere]

No beenthere - that is always what conservatives say - they don't want dirty air either they say, they don't want dirty water either, they say, but when asked what they will pay for or sacrifice in order to have clean air they grow curiously silent.

There is nothing exagerated about my statement - companies do evade this nation's labor laws and pollution standards by going to other countries. When would you suggest that those companies adhere to clean air standards? People might in fact lose their jobs beenthere, but people lose their lives from breathing dirty air. Why would you not want to limit such air conditions?

I suggest all companies adhere to common sense regulations, it's the regs that put businesses out of business I'm talking about!

I can't tell what "no" is referring to, do you mean you won't get behind the regulation about retrofitting trucking fleets I mentioned????

Canndo, you are blatantly accusing conservatives for wanting to do away with regulations that would give us dirty air and water, had I made a similar claim about the left, you'd be one of the first to ask for proof, so I'll call you on that!

You also insinuate businesses won't move their companies back to the US because we can't compete with 22 cents an hour wages, were is that proof?

 

[beenthere]

If they move the company across the border and do the same things that we wouldnt allow, does it no longer affect the air?
So not only does the company do what they want, but the air doesnt get "saved".
Make the restrictions less so you get some of the "green" but not so much they just completely move and go !green completely.

Would you agree that government implements an unsightly amount of unneeded regulations just to justify the need of more government employees to fill the necessary jobs to regulate?

 

[Mr Neutron]

No beenthere - that is always what conservatives say - they don't want dirty air either they say, they don't want dirty water either, they say, but when asked what they will pay for or sacrifice in order to have clean air they grow curiously silent.

There is nothing exagerated about my statement - companies do evade this nation's labor laws and pollution standards by going to other countries. When would you suggest that those companies adhere to clean air standards? People might in fact lose their jobs beenthere, but people lose their lives from breathing dirty air. Why would you not want to limit such air conditions?

The air and water have been cleaned up. So why do we need to keep shoveling money into the EPA? Because once you establish a bureaucracy, it is easier to drain the world's oceans than to close one down.
What is the number one priority of these bureaucracies? To make sure they're around next year. In the case of the EPA, they go around looking for violations and if they don't find any legitimate ones, they'll manufacture some. All the while, the real polluters get to buy their way out.
Bureaucracies have no accountability other than to themselves and Big Brother. Like a tick on a hound, they burrow in deep and suck blood.
Politics, poli=many, tics=dirty little blood suckers.

 

[canndo]

I suggest all companies adhere to common sense regulations, it's the regs that put businesses out of business I'm talking about!

I can't tell what "no" is referring to, do you mean you won't get behind the regulation about retrofitting trucking fleets I mentioned????

Canndo, you are blatantly accusing conservatives for wanting to do away with regulations that would give us dirty air and water, had I made a similar claim about the left, you'd be one of the first to ask for proof, so I'll call you on that!

You also insinuate businesses won't move their companies back to the US because we can't compete with 22 cents an hour wages, were is that proof?

Proof? that companies won't come back? I stated that they escaped labor laws (regulations) by going elsewhere. It was stated that if we had more "business friendly regulations" we would have more business - that would include being able to pay nothing wages.

I am indeed blatantly accusing conservaties of wanting to do away with regulations that would inhibit business and pollute the air in the process.

They want to do away with the EPA, and they want coal regs relaxed.

 

[canndo]

The air and water have been cleaned up. So why do we need to keep shoveling money into the EPA? Because once you establish a bureaucracy, it is easier to drain the world's oceans than to close one down.
What is the number one priority of these bureaucracies? To make sure they're around next year. In the case of the EPA, they go around looking for violations and if they don't find any legitimate ones, they'll manufacture some. All the while, the real polluters get to buy their way out.
Bureaucracies have no accountability other than to themselves and Big Brother. Like a tick on a hound, they burrow in deep and suck blood.
Politics, poli=many, tics=dirty little blood suckers.

Here's a situation - there were no murders in a city of 60,000 one year, why do we keep spending money on the police we no longer need?

The air is CLEAN now, corporations won't dirty it again, they've seen the light and are friends of the sky.

You actually figure that the EPA no longer finds legitimate infractions.

http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/0/D15B3DF523EC563285257A86006553AF

http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/EPA-fines-gas-companies-for-clean-air-violations-3898400.php


No, companies are perfectly capable of cleaning up after themselves, we don't need those stupid regulations.

 

[beenthere]

Proof? that companies won't come back? I stated that they escaped labor laws (regulations) by going elsewhere. It was stated that if we had more "business friendly regulations" we would have more business - that would include being able to pay nothing wages.

I am indeed blatantly accusing conservaties of wanting to do away with regulations that would inhibit business and pollute the air in the process.

They want to do away with the EPA, and they want coal regs relaxed.

canndo, you are befitting right now as we speak from coal energy.
If you can't distinguish the difference between common sense regulations and the exploitation of the government regulating us to death then I must conclude, you have none yourself!

BTW, next time you whine and cry about your electric bill be so fucking high, thank the regulators and STFU

 

[canndo]

Would you agree that government implements an unsightly amount of unneeded regulations just to justify the need of more government employees to fill the necessary jobs to regulate?

The EPA employes about 17,000 people, You seem to be saying that that is enough to monitor all businesses that make anything or service anything in the United States - too many right? You would see it reduced to what exactly Beenthere?

 

[canndo]

canndo, you are befitting right now as we speak from coal energy.
If you can't distinguish the difference between common sense regulations and the exploitation of the government regulating us to death then I must conclude, you have none yourself!

Actually I am not sir, I am using electricity generated by wind and natural gas.

I don't believe in "common sense" common sense is a lazy person's way of determining reality, much of reality is what they call counter intuitive and needs a bit of work to understand.

 

[Harrekin]

Income only, from all sources at the highest levels, as I said this would begin at around the 10 million per year point. All money left in interests that support jobs would be left untaxed or barely so. One of the reasons so many took their money out of businesses and placed them in other - shall we say, accounts, is because it was worthwhile to do so. Our current tax structure does not necessarily encourage people to build businesses but does encourage things like offshore accounts. If it is more profitable to sell or dismantle a business than it is to expand it, then those tax structures should be altered.

Whilst investment related to employment is to be encouraged, it shouldn't be by risk of punitive tax rates. Truthfully your ideas would involve a flight of celebrities and the rich leaving the US rather than having their fortunes plundered.

So you would rather keep all the able bodied freeloaders on welfare, denying the money to the elderly and disabled people who truely can't earn for themselves and currently get fuck all?

You really are a foolish and misguided man.

 

[canndo]

Whilst investment related to employment is to be encouraged, it shouldn't be by risk of punitive tax rates. Truthfully your ideas would involve a flight of celebrities and the rich leaving the US rather than having their fortunes plundered.

So you would rather keep all the able bodied freeloaders on welfare, denying the money to the elderly and disabled people who truely can't earn for themselves and currently get fuck all?

You really are a foolish and misguided man.

Gee, I am foolish and misguided?

The highest income tax rate between 1944 and 1963 (approx) was 90 percent or over - I don't know how many "celebrities" fled but the country as a whole did pretty well.

 

[Harrekin]

Gee, I am foolish and misguided?

The highest income tax rate between 1944 and 1963 (approx) was 90 percent or over - I don't know how many "celebrities" fled but the country as a whole did pretty well.

How easy was it to just jump on a plane and set up a new life in a new country?

Your rich can come here, 15% capital gains and only 42% on all amounts above €26,000.

Shoot yourself in the foot, be my guest.

You failed to answer my question tho, would you rather keep all the able-bodied cheese eaters on welfare, denying funds to those who genuinely need them, like the elderly and the disabled?

 

[canndo]

How easy was it to just jump on a plane and set up a new life in a new country?

Your rich can come here, 15% capital gains and only 42% on all amounts above €26,000.

Shoot yourself in the foot, be my guest.

You failed to answer my question tho, would you rather keep all the able-bodied cheese eaters on welfare, denying funds to those who genuinely need them, like the elderly and the disabled?

As I said, the country did fine during that period of taxation over 90 pecent. Hop on a plane and do what? most american "celebrities" make their money on american audiences.

You going to pay our baseball, basketball and football stars are you?

You present a false choice, I figure the able bodied cheese eaters will still get their gouda and swiss and so will the disabled.

 

[Harrekin]

As I said, the country did fine during that period of taxation over 90 pecent. Hop on a plane and do what? most american "celebrities" make their money on american audiences.

You going to pay our baseball, basketball and football stars are you?

You present a false choice, I figure the able bodied cheese eaters will still get their gouda and swiss and so will the disabled.

You don't even get the concept at all, if there are more people claiming from a pot with less people paying in or only people who genuinely need it with all able bodied people paying in.

Which pot do you think splits more favourably for the people who genuinely need it? The one with lazy cheese eaters or the one specifically to help the needy?

 

[beenthere]

Actually I am not sir, I am using electricity generated by wind and natural gas.

I don't believe in "common sense" common sense is a lazy person's way of determining reality, much of reality is what they call counter intuitive and needs a bit of work to understand.

Merriam Webster defines common sense as having sound and prudent judgment based on a simple perception of the situation or facts. Perhaps sound and prudent judgment escapes government bureaucrats as well as you.

BTW, counterintuitive is one word, being it's a bit of work to understand, I thought it might help!

 

[beenthere]

As I said, the country did fine during that period of taxation over 90 pecent. .

This is the second time I've seen you make this claim, so this will be the second time I'll ask you to back it up with some facts. You avoided the question the last time i asked.

 

[cannabineer]

This is the second time I've seen you make this claim, so this will be the second time I'll ask you to back it up with some facts. You avoided the question the last time i asked.

He posted that graph repeatedly ... surely you were there. cn

 

[beenthere]

He posted that graph repeatedly ... surely you were there. cn

Nah bro, he posted a graph showing marginal rates, he said the country did fine during the period of 90% taxation, I'm asking for some data to back that up, just like you insisted I back up my claim that the left coddles Islam, remember?

 

[cannabineer]

You did claim that, and afaik you haven't supported it. cn

 

[beenthere]

You did claim that, and afaik you haven't supported it. cn

You're right I did make that claim and I got a lot of shit for it, you going to be consistent or does that standard only apply to me?

 

[Carne Seca]

You did claim that, and afaik you haven't supported it. cn

He'll claim he did.