Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. 24 Sep '10 00:27
    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704129204575506051919012596.html

    September 23, 2010, 1:20 P.M. ET

    Advice for the 'Poor Rich'

    By Brett Arends

    Everybody hates Todd Henderson.

    In case you haven't heard, he's the University of Chicago law professor who unwisely blogged last week about his financial woes in a post headlined "We Are the Super Rich."

    Mr. Henderson and his wife, an oncologist, make more than $250,000 a year, and apparently they're struggling to get by. If President Barack Obama gets his wicked way, and tax rates rise for those earning more than $250,000 a year, Mr. Henderson says it will mean real sacrifice in his family.

    It's too easy to pelt Mr. Henderson with rotten eggs, as so many have now done. (He yanked the post, but way too late–and on the Internet, one's blunders never die.) But can we, instead, give him some useful advice?

    ....
  2. 24 Sep '10 00:27
    Henderson's post:

    http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:kpzaEp0IVw4J:truthonthemarket.com/2010/09/15/we-are-the-super-rich/%20site:truthonthemarket.com/%20Xxxx%20Xxxxxxxxx&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=safari
  3. 24 Sep '10 00:44
    Originally posted by zeeblebot
    Henderson's post:

    http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:kpzaEp0IVw4J:truthonthemarket.com/2010/09/15/we-are-the-super-rich/%20site:truthonthemarket.com/%20Xxxx%20Xxxxxxxxx&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=safari
    This guy is an idiot. I wouldn't hire him to cut my lawn. He apparently cannot manage his money. (Which is not my problem.) If it is so bad for poor little him then how the heck are the families with 4 kids that I know personally even surviving on less than 20% of what he makes? (Clue - they are not stupid spoiled brats who have to drive big cars or sock away investments - not that they wouldn't love to do those things, they are just realistically living within their means. I don't how they do it. But I do know that I was well past 40 before I ever bought a new car and my children were the absolutely priority of every nickel I ever spent - which meant I paid my bills to keep a roof, insurance, and food before anything and I paid for tax help too - because I'm not stupid.)

    Is there anyone around here (who makes less) who wouldn't trade places with this guy in a heartbeat?
  4. 24 Sep '10 00:50
    from the comments:

    Lily said
    September 17, 2010 at 5:54 pm

    Allan:

    I’ll condense your message even further for you: “Todd, you have extra money, I want it. Hand it over.”
  5. 24 Sep '10 01:00
    Originally posted by zeeblebot
    from the comments:

    Lily said
    September 17, 2010 at 5:54 pm

    Allan:

    I’ll condense your message even further for you: “Todd, you have extra money, I want it. Hand it over.”
    I don't want his money. But I will guarantee you that when I was his age I paid a higher rate than whiny boy wet pants does now and I was happy to do it because (mostly) I felt my contribution was well spent. If it wasn't I had the ballot box to address it. If he had to actually pay for the benefits he received from various government programs (like his student loan guarantee) then he would be far more impoverished but guess what? The little snot can enjoy some of that stuff because I (who was not using it) kept paying my fair share. So, yeah, he took my money and you probably have too.
  6. 24 Sep '10 01:18
    you want to take his money and give it to someone else to make yourself feel better.
  7. 24 Sep '10 01:19
    http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2005/04/top-10-examples-of-government-waste
  8. 24 Sep '10 01:19
    Originally posted by zeeblebot
    http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2005/04/top-10-examples-of-government-waste
    this doesn't even include unnecessary and illmanaged programs!
  9. 24 Sep '10 01:20
    Originally posted by TerrierJack
    I don't want his money. But I will guarantee you that when I was his age I paid a higher rate than whiny boy wet pants does now and I was happy to do it because (mostly) I felt my contribution was well spent. If it wasn't I had the ballot box to address it. If he had to actually pay for the benefits he received from various government programs (like his ...[text shortened]... not using it) kept paying my fair share. So, yeah, he took my money and you probably have too.
    i think he paid 40-50 pct. at least one guy in the thread says he himself will be paying 50 pct after including all sales tax, etc.

    you paid higher than that?
  10. 24 Sep '10 01:30
    Originally posted by TerrierJack
    This guy is an idiot. I wouldn't hire him to cut my lawn. He apparently cannot manage his money. (Which is not my problem.) If it is so bad for poor little him then how the heck are the families with 4 kids that I know personally even surviving on less than 20% of what he makes? (Clue - they are not stupid spoiled brats who have to drive big cars or soc ...[text shortened]... anyone around here (who makes less) who wouldn't trade places with this guy in a heartbeat?
    You, in fact, are the idiot. He, and his wife, have done the right thing. Got highly educated, worked extra hard, and now the Marxist (Communist) President of the United States wants to punish him for his earnings level even more than is already the case.

    No, if he is stupid, it is that he believed the premise of our Declaratiion of Independence that all men are created equal. He doesn't ever state that he can't make it. He points out rightly so, that he already pays way more in taxes than your righteous and intelligent families with 4 kids, and that it is criminally unjust that the Marxist President ought to ask him for more, particularly given the remarkable parallels between the President's and his family.

    My advise to you class envy idiots, is that you get the education, like this guy's wife who spent about a third of her life becoming an oncologist, so that the Marxist President could make a government serf out of her, and declare them arbitrarily "super rich" when they don't come close to the life style of the Obamas.

    And please this whole thing proves that "the Bush tax cuts for the rich" is and always has been a cynical calculated lie. After all, Mr. Marxist wants to allow the poor and middle class to keep their tax cuts, the ones that you Marxists didn't remember that they got.

    I pitty you, because if you are successful and you Marxist President is, the United States will go down the path every Marxist nation has, or will go down. The wealthy and middle class disappear, leaving only the ruling class and the poor.
  11. Subscriber FMF
    a.k.a. John W Booth
    24 Sep '10 01:34
    Originally posted by normbenign
    You, in fact, are the idiot. He, and his wife, have done the right thing. Got highly educated, worked extra hard, and now the Marxist (Communist) President of the United States wants to punish him for his earnings level even more than is already the case.

    No, if he is stupid, it is that he believed the premise of our Declaratiion of Independence th ...[text shortened]... The wealthy and middle class disappear, leaving only the ruling class and the poor.
    How many post war U.S. Presidents have been Communists?
  12. 24 Sep '10 01:35
    Originally posted by TerrierJack
    I don't want his money. But I will guarantee you that when I was his age I paid a higher rate than whiny boy wet pants does now and I was happy to do it because (mostly) I felt my contribution was well spent. If it wasn't I had the ballot box to address it. If he had to actually pay for the benefits he received from various government programs (like his ...[text shortened]... not using it) kept paying my fair share. So, yeah, he took my money and you probably have too.
    You didn't make any "contributions". The government demanded, under threat of imprisonment, that you pay. That isn't a contribution in anyone's book.

    Now if you truly believed what you say, then you'ld have volunteered to pay more than demanded.

    How do you define "fair share"? There is nothing remotely "fair" about the us tax code. Only marxist social engineering.
  13. 24 Sep '10 01:38
    Originally posted by FMF
    How many post war U.S. Presidents have been Communists?
    Most of them! The only Presidents to reduce the progressivity of the tax code were John Kennedy and Ronald Reagan. The rest I must presume subscribed to Marxism, and it's premise that those in need have a right to the earnings and property of those who produce.
  14. Subscriber no1marauderonline
    It's Nice to Be Nice
    24 Sep '10 01:41
    Originally posted by normbenign
    You, in fact, are the idiot. He, and his wife, have done the right thing. Got highly educated, worked extra hard, and now the Marxist (Communist) President of the United States wants to punish him for his earnings level even more than is already the case.

    No, if he is stupid, it is that he believed the premise of our Declaratiion of Independence th ...[text shortened]... The wealthy and middle class disappear, leaving only the ruling class and the poor.
    Do you even know what a Marxist is?

    A return of tax rates to where they were 8 years ago is hardly robbing anyone. In fact, they would be at the same level they were when Mr. and Mrs. Complainer were getting their education; why would they think they were entitled to pay anything less?
  15. 24 Sep '10 02:01 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    Do you even know what a Marxist is?

    A return of tax rates to where they were 8 years ago is hardly robbing anyone. In fact, they would be at the same level they were when Mr. and Mrs. Complainer were getting their education; why would they think they were entitled to pay anything less?
    Yes I know what a Marxist is.

    The President is not proposing to return all taxes to where they were pre Bush. He wants to leave in place the tax cuts, even those for people who didn't pay taxes, and recind the taxes for the plus $250,000 "super rich".

    This makes the tax code more progressive, as did the original Bush tax cuts, as the lower groups got the higher percentage cuts.