|
|
Nixon's spying on the Democratic Party Headquarters,
At least they started impeachment proceedings against Nixon which led to his removal from office (even if he quit before he was fired).
Stock does not only represent control of the company. It also represents ownership. So why shouldn't it be taxed? When a person is given stock, he/she should be taxed according to their market value (and I guess on a % of the companies book value in cases where the company is not publicly traded).
So when Steve got his shares, he should have paid income taxes on their value.
So, ultimately you're saying that the rich shouldn't be taxed. When Steve initially received his shares when it was just him and Woz, the company wasn't worth a huge amount. Same with Oracle and Ellison.
You must think that all poor people should be dressed in rags and have no dignity or luxuries whatsoever. I've been poor before and I know how it is, you insensitive prick
I love it when someone tries to take what I say out of context and imply I said something I didn't. Thank you for spreading your ignorance.
By Obama's definition, I've been poor too. People do not need cable TV. Hell, I haven't had cable or satellite TV for over 10 years. If someone insists that they need it then they sure as hell don't need me to spring for the grocery bill. Take that $800+ a year and put it towards groceries.
Tax Steve at 90% and he no longer controls Apple
Because taxes are levied on capital gains (i.e. only when selling his shares) and not on capital itself, then taxing Steve would have done about nothing. He carried many of them to his grave. Though I agree with you about what they represented to him: control. Stock ownership is only about profit when you sell your stake. Holding your stake is holding control.
Thank you for enforcing the point that the income tax does nothing about the rich.
The difference is that MoveOn has no pretenses in what it's about. What exactly is the tea party these days? All I hear from its mouthpieces right now is how gay marriage is a sign of the end times and moral decay causes deficits but we should totally spend trillions more dollars on war. And tax us less or something maybe.
I admit that I only have listened to actual Tea Party people three or four times -- but they were for smaller government and less taxes. They explicitly stated that they did not take any stand on social issues.
And please don't bring in the asinine fallacy that because I think Bush (and now Obama) are over spending that I somehow want to eliminate the Federal government completely or take us back to the dark ages.
Where in the Constitution is there a right to privacy for individuals?
The right to privacy is the cornerstone of Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton
It's interesting that the Affordable Health Care Act requires the government to know more and more about your health and health care decisions. Either these are contrary to Roe v. Wade or they are undermining the principles that RvW is founded upon.
while rank-and-file workers are paid so little that they need food stamps
Have you been in the house of food stamp recipients? The cops that I know keep bitching that the welfare/food-stamp people have huge plasma TV's and a fridge well stocked with beer. For the most part, it's not about food, but priorities.
A single mother that I know was bitching about not being able to make ends meet. After listening to her bitch for a while, I asked her what she would do with an extra $900 -- tax free -- a year. She started talking about all the things she would spend it on, never once mentioned "saving" or "paying down debt." When she finally ran out of things to spend the money on, I told her to cancel her cable subscription. "Ooooh, I can't do that. I NEED that!"
Sorry, I call bullshit. We've elevated "want to haves" into "need to have." You don't need cable or satellite TV. You don't need a cell phone, let alone a smart phone and data plan. You don't need your morning Starbucks, fast food, or preprocessed crap from the grocery store. If you can earn them, great. But don't force others who are working for a living to support you in a lifestyle that you don't need and can't afford.
While there are times that people honestly need food stamps, the vast majority of the time there is ample waste in the "want to" versus the "need to".
Let them be taxed at 90% like in the Eisenhower days
Are you write only? As others have pointed out, the income tax is for "the little people" -- professionals and the middle class. Not the rich.
Let's look at Steve Jobs for a moment. The vast majority of his compensation was stock -- not income. What does that stock represent? Money? No. It represents control of his company. Tax Steve at 90% and he no longer controls Apple, John Sculley does -- or worse -- some government bureaucrat.
Unlike you, I'm not hide bound by anger, envy, and greed. If my standard of living is raised by 10%, I don't care if my neighbors standard of living is raised by 20%. I don't hate them enough to want to cut my standard of living back just because their's increased faster than mine.
While you want to roll back the clock and live in the 50's, I'd rather enjoy the increased standard of living.
First, I believe in a free market. However, the teleco industry is generally a creature of government created and sanctioned monopolies. To claim that the free market has any position in this (either allowing government supported monopolies to extend their influence and power by bidding on the spectrum or by denying them the ability to bid on the spectrum) is wishful thinking at best.
The DoRD Department of Redundacy Department does not do poetry. Please continue.
Actually they do. But it's Vogon poetry.
You may call me by my name, Wirth, or by my value, Worth. - Nicklaus Wirth