(10-22-2014 07:30 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Nooo. It's a one time tax to live in this great country like no other.

Problem Solved.

How much are you looking to raise? Is there even enough wealth to cover it in a one time tax?

(10-22-2014 07:30 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Nooo. It's a one time tax to live in this great country like no other.
Problem Solved.

Always, just make somebody else pay and problem is solved.

As Maggie Thatcher said, the problem with socialism is that sooner or later you run out of somebody else's money. Doing this would run us out of somebody else's money. Forever.

(10-22-2014 08:57 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(10-22-2014 07:30 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Nooo. It's a one time tax to live in this great country like no other.
Problem Solved.

Always, just make somebody else pay and problem is solved.

As Maggie Thatcher said, the problem with socialism is that sooner or later you run out of somebody else's money. Doing this would run us out of somebody else's money. Forever.

We have enough money now to solve all our problems...provided we have some damn leadership and the ability to once in a while say NO to something. It is not the lack of money we have....it is the lack of leadership.

It still comes down to the basic idea of taking from the producers/innovators/job creators and giving to the non-producers/public employees/malingerers.

(10-23-2014 07:50 AM)QuestionSocratic Wrote:  It still comes down to the basic idea of taking from the producers/innovators/job creators and giving to the non-producers/public employees/malingerers.

And it's the producers who make a society worth living in. Not the fat cat corporatists living off their ability to purchase influence, but the true producers.

a 50% tax rate is ridiculous let alone 90%...

I do believe that the stagnant income growth of the lower and middle classes since 1980 is a huge problem. We can all agree that we have a consumer driven economy...the lower and middle classes spend much larger percentage of their income than do the wealthy. It would follow that higher income levels for the lower and middle classes would be good for the economy.



Since we can not rely on the "free market" to properly distribute wages the only to get this back to something more equitable is through the tax code.

(10-23-2014 08:02 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(10-23-2014 07:50 AM)QuestionSocratic Wrote:  It still comes down to the basic idea of taking from the producers/innovators/job creators and giving to the non-producers/public employees/malingerers.

And it's the producers who make a society worth living in. Not the fat cat corporatists living off their ability to purchase influence, but the true producers.

To your point...

http://www.forbes.com/sites/phildemuth/2...ong-the-1/

Not until you get to the top 1/10th of the 1 percent, with an income of $1.9 million a year, do you achieve orbital velocity and start to escape earth’s monetary gravitational field. You’re not rich in the Hollywood sense until you attain the top 1/100th of the 1%, with an annual income of at least $10.2 million. The 99% only know such people through seeing them on television or reading about them in the newspapers. People in the lower dungeons of the 1% do know these people, though, because unfortunately they have to work for them.

Even among the top 0.01%, there are big wheels within wheels. Those with $25 million feel like deadbeats compared to those with $200 million, who feel like have-nots because they are not billionaires, who feel destitute because they are not on the Forbes 400 list, where even the likes of Warren Buffett and Bill Gates have to jockey humiliatingly for position.

(10-23-2014 10:38 AM)BobL Wrote:  

(10-23-2014 08:02 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(10-23-2014 07:50 AM)QuestionSocratic Wrote:  It still comes down to the basic idea of taking from the producers/innovators/job creators and giving to the non-producers/public employees/malingerers.

And it's the producers who make a society worth living in. Not the fat cat corporatists living off their ability to purchase influence, but the true producers.

To your point...
http://www.forbes.com/sites/phildemuth/2...ong-the-1/
Not until you get to the top 1/10th of the 1 percent, with an income of $1.9 million a year, do you achieve orbital velocity and start to escape earth’s monetary gravitational field. You’re not rich in the Hollywood sense until you attain the top 1/100th of the 1%, with an annual income of at least $10.2 million. The 99% only know such people through seeing them on television or reading about them in the newspapers. People in the lower dungeons of the 1% do know these people, though, because unfortunately they have to work for them.
Even among the top 0.01%, there are big wheels within wheels. Those with $25 million feel like deadbeats compared to those with $200 million, who feel like have-nots because they are not billionaires, who feel destitute because they are not on the Forbes 400 list, where even the likes of Warren Buffett and Bill Gates have to jockey humiliatingly for position.

Based on my own client experiences, I would put the level where you start to "escape earth's gravitational field" a little lower, at somewhere around $1 million. That's a great expression, by the way, and totally descriptive. Basically, when you reach the point where you are making substantially more than you actually need to spend to live even an extravagant lifestyle, then you start to behave more like a multinational corporation than an individual. Hambone in a prior life had a lot of clients in this situation as well, and he may have some slightly different perceptions, but we've discussed this who knows how many times over the years and our views have always pretty much aligned. Anyway, it's a whole different world for those people.

For people at that top end, the money they don't need to live on is going to the place with the best after-tax ROI. That doesn't necessarily mean the place with the lowest taxes, but that's such a huge factor that when you actually start running numbers, it tends often to dominate. The people in that group could care less what US taxes are. They're not going to pay them so they simply don't care. Irish taxes, or Polish taxes, or German taxes may be a different matter--and they will probably be moving money around based on relative levels of those and other taxes.

The one thing that the author of the article misses is that he is assuming those people are going to take a huge step back when they hit retirement. So he pegs the boundary a lot higher, assuming you have to save for retirement. Actually, what happens is that all those deals they've stuck money in over in Ireland or Portugal or the Caymans or wherever they have sheltered their money will start paying them something now, so they stay in pretty much the same income stream and tax bracket. With that in mind, I think the "leaving earth's gravitational field" kicks in a lot lower.

The big impact is on those in the $400K-$1M range. They are probably past the point of needing the marginal income to live, but don't really have enough to afford to spend $200K on a lawyer to get a deal set up. They just get hammered if we go to a 90% tax kicking in around $400K. Now the truly big guys love that, because that just makes it harder for others to "escape earth's gravitational field" and join them. This is why a guy like Warren Buffett says raise taxes. He can shelter himself, so he doesn't care, and he cuts out a lot of potential competition.

The problem is that the folks in that $400K-$1M range are the ones who are still building instead of harvesting, and if you hammer them then you lose a lot of potential entrepreneurial capital.

I can go into this more if you're interested, or if Hambone is around maybe he could add some thoughts.

(10-23-2014 10:29 AM)BobL Wrote:  a 50% tax rate is ridiculous let alone 90%...

I do believe that the stagnant income growth of the lower and middle classes since 1980 is a huge problem. We can all agree that we have a consumer driven economy...the lower and middle classes spend much larger percentage of their income than do the wealthy. It would follow that higher income levels for the lower and middle classes would be good for the economy.



Since we can not rely on the "free market" to properly distribute wages the only to get this back to something more equitable is through the tax code.

In all seriousness, Look at the regulations put in place since then. It has less to do with free market and more to do with the government regulating business's out of business. (or making business's move there manufacturing overseas)

(10-23-2014 10:29 AM)BobL Wrote:  a 50% tax rate is ridiculous let alone 90%...

I do believe that the stagnant income growth of the lower and middle classes since 1980 is a huge problem. We can all agree that we have a consumer driven economy...the lower and middle classes spend much larger percentage of their income than do the wealthy. It would follow that higher income levels for the lower and middle classes would be good for the economy.



Since we can not rely on the "free market" to properly distribute wages the only to get this back to something more equitable is through the tax code.

Here's the problem, and Ross Perot is still the only political figure I've ever seen who understands it.

Our problem is not so much that the rich are getting richer or that the poor are getting poorer, but rather that the middle is disappearing, and if you understand how statistics operate, you realize that would have the same apparent impact as rich getting richer and poor getting poorer. The reason that the middle class is disappearing is that it depends on high-paying jobs that exist only in productive sectors, and we are becoming a retail/service economy where those jobs don't exist. The way to restore the middle class is the way we built it in the first place--encourage value-creating activities and they will pay their employees upper-middle class salaries and wages.

The attempt to redistribute money from the "rich" to the "poor" actually makes this problem worse, not better. On the "rich" end, they are more inclined to take investment to lower tax jurisdictions elsewhere . On the "poor" end, they are more likely to decide that they are comfortable in poverty rather than make more money and lose out on benefits.

The chart on the right has an inherent flaw. The bottom 20% group is always going to look worse. Why? Because the people in the bottom 20% who improve their lot don't stay in the bottom 20%. They move up to the next quintile. So what you see in the bottom 20% over time is people who stayed right where they were and people who fell down from above. That is going to bias the numbers downward for that group, just as the opposite effect biases the numbers upward for the top 20%. So the bottom 20% always captures people doing worse than average and the top 20% always captures people doing better than average, but that doesn't mean a specific individual in either group is doing that. What would be meaningful is to identify specifically the people in each quintile today and track them over time. You'd actually probably find the results just about reversed. But it's not possible to obtain the data you'd need to analyze it that way.

(10-23-2014 12:16 PM)DragonLair Wrote:  

(10-23-2014 10:29 AM)BobL Wrote:  a 50% tax rate is ridiculous let alone 90%...

I do believe that the stagnant income growth of the lower and middle classes since 1980 is a huge problem. We can all agree that we have a consumer driven economy...the lower and middle classes spend much larger percentage of their income than do the wealthy. It would follow that higher income levels for the lower and middle classes would be good for the economy.



Since we can not rely on the "free market" to properly distribute wages the only to get this back to something more equitable is through the tax code.

In all seriousness, Look at the regulations put in place since then. It has less to do with free market and more to do with the government regulating business's out of business. (or making business's move there manufacturing overseas)

Which regulations and which industries?

(10-23-2014 12:06 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  The problem is that the folks in that $400K-$1M range are the ones who are still building instead of harvesting, and if you hammer them then you lose a lot of potential entrepreneurial capital.

I can go into this more if you're interested, or if Hambone is around maybe he could add some thoughts.

I think you nailed this.

As a CPA, you would know the actual numbers far better than I as an investment consultant.... I know the numbers exist and their general ranges, but it's not as if there is a set and finite line for everyone. As you know, I relied on people like you to calculate the ramifications... I merely found the opportunities.

I'd also add that lots of the people in this range that are being 'thwarted' use a lot of what I call sweat-equity. They make a lot of money (relatively) but they often also work a lot of hours because they are still the 'working wealthy' and not yet collecting mail-box money.

This is the dichotomy that I have a tough time articulating... because often these people are also making lots of other people just like them (or slightly behind them) wealthy through sweat-equity... because they need others busting their tails as well to accomplish their goals, while the truly wealthy often don't. They just need people doing their jobs. Things like a 90% bracket would not only frustrate/eliminate the incentive for people to sacrifice to succeed, but the easy solution for them would be to sell out to the truly wealthy. As a country and especially for a liberal, I can't think of anything we should want to NOT do more than this.

It is a vicious circle... and the left has the right concept, but the wrong solutions because they don't think like wealthy people (or maybe they do, and they know their voters don't).

Using simple numbers... Income is taxed at 35%... gains at 15%. There is a 'cost' of creating/using tax shelters. The cost of these shelters is currently something between the rate that we want to capture (whether it be 35 or 15%) and the rate of the alternatives (whether it be zero or whatever the rate in Ireland is) PLUS the cost of the shelter. Using a simple example, if the cost to shelter 'income' and turn it into gains is 5%, then the 'breakeven' rate for the truly wealthy is around 20%.... 15 of which goes to the government and 5 of which goes to the shelter... If the top rate were reduced to 20%, the wealthy would be indifferent and not likely use the shelters... and despite the cut in the marginal rate, the revenue to the government would go up by 25% (from 15% to 20%)... whereas if you take the rate from 35% to 90%, that only means that the 'value' of that shelter goes from currently being 20% to being 75%. That means you can spend far far far more money sheltering your income and STILL be ahead of the game.

It means that a $10mm corporate headquarters move what once saved only $5mm now saves almost $20mm. Does this encourage or discourage that move?

(10-23-2014 12:22 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(10-23-2014 10:29 AM)BobL Wrote:  a 50% tax rate is ridiculous let alone 90%...

I do believe that the stagnant income growth of the lower and middle classes since 1980 is a huge problem. We can all agree that we have a consumer driven economy...the lower and middle classes spend much larger percentage of their income than do the wealthy. It would follow that higher income levels for the lower and middle classes would be good for the economy.



Since we can not rely on the "free market" to properly distribute wages the only to get this back to something more equitable is through the tax code.

Here's the problem, and Ross Perot is still the only political figure I've ever seen who understands it.

Our problem is not so much that the rich are getting richer or that the poor are getting poorer, but rather that the middle is disappearing, and if you understand how statistics operate, you realize that would have the same apparent impact as rich getting richer and poor getting poorer. The reason that the middle class is disappearing is that it depends on high-paying jobs that exist only in productive sectors, and we are becoming a retail/service economy where those jobs don't exist. The way to restore the middle class is the way we built it in the first place--encourage value-creating activities and they will pay their employees upper-middle class salaries and wages.

The attempt to redistribute money from the "rich" to the "poor" actually makes this problem worse, not better. On the "rich" end, they are more inclined to take investment to lower tax jurisdictions elsewhere . On the "poor" end, they are more likely to decide that they are comfortable in poverty rather than make more money and lose out on benefits.

The chart on the right has an inherent flaw. The bottom 20% group is always going to look worse. Why? Because the people in the bottom 20% who improve their lot don't stay in the bottom 20%. They move up to the next quintile. So what you see in the bottom 20% over time is people who stayed right where they were and people who fell down from above. That is going to bias the numbers downward for that group, just as the opposite effect biases the numbers upward for the top 20%. So the bottom 20% always captures people doing worse than average and the top 20% always captures people doing better than average, but that doesn't mean a specific individual in either group is doing that. What would be meaningful is to identify specifically the people in each quintile today and track them over time. You'd actually probably find the results just about reversed. But it's not possible to obtain the data you'd need to analyze it that way.

That does not make sense...
First the graphs on the right and left are the same data across different periods of time. Second,we are talking about the annual growth rate of real income. So even as people move in and out of different percentiles, the bottom 40% has had no net increase in real income(in fact it was negative). This means that the bottom 40% have less spending ability now than in 1980. This is not good for anyone.

(10-23-2014 01:34 PM)BobL Wrote:  That does not make sense...
First the graphs on the right and left are the same data across different periods of time. Second,we are talking about the annual growth rate of real income. So even as people move in and out of different percentiles, the bottom 40% has had no net increase in real income(in fact it was negative). This means that the bottom 40% have less spending ability now than in 1980. This is not good for anyone.

Owl is far better at explaining this than I, but I'll try and say it differently. Sometimes that makes it more clear.

He never said it was good for anyone... He merely said that the people in any given quintile will change... and when you have an aging and retiring population as opposed to a 'booming' population (plus a weaker economy overall) then you are going to see results like these.

In 1980, the largest cohort of our population was the boomers who were in or approaching their peak earning years... NOW that cohort is in or nearing retirement age and thus their income is far less. This means that while some WERE in the bottom 40%, they were generally moving out... and now they are generally moving back in.

At the other end, 'income' for top earners is as much as anything else a function of how they classify their earnings and not merely 'how much additional wealth they created' during that period. In 1985, the top marginal rate was 50%. Now it's 36%. It certainly makes sense that IF THEY COULD, someone would report more income at 36% than at 50%... and by and large the wealthy CAN do this.

Absolutely the wealth gap is widening. I think some Obama policies have made this worse, but I don't think you can actually stop it. The ROI on risk capital is and should be far higher than inflation, or even any reasonable 'risk free' premium over inflation... otherwise, why take risk?

(10-23-2014 01:34 PM)BobL Wrote:  That does not make sense...
First the graphs on the right and left are the same data across different periods of time. Second,we are talking about the annual growth rate of real income. So even as people move in and out of different percentiles, the bottom 40% has had no net increase in real income(in fact it was negative). This means that the bottom 40% have less spending ability now than in 1980. This is not good for anyone.

Actually the same methodological problem applies to the left graph as to the right, it's just more obvious on the right one.

I've tried to explain it, Hambone has tried to explain it from a slightly different tack, if neither of those makes sense to you, I'm not quite sure how to address it. I can explain it to you, but I can't understand it for you. But it is probably better to focus on solutions than on quibbles about what graphs mean.

One big problem with any analysis that goes back before 1986 is that the only real source of data like these are IRS tax return databases, and the 1986 tax law changed the definition of gross income, adjusted gross income, and taxable income so drastically that a lot of what you're seeing here would be attributable to no substantive change in anything, just a change in how income was defined for the purposes of preparing the databases from which the data are taken.

The big problem is not that the rich are getting richer or that the poor are getting poorer, but that the middle class is shrinking. More people are being pushed out of the middle and toward the edges, unfortunately far more toward the lower edge than toward the upper. The behavior of the graphs is exactly what you would expect with a shrinking middle class.

I agree that this trend needs to be reversed. But the key to reversing it is turning the economy back toward creating middle and upper middle class jobs, not taxing the rich to redistribute to the poor. Actually, think about it for a moment--Exactly how does taking income from the "rich" and redistributing it to the "poor" impact the middle class, up or down?

Of course, if you look at the "wealth gap" over the last 20 years, it widened under Clinton, narrowed under GWB, and has widened again under Obama.

(10-23-2014 02:13 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(10-23-2014 01:34 PM)BobL Wrote:  That does not make sense...
First the graphs on the right and left are the same data across different periods of time. Second,we are talking about the annual growth rate of real income. So even as people move in and out of different percentiles, the bottom 40% has had no net increase in real income(in fact it was negative). This means that the bottom 40% have less spending ability now than in 1980. This is not good for anyone.

Owl is far better at explaining this than I, but I'll try and say it differently. Sometimes that makes it more clear.

He never said it was good for anyone... He merely said that the people in any given quintile will change... and when you have an aging and retiring population as opposed to a 'booming' population (plus a weaker economy overall) then you are going to see results like these.

In 1980, the largest cohort of our population was the boomers who were in or approaching their peak earning years... NOW that cohort is in or nearing retirement age and thus their income is far less. This means that while some WERE in the bottom 40%, they were generally moving out... and now they are generally moving back in.

At the other end, 'income' for top earners is as much as anything else a function of how they classify their earnings and not merely 'how much additional wealth they created' during that period. In 1985, the top marginal rate was 50%. Now it's 36%. It certainly makes sense that IF THEY COULD, someone would report more income at 36% than at 50%... and by and large the wealthy CAN do this.

Absolutely the wealth gap is widening. I think some Obama policies have made this worse, but I don't think you can actually stop it. The ROI on risk capital is and should be far higher than inflation, or even any reasonable 'risk free' premium over inflation... otherwise, why take risk?

I fully understand that, so forget about the increased wealth gap. The fact (according to that graph) that the bottom 40% has less purchasing power now than in 1980 is insane.

The problem is those in charge, the ones in the top 1%, see no reason to pay the average worker more. This is why we need a minimum wage that is indexed to inflation. This is why tax policy ought to reward companies like Costco that go beyond the minimum wage.

Finally those that like to keep wages down(WalMart) are not seeing the bigger picture...their customers would be spending more with the added dollars in their pocket.

http://www2.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html

Another interesting graph: Note this has been adjusted from inflation

A liberal dream:

Just seize their assets, then take the rich out back and shoot 'em.

(10-23-2014 03:01 PM)BobL Wrote:  I fully understand that, so forget about the increased wealth gap. The fact (according to that graph) that the bottom 40% has less purchasing power now than in 1980 is insane.

The problem is those in charge, the ones in the top 1%, see no reason to pay the average worker more. This is why we need a minimum wage that is indexed to inflation. This is why tax policy ought to reward companies like Costco that go beyond the minimum wage.

Finally those that like to keep wages down(WalMart) are not seeing the bigger picture...their customers would be spending more with the added dollars in their pocket.

I'm sorry Bob, but the people at WalMart know far better about what works for them and what doesn't than anyone else. CostCo's business model is to Sams what Target is to WalMart. They are not better or worse, just different. If WalMart raises wages and thus prices, KMart will simply undercut them and steal their market share. That's how a free market works. If nobody can cut their prices because of arbitrary minimums, then WalMart will still be the cheapest, albeit at higher prices. If you don't like what WalMart pays you... get a job at Costco. If Costco won't hire you, doesn't that, by definition mean that a) your skills aren't worth what you want them to be worth or b) there isn't enough demand for Costco's pricing model (wages vs prices) to force WalMart to raise their salaries. WalMart can't simply hire anyone they want for whatever they want to pay... Someone has to be willing to take their job.

If people are unemployed or retiring and thus being added to the bottom 40% because they essentially have no income, then changing the min wage makes no difference to them. Artificially setting a Min Wage acts as nothing more than a tax on 'cheap' products, which disproportionately hurts the poor. If your goal is to move 'cheap' stores out of an area like San Francisco, no problem... as those stores can simply relocate to Emeryville or Oakland. Less affluent people can now earn higher wages in San Fran and do fine dining there while paying rent and buying their groceries in Oakland

As Owl points out... Giving the $8/hr guy a raise to $10 (20%) is great for him... but stinks for the guy currently making $10 or $12 or $15, much less the guys making $50-100k who likely don't get raises at all, much less 20% raises... and if labor costs DO go up by 20% in our heavily 'service' economy then prices essentially go up my (mostly) 20%... so nothing really changes. Further, investors will want higher returns so we're just as broke as before on a 'what does my dollar buy me' basis, only at a higher level.

The KEY is to have a growing economy that brings people OUT of retirement/unemployment and forces companies to raise wages not because they are TOLD to, but because their is competition for that person's skills. Obama's economy IS growing, but there isn't enough demand for labor. People would rather retire or live off of savings or assistance than work (the labor participation rate).

I realize that to the layman, the idea of wages rising because of competition for employees and wages rising because of an artificial minimum sounds like it is the same thing... but it's not...

because if you have to pay $10 to get someone with no skills to do a menial job, then the guy who is currently getting paid $10 or $15 or $25 or 100k and has some useful skills ALSO has bargaining power. This is how you don't 'screw' the middle class and yet you help the poor... or as Owl often says... lessen the wealth gap by making the poor and middle class wealthier rather than trying to make the wealthy poorer... because in a free economy, He who has the gold DOES often make the rules (many of them anyway). They will generally make their profit regardless of the circumstances, or they just won't play the game. They are the only group of people who don't NEED to make more money.

Maybe that is the problem with liberal ideology. They simply don't understand that the poor and middle class can't say 'no' to the only job available, but the wealthy can say no to the only investment available.

to all you really, really, really, smart economists....

it would be nice for someone to explain how a service based economy (which the US continually generates policy that promotes this) along with the continually accelerating improvements that technology brings so less can do more regarding both the service AND mfg sides, could the US possibly fairly compete long term in a global market where the policy of exporting nations is grossly different.

to the rest of yaz.....

the more I read gore vidal, the more I like what he represented.......I knew I was a strange fkr as a kid.....that lucky bastard got to pen it in Italy catering to the rich....I do the same thing (the making money off of, but not close to his amount), but I'm stuck in missippy....by choice....that makes me smile....envious? yes. jealous? not a bit.....unfortunately, those people with large amounts of money takes me to.....

there is quite a bit that I agree with in this thread from owl and ham from a fiscally responsible/economic perspective.....however, sometimes theory doesn't translate well to the development of the undeveloped world.....btw, 99.x% aren't sniffing y'alls intellect....and I know nobody gets mine.....so I'll continue to ramble

...there are many ways to make money and hide it....both legally and illegally.....however, there just aren't that many people that know how to do it....which leads into....

there never has been a level playing field, nor will there ever be one.....book it danno

so, if one acknowledges that, then a simple macro glance at history should provide enough knowledge to realize the eventual outcome at the current pace of those that wear blinders....

....unfortunately, the masses are ignorant and stupid....they either cannot or have forgotten how history has played out.....

today is nothing more than a different form of feudalism/slavery/etc...

I always laughed at that constitutional 'freedom' thingy.....talk about a relative term....

no form of government, no form of industry, no form of service has provided a sustainable fabric over time.....except one....

...the oligarchy....she still keeps churning along regardless of the suffering/prosperity....the only difference is this suffering isn't administered via the whip or the rack today.....unless you're a gitmo biatch....the prosperous are still mostly little weeny narcissistic biatches with all the power......

most people really don't recognize that population growth is the biggest hurdle we face today.....the rest all fall short in importance since the numbers will overwhelm the planet or the populous....

therefore, until that is acknowledged, the rest is only debatable in relative terms...numbers alone will drive the end result whatever it becomes....e.g. it won't make two shites what economic theory is 'proper' once water and food shortages become an unrecoverable problem for developed nations (the undeveloped would already move or die)....it's why I don't care what one thinks about my structuring of prose....it just doesn't matter anymore....

to be honest, I'm surprised the über rich haven't been kidnapped more in this country.....it's just a matter of time unless something cataclysmic happens that wipes out the problem....then it won't matter.....

I can't wait to see how the hacker sect finally cripples the global monetary systems/markets whilst simultaneously destroying the governments attached to that importance......yep, that one's gonna happen too....hopefully, my nuts will be long ago shriveled.....

anyone that thinks over taxing the rich is fundamentally sound or any other form of taxation will solve anything relevant to the whole isn't looking past their shadow

why people pay their taxes w/o recognizing their negotiating power is beyond me.....the real tea party rebels would self induce vaporization if they were alive today.....the would've coined "...the pussification of 'murica...wtf was I thnking?"

today, the human race as a collective, is figuratively the same as it was when that monkey stood uprigh t for the first time....unfortunately, today we pay to live longer so we can pay someone to wipe our arse......for that I pay homage to the porcelain god for indoor plumbing....