Lets TAX the rich at a higher rate!

http://thelookingspoon.com/blog/2320-but-progressive-students-dont-want-to-redistribute-their-gpa.html

with video awesomeness at 2:11 where the videographer forgets what he is supposed to be recording.

lol that college chick was kinda cute...I would have been distracted if I were holding the camera myself...prolly would have zoomed in a few times too!

Stupid analogy IMHO. As commented on by many posters on the blog for just some of the following reasons:

GPA, everyone starts on a level playing field. Personal wealth not so much, you can have inherited and generational wealth or poverty to start with
GPA, can not be invested to earn you higher grades in perpetuity with little or no further effort. Personal wealth creates more personal wealth.
GPA, everyone has the same maximum earnings (4.0). Personal wealth, well the sky is the limit.

Someone was drinking a little too much Conservative Kool-aid when they made that overly simplistic analogy. They are comparing a system that directly rewards personal effort and hard work, to one that is inherently biased in favour of those who are already wealthy.

Generational wealth, really? So, what is the ratio of people born into wealth vs those who create their own. Let me see....Buffett, Gates, Zuckerberg. Yeah, its easy to dismiss the premise base on "generational wealth".

Socialism is great, until it hits home.

Generational wealth can mean different things to different people Freeman....I'm sure that someone born into a family with a single mother earning minimum wage with 2 kids is less likely to attain higher education (and therefore succeed financialy) than someone born into a upper middle-class dual income home with the same 2 kids but both parents earning >$75,000 anually. You don't have to have parent's who are millionaires to get a head start financially early in life.

Who is more LIKELY to come out ahead financially in life? The kid who starts out with their $30-40K in RESP's, gets a gifted down payment on their first home, and is looking at a 6-7 figure inheritance at some point in their life or the kid who starts out life with $30-40K in student loans, who has to earn their own housing, and will never inherit anything but debt?

Ya, everyone is born with the same advantages in life.

That's why that analogy is soooooooo incredibly stupid, contrary to life in general everyone does have the same starting point once they are in a post secondary institution. Everyone starts with the same ZERO, everyone has the opportunity to EARN a 4.0. It doesn't matter what advantage or disadvantage someone starts with...a GPA is 100% earned. Wealth depends on way more factors than just one's own hard work unless you truly believe that the 90% of Canadian's who will never qualify as wealthy are just lazy a$$holes waiting for their handout.

I love that you mention Gates and Zuckerberg as examples of "succesfull" individuals. Two individuals who happened to lie, cheat and steal their way to the top. Guess none of that matters, they're billionaires and should be looked up to in the Conservative world.

Please post sources that Gates and Zuckerberg have lied, cheated and stolen their way to the top.

how did they lie cheat and steal their way to the top?

Also. your scenario "im sure that someone born into a family with a single mother earning
minimum wage with 2 kids is less likely to attain higher education " is EXACTLY what this is targeting at. Since these kids dont get the same chances, its likely that their GPA will be lower.. and with a lower GPA comes less chances at entry level high paying jobs.

The "richer" and therefore more chances at succeeding kids will likely have a higher GPA so they should share.

Are you guys for real?

Just because MS and Facebook have great legal departments doesn't mean that Bill and Mark are clean. I'm sure you can Google their track records.....but as usual it's not what you know it's what you can prove in court. DOS.....stolen.....Windows....UI stolen.....Zuckerberg still has lawsuits against him from the Winkelvoss' who he stole the idea for Facebook from......Zuckerberg settled with his original partner for an undisclosed sum for stealing his shares. Guess it's better to pay out of court than have the truth come out. Do the Googling yourselves. Both are number one slime balls in my book....but they're rich so I guess some feel the need to defend them.

Those 2 are great guys who should be looked up to...ah ha.

Deank wrote:how did they lie cheat and steal their way to the top?

Also. your scenario "im sure that someone born into a family with a single mother earning
minimum wage with 2 kids is less likely to attain higher education " is EXACTLY what this is targeting at. Since these kids dont get the same chances, its likely that their GPA will be lower.. and with a lower GPA comes less chances at entry level high paying jobs.

The "richer" and therefore more chances at succeeding kids will likely have a higher GPA so they should share.

No...just less likely to ever get there in the first place.Not the same argument at all. Once you are there, your likelyhood of success depends on nothing but your own effort.

Unless your rich, and you pay some guy online to write your papers for you.

It was a question. Far too often people say things and no one questions their facts because they "seem real"
FTR
Dos.. not stolen
Windows UI.. not stolen

Zuckerberg lawsuit.. already resolved. Judge told them.. do bad so sad.. you dont get more money after signing the agreement just because the company is worth more now.

Just cause the case was resolved (which is being appealed) does not change the fact that he stole their idea. The guy is a weasel.

Back on track....stupid analogy IMHO. You guys can agree with it if you like.

the appeal was denied...agreed does not mean he is not a weasel.

I wonder though.. HAD he not done anything with the idea, would his friends have gone forward with it? (not that it has anything to do with this discussion)


back on track

your own example of the poor single mother gives 100% credence to this analogy its just harder for you to see through the fog of your own opinion.

Actually, I think the sharing GPA is stupid, but taxing higher incomes at higher rates is pretty bloody stupid too.

Must be tough going through life hating anyone who has actually succeeded.

I'd agree with taxing banks at 80%. That's about $15 billion/yr.

what a timely report

http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/breakingnews/canadas-millionaires-didnt-inherit-wealth-they-earned-it-themselves-report-120198984.html


Canada's millionaires didn't inherit wealth, they earned it themselves: report

Let's not be swayed by fact!! And how many of them lied and cheated to get there?

grumpyrom wrote:Are you guys for real?

I am. You want to post such allegations here and put me/the sandbox at RISK ya best have facts to support your allegations.

grumpyrom wrote:Do the Googling yourselves. Both are number one slime balls in my book....but they're rich so I guess some feel the need to defend them..

Nope. I'm gonna have to insist you either prove your allegations or don't make them here.

Zuckerberg stole nothing. Those guys had a small concept - of which Zuck had aleady explored. He was just too polite with them. They got about $60m more than they deserved.

Best way to unsettle the rich is to take away their allowable deductions no?

A flat tax rate is decidedly the way to go. No tax deductions...

I dunno..that would pretty much screw me and my family of 800 kids over.

I only agree to it if it does not apply to me.

grumpy old man wrote:A flat tax rate is decidedly the way to go. No tax deductions...

Are you are saying a flat percentage of your income right across the board with no deductions, no matter how many kids or wives (ex-wives) you have?
What about people who have specific handi-caps which cause them extra expenses to live?
IE: Legally blind?

There is a proposal being put forth by one of the federal parties where income splitting will be allowed. How is that a fair tax proposal to all the single people out there? Same with child tax credits. Why do people require tax credits just because they have kids? Or handicap tax credits?

Flat tax. No tax deductions.

Maybe a minimum tax rate? $20k or less = zero tax. Over that a gradually increasing tax rate until what $40k? After that, flat rate.

Meh, no more taxes. Just user fees.

That's the way everything seems to be going anyway. No?

grumpy old man wrote:There is a proposal being put forth by one of the federal parties where income splitting will be allowed. How is that a fair tax proposal to all the single people out there? Same with child tax credits. Why do people require tax credits just because they have kids? Or handicap tax credits?

Flat tax. No tax deductions.

Maybe a minimum tax rate? $20k or less = zero tax. Over that a gradually increasing tax rate until what $40k? After that, flat rate.

We should also have a flat income rate. Do 8 hours of work. Get paid for 8 hours of work. I mean, everyone who works 8 hours does 8 hours of work, right? Everyone who does 8 hours of work gets $100.00.