Fine. My company is a stock trading company, with investing advisors and the such. And to answer JMO, im not pushing my personal ideas, mearly engaging in debate and the such. It is a fun way to pass the time while I am on vacation.

And I have joined the site for a little fun, I use to play this game when I was a child, and thought I would have some fun trying it again.

And where are you getting a degree from Goldfinger? If its near my area, I offer internships. Another thing I would not be able to do with tax increases.

And it is a fun game, Mr. V Many users on the site are 18-25 year olds, and there are also a substantial amount of users in their 30s, less so in their 40s and onward.

I'm at American University this year, but next year I shall be studying at the London School of Economics (or Oxford, haven't decided which program to choose)

If there is an opening and you remain interested, I will see what i could do. But you would need background checks, etc.

Background checks? You don't even know his real name yet! You're offering an internship to some guy you just started talking to on a website, when like half an hour ago you thought he was a commie-anarchist-wall street protester who wanted to vandalize your company. If you're going to create this kind of fake persona to troll a website, at least do it well.

lmao a TC sockpuppet... guess he felt he was being muted too much

No, I do not know him well. But finding personal information like name would fal under the etc in my previous statement.

Once again, rash accusations! I do not like them at all!

So learning someone's name is a background check now? Hiring processes are getting more and more lax. Presumably there would have to be an interview at some point? And you would naturally consider several applicants? Right?

Yes

I love the redirection. The point should be does the govt need more money to do its business OR is the government trying to pay for things that it has no business doing. Just because the federal govt creates a program doesn't mean it's constitutional. Taxing anyone to fund unconstitutional items is wrong regardless of personal feelings that the rich should pay because they're rich. Redistributing wealth to benefit some at the expense of others is as wrong as slavery.

"Redistributing wealth to benefit some at the expense of others is as wrong as slavery." - Ummmm wow. Making people pay back some of the wealth that society allowed them to accumulate is as bad as owning another human being as property? That is a seriously skewed moral compass you have there The Czech.

The rich create jobs? That's why unemployment is so low despite record low taxes on the rich, right? That's why in many states and regions the only growth sector in terms of jobs is the government. That's why Bank of America took their bailout money and promptly pocketed it while shutting down factories it loaned money to.

The rich are worthless parasites. They're not job creators, they're surplus expropriators.

a stock trading company that buys small online game sites. yup, checks out.

Every rich loving fascist on this site is some small business owner. Small business owners were also the driving force behind National Socialism. Every reactionary policy ever has been done in the name of these petty service industry proprietors.

or in this case a fake small business owner

95% tax rate on rich people's income TODAY.

Or, you know, I'll stop advocating for such silliness immediately.....

for 500USD

pm me for paypal info

@ Mafialligator. Yes. You stated it so beautifully. Society allowed (voluntarily) that person to accumulate wealth. Why must the government FORCE them to pay more than anyone else? Just because they can afford it is a weak argument. A flat tax makes all equal under the law. Your punitive view of how the government should work creates injustice. If government is of and by the people, why should some pay more than others?

Warren Buffet said, to paraphrase, "I've never seen anyone avoid a good investment because of the tax rate on their profits".

Taxes don't stop small business from making jobs. Employee salaries are a business expense, and are not taxed. Your profits are taxed, not your expenses.

Because flax taxation ends up being considerably more detrimental to the rich than the poor. People with lower incomes already spend a much much larger percentage of their income on their basic needs, Food, housing, clothing, personal hygiene items, etc. And so paying a 10% tax is much more of a hardship than a 10% tax for someone who makes more money. The result of this is that a flat tax actually becomes regressive. That is to say, a flat tax has the perverse effect of actually redistributing wealth from the poor to the rich.

And even if that weren't the case, your argument ignores the fact that in a capitalist system the process by which the rich accumulate wealth is one in which workers are coerced into wage agreements which are structured so as to appropriate their work for a price much lower than it's actual value. (Some leftists refer to that as "wage slavery" but I'm consciously avoiding the term slavery, because it's such a racially charged word that I think should be used very carefully).

Gah, that first sentence should read "Because flat taxation ends up being considerably more detrimental to the poor than the rich." - Said that backwards.

@jgcrawfo But doesn't how much a business profits correlate directly to the ability to hire more workers? Taxes reduce profit, so there is less money available for expenses the next year for new hirings, which lowers the ability and incentive to employ another worker.

I see where you're coming from, jpgredsox, but in a practical sense, I wouldn't expect to see a massive tax rise which shouldn't interrupt their flow of capital drastically, so they can continue to make investments in their business and deduct those against their profits.

@ jpgredsox - Ability, yes. But the current crisis isn't about the ability to hire more workers. Small businesses aside (and not to shatter your American dream or anything but small business owners are not going to be impacted by an increase in taxes on the richest 1%), the current crisis isn't about ability to hire, but willingness/need to. If a company needed to hire more people to continue operations, they'd find room in the budget for it. That's the key point. Companies will never hire employees they have no use for, even at the very best of times. Hiring is driven by demand for products. If a company is doing lots of business and needs more employees to meet the needs of their customers, they will hire more people. If a company is doing well, but has enough employees to meet demand, employment won't change. Why give away money that you could just keep? Because you happen to have it lying around? That's not a very good reason.

Increasing taxation on the top 1% creates more revenue for the government, which allows the government to invest in social programs, which increases the spending power, and the willingness to spend of the other 99% of the population, increasing demand for non-essential goods and services, which drives up employment.

A sockpuppet is an online identity used for purposes of deception.

A significant difference between the use of a pseudonym and the creation of a sockpuppet is that the sockpuppet poses as a independent third-party unaffiliated with the puppeteer.

Exactly what the mute button was made for.

Transparent is the operative word here.

"Increasing taxation on the top 1% creates more revenue for the government, which allows the government to invest in social programs, which increases the spending power, and the willingness to spend of the other 99% of the population, increasing demand for non-essential goods and services, which drives up employment."

Yeah, that totally worked with the stimulus in 2009, but I know for a fact that you would probably just say there wasn't enough spending, because that really is the only thing you can say to defend your position, isn't it? And while we're on the topic of taxes, the top 1% pays about 40% of the income tax burden in the united states, while the top 10% pays 71% of taxes, but I guess they're not paying their "fair share.'