Finally, Some Good News for Mitt

[Hauldren Collider]

No, but people who make their wealth due to the largess of government (Which is all rich people) should pay more than the the poor people who do not make such wealth.

What, what?

[MrFun]

So you're suggesting Mitt Romney was some hard working laborer who set aside his wages and reaped a return in doing so, therefore taxing his capital gains the way wages are taxed would be unfair?

I'm still waiting for someone to respond to this.

[Kuciwalker]

If the capital contributes a lot more than the worker, than why shouldn't the capital be taxed far more than the worker?

The capital WAS taxed far more than the labor. The labor's value was << the total value produced, and presumably was also taxed at 10% (so it paid ~0 taxes). 10% of the capital was also taken by the government in taxes - 10/100 of the car replicators were appropriated.

When you start taxing the capital income, then an EVEN LARGER PROPORTION of the capital is appropriated - 19/100 - versus the same 10% of the worker's labor.

[Kuciwalker]

Asking the poor to pay to subsidize the wealthy seems grossly unfair.

The poor don't subsidize the wealthy. The poor receive massive net transfers of wealth from government redistribution.

[MrFun]

The video explains how tax payers subsidize the wealthy per example of Romney.

[The Mad Monk]

Did you notice how often "inherit" came up in that list? Including Washington and Jefferson?

I'm still waiting for you to respond to this.

[MrFun]

I have no problem with inheritance; that's a legitimate form of acquisition of wealth.

But when investors use tax payers' money to take risks with chance of making profit, rather than using their own money, that's not earning your own wealth.

[MrFun]

Oh, and here's more good news for Mitt Romney.

[Hauldren Collider]

That donor was an idiot if he thought that Mitt Romney would ever support gay marriage. Mitt Romney's position has not changed at all on that issue.

[The Mad Monk]

I have no problem with inheritance; that's a legitimate form of acquisition of wealth.

But when investors use tax payers' money to take risks with chance of making profit, rather than using their own money, that's not earning your own wealth.

...so you don't believe in mutual funds then? Having people that know more than you investing your money for you?

[kentonio]

...so you don't believe in mutual funds then? Having people that know more than you investing your money for you?

Is that earning your own wealth?

[The Mad Monk]

Are the people running the funds earning their own wealth?

[kentonio]

Are the people running the funds earning their own wealth?

If they're investing money and using their knowledge to make a profit then sure.

[The Mad Monk]

That is where bonuses come in.

[kentonio]

That is where bonuses come in.

As long as they're paying large taxes on those bonuses and earnings (and not destroying the worlds financial system in the process), good for them.