Posted by tecwrg on 6/27/2014 10:41:00 AM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/27/2014 10:38:00 AM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 6/27/2014 10:24:00 AM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/27/2014 10:15:00 AM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 6/27/2014 9:41:00 AM (view original):
What was the answer?

Go back and read. I'm not going to answer again just because you keep asking over and over again.

I've asked once, at 8:20pm last night.  You didn't answer then, and you're not answering now.

I'm not going back to read 114 pages trying to find an answer that you never gave to a question that had not yet been asked.

I'll just assume that you can't answer, or don't want to answer the question.  You want to limit the high end of salaries but have no rational explanation as to why.

Good job.

You can assume whatever you want, as long as you stop asking the same question over and over again after it has already been answered.

Except you haven't answered.  And I only asked twice: once last night (when you avoided answering) and again this morning (where you are again avoiding answering).

Good job.

Are you going to keep asking a question that has already been answered?

Posted by tecwrg on 6/26/2014 4:19:00 PM (view original):
When you say things like "we need to stop the accumulation of wealth at the top", and that you want to "stop 1000x salaries", it sure sounds like a war.

Then, you insist that we need to take away more tax money from those people "because they won't miss it".  You're specifically targeting that group because of who and what they are.

Again, that sure sounds like a war.

Because you quoted my answer here.

But it isn't war. Just policy.

What tec thinks a progressive tax rate looks like:

Posted by bad_luck on 6/27/2014 11:02:00 AM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 6/26/2014 4:19:00 PM (view original):
When you say things like "we need to stop the accumulation of wealth at the top", and that you want to "stop 1000x salaries", it sure sounds like a war.

Then, you insist that we need to take away more tax money from those people "because they won't miss it".  You're specifically targeting that group because of who and what they are.

Again, that sure sounds like a war.

Because you quoted my answer here.

So your answer to the question "What is the purpose of regulating salaries" is "because they won't miss it"?

Good job.

And doesn't that work against your "Let's tax the wealthiest people even more because they won't miss it" proposal?

If you limit the salaries of the highest earners, that's a lot less potential tax revenue for you to take away from the top brackets.

Where are you recoup that lost tax revenue from?

Posted by tecwrg on 6/27/2014 10:41:00 AM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/27/2014 10:38:00 AM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 6/27/2014 10:24:00 AM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/27/2014 10:15:00 AM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 6/27/2014 9:41:00 AM (view original):
What was the answer?

Go back and read. I'm not going to answer again just because you keep asking over and over again.

I've asked once, at 8:20pm last night.  You didn't answer then, and you're not answering now.

I'm not going back to read 114 pages trying to find an answer that you never gave to a question that had not yet been asked.

I'll just assume that you can't answer, or don't want to answer the question.  You want to limit the high end of salaries but have no rational explanation as to why.

Good job.

You can assume whatever you want, as long as you stop asking the same question over and over again after it has already been answered.

Except you haven't answered.  And I only asked twice: once last night (when you avoided answering) and again this morning (where you are again avoiding answering).

Good job.

HOLY ****!!!!  Did badluck just complain about someone asking the same question over and over again after it's been answered?

Isn't that his MO?

Talk about lacking self-awareness.

Posted by tecwrg on 6/27/2014 11:08:00 AM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/27/2014 11:02:00 AM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 6/26/2014 4:19:00 PM (view original):
When you say things like "we need to stop the accumulation of wealth at the top", and that you want to "stop 1000x salaries", it sure sounds like a war.

Then, you insist that we need to take away more tax money from those people "because they won't miss it".  You're specifically targeting that group because of who and what they are.

Again, that sure sounds like a war.

Because you quoted my answer here.

So your answer to the question "What is the purpose of regulating salaries" is "because they won't miss it"?

Good job.

Nope. Different quote.

Because "we need to stop the accumulation of wealth at the top"?

Why do we need to do that?

Posted by tecwrg on 6/27/2014 11:32:00 AM (view original):
And doesn't that work against your "Let's tax the wealthiest people even more because they won't miss it" proposal?

If you limit the salaries of the highest earners, that's a lot less potential tax revenue for you to take away from the top brackets.

Where are you recoup that lost tax revenue from?

And please don't forget to answer this.

Posted by tecwrg on 6/27/2014 12:15:00 PM (view original):
Because "we need to stop the accumulation of wealth at the top"?

Why do we need to do that?

Because it's good for the economy.

Posted by tecwrg on 6/27/2014 12:19:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 6/27/2014 11:32:00 AM (view original):
And doesn't that work against your "Let's tax the wealthiest people even more because they won't miss it" proposal?

If you limit the salaries of the highest earners, that's a lot less potential tax revenue for you to take away from the top brackets.

Where are you recoup that lost tax revenue from?

And please don't forget to answer this.

1) no

2) I'm assuming that a ratio cap will compress wages. It may drop tax revenue, but the government won't have to spend as much with less people in poverty.

Posted by bad_luck on 6/27/2014 12:31:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 6/27/2014 12:19:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 6/27/2014 11:32:00 AM (view original):
And doesn't that work against your "Let's tax the wealthiest people even more because they won't miss it" proposal?

If you limit the salaries of the highest earners, that's a lot less potential tax revenue for you to take away from the top brackets.

Where are you recoup that lost tax revenue from?

And please don't forget to answer this.

1) no

2) I'm assuming that a ratio cap will compress wages. It may drop tax revenue, but the government won't have to spend as much with less people in poverty.

You are such a joke.

You're just making stupid **** up as you go along.

Good job.

Ha. Don't like the answer? Go cry in the corner.

Perhaps it would be easier to cap the cost of goods/services.   Gallon of milk: $2.  Loaf of bread:  50 cents.   Steak dinner: $5.

Less people in poverty because the cost of living is much lower.

Good idea?