Of course he would.  "Tax them more because they'd miss it less" says all that he needs to say.

Yes, it is. It's better to slow the accumulation of wealth at the top.

It's probably closer to 10% supporting the other 90%.  But yeah, that's what I think he wants.

Posted by bad_luck on 6/22/2014 6:44:00 PM (view original):
Yes, it is. It's better to slow the accumulation of wealth at the top.

That's the **** that kiills your argument.

Honestly, taxing Tiger Woods, Bill Gates, Mark Cuban, Donald Trump, etc, etc more and putting another 2k in my pocket IS GOOD FOR ME.  I'd definitely put that 2k back into the economy.   But that doesn't mean I think it's right to make them pay more so I can have more.  I'm not built that way.    

Posted by tecwrg on 6/22/2014 6:51:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/22/2014 6:44:00 PM (view original):
Yes, it is. It's better to slow the accumulation of wealth at the top.

That's the **** that kiills your argument.

How?

Posted by moy23 on 6/22/2014 7:41:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/22/2014 7:19:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 6/22/2014 6:51:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/22/2014 6:44:00 PM (view original):
Yes, it is. It's better to slow the accumulation of wealth at the top.

That's the **** that kiills your argument.

How?

Cause eventually they have enough of it and 'make' their money offshore like Mitt's $100 million IRA....

I think the total # is now at ~$32 trillion in offshore accounts now. This money will never be taxed again in the US. To put that in perspective .... JPM has a little over $1 trillion in total deposits.

Moving money offshore only works if the money was made offshore. That's viable for some people but not for most.

Posted by bad_luck on 6/22/2014 7:19:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 6/22/2014 6:51:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/22/2014 6:44:00 PM (view original):
Yes, it is. It's better to slow the accumulation of wealth at the top.

That's the **** that kiills your argument.

How?

You need it spelled out for you?

Use small letters.

He dumb.

One would think that 1.5 percent was low marginal utility.   Assuming, of course, BL was past the starvation mode.

Posted by moy23 on 6/22/2014 8:30:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/22/2014 7:49:00 PM (view original):

Posted by moy23 on 6/22/2014 7:41:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/22/2014 7:19:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 6/22/2014 6:51:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/22/2014 6:44:00 PM (view original):
Yes, it is. It's better to slow the accumulation of wealth at the top.

That's the **** that kiills your argument.

How?

Cause eventually they have enough of it and 'make' their money offshore like Mitt's $100 million IRA....

I think the total # is now at ~$32 trillion in offshore accounts now. This money will never be taxed again in the US. To put that in perspective .... JPM has a little over $1 trillion in total deposits.

Moving money offshore only works if the money was made offshore. That's viable for some people but not for most.

Ha ha.... Or made to look like it was made offshore.

Bottom line is to bring that $ back the the US its going to be heavily taxed.... If I'm a business with $100 billion abroad and the cost to bring that $ to the US is between $25- $35 billion I'm reinvesting abroad. I can get a loan for investing in the US that's tax free and a much lower rate than 35%.

You yourself drove aaaalllll the way to another city to save a mere 1.5% on your car sales tax which tells me you would do the same as these individuals and companies.

If this money had low marginal utility to them they wouldn't have gone through all this trouble to keep it from getting taxed.

Do you think that diminished marginal utility = not valued?

That's not what it means.

Like I said several times before, the money may be highly valued. It still has less utility.