Speeding ticket...............

[Ronnie's.930]

Originally Posted by Bob Kontak

You are an ass-clown.

Can't even spel werds as simple as whut.

Butt, I ken speyal yer kname jest fyne - itz j-a-c-k-a-s-s, see thar!!!!

[gliding_serpent]

ticket Gates or Seinfield and win the lotto.

"Bill gates received a 1 billion dollar parking ticket today..."

[ischmitz]

On that topic: Recently, a soccer player in Germany (Marco Reuss) got a fine for driving without a license. The ticket cost him a more than 500,000 Euro. It was for getting caught a couple of times driving without a license.

Recently some neighbors went to the police and claimed there were many more incidents where he was spotted cruising in his Aston Martin during the neighborhood. Due to the pressure from the public the case has been re-opened and according to the DA additional fines might be in store for him.:

Borussia Dortmund star Marco Reus given largest driving offence fine in German history after driving without a licence for three years - European - Football - The Independent

In Germany fines can be based on income

[RSBob]

Originally Posted by tomphot

Yes - let's turn the US into a socialist utopia.

You are 100% correct. I would prefer to live in a country where the wealthy pay disproportionally lower taxes (can you say Capital Gains tax rate, and numerous shelters?) and where the poor and middle class pay more. Oh wait, I think I am already living in utopia. Oh happy day!

Guess you will be passing on Social(ist) Security and Medicare when you are eligible. That leaves more for the rest. Keep up the good fight and lettuce know how that works fer ya.

[tomphot]

Originally Posted by RSBob

You are 100% correct. I would prefer to live in a country where the wealthy pay disproportionally lower taxes (can you say Capital Gains tax rate, and numerous shelters?) and where the poor and middle class pay more. Oh wait, I think I am already living in utopia. Oh happy day!

Guess you will be passing on Social(ist) Security and Medicare when you are eligible. That leaves more for the rest. Keep up the good fight and lettuce know how that works fer ya.

Having put a couple hundred thousand into the Social Security system, I won't feel bad about getting some it back, so no, I'm going to pass on it.
As to your assertion that the wealthy pay dis-proportionally lower taxes.
According to the IRS.
The top 25% of wage earners pay 85.6% of all taxes
Top 10% pay 68.3% of all taxes
Top 5% pay 56.5% of all taxes.

The bottom half pay 3.1%

Is the Fair?

[DaveMcKenz]

Originally Posted by tomphot

Having put a couple hundred thousand into the Social Security, I won't feel bad about getting some it back, so no, I'm going to pass on it.
As to your assertion that the wealthy pay pisroportinally lower taxes.
According to the IRS.
The top 25% of wage earners pay 85.6% of all taxes
Top 10% pay 68.3% of all taxes
Top 5% pay 56.5% of all taxes.

The bottom half pay 3.1%

Is the Fair?

It is definitely not fair. I also don't think it is just. It is, however, someone's idea of a good thing. Not my idea, though.
Dave

[Matt Monson]

I'm just gonna leave this here even though I doubt many have the attention span to watch all 6 minutes.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=QPKKQnijnsM

[NYNick]

Hey! Let's talk about the rationality of NCAA sports running our educational system too!

[86 911 Targa]

Driving on the autobahn and you are over 31 km/h too fast. That
costs: Euro 160,--, two points on your driver´s license and driving ban
of 1 month. That could be higher ehen it goes to court.

In countries like Switzerland, France or in Scandinavia that will cost a lot more.
And when it goes to court you pay much more depending on your income.

For us in Germany it is important that we do not exeed more 8 points. Otherwise
we get a driving ban for 6 months - sometimes.
^^^^^
Here is a response from one of our factory friends.

Gerry

[grizzfan]

Well I watched Matt Monson's suggested video all the way through, my 75 year old attention span being quite good. All I can comment at this point, having watched it, is the curiosity of all the one-percenters harping on "income inequality" and how we must fix it. You know the names, the nouveau rich like the Clintons and the Obamas, the powerful like the Berkshire-Hathaway tycoon and former Microsoft chairman as well as the money manipulators like George Soros, et al, ad nauseum. All Democrats too. So, why don't they just give their money to the poor and leave the rest of us alone? By the way, they don't. So in their populist diatribe there must be something I'm missing. There must be something in it for them beyond the satisfaction of giving. You should recall that in socialist/communist utopias there are some that are more equal than others, to borrow a phrase, beyond the proletariat.

As for fines based upon income, surely we can do better than that! How about everything you purchase, (bread, Porsches, milk, mortgage) being based upon what you earn? That should level the playing field pretty quickly and provide more to benevolent governments and their programs.

I'm dismayed by the naiveté of the apparent socialists on this forum and the relative few who think for a living.

Tom

[tomphot]

Originally Posted by grizzfan

Well I watched Matt Monson's suggested video all the way through, my 75 year old attention span being quite good. All I can comment at this point, having watched it, is the curiosity of all the one-percenters harping on "income inequality" and how we must fix it. You know the names, the nouveau rich like the Clintons and the Obamas, the powerful like the Berkshire-Hathaway tycoon and former Microsoft chairman as well as the money manipulators like George Soros, et al, ad nauseum. All Democrats too. So, why don't they just give their money to the poor and leave the rest of us alone? By the way, they don't. So in their populist diatribe there must be something I'm missing. There must be something in it for them beyond the satisfaction of giving. You should recall that in socialist/communist utopias there are some that are more equal than others, to borrow a phrase, beyond the proletariat.

As for fines based upon income, surely we can do better than that! How about everything you purchase, (bread, Porsches, milk, mortgage) being based upon what you earn? That should level the playing field pretty quickly and provide more to benevolent governments and their programs.

I'm dismayed by the naiveté of the apparent socialists on this forum and the relative few who think for a living.

Tom

Well Said!

[Tremelune]

Originally Posted by grizzfan

So, why don't they just give their money to the poor and leave the rest of us alone?

It would not make a dent. They are but a small portion of the 1%.

There is a very big difference between keeping the wealth disparity within a few orders of magnitude and making every cost based on income.


I have trouble understanding the practical opposition to moving in this direction. Unless you are a billionaire, you will gain financially. If you are a billionaire, your happiness is no longer tied to your wealth, even if the majority of it were to disappear overnight.


It is risky to conclude that an opposing viewpoint on a complex issue is ignorant or inferior. Often the disjoint stems not from facts, but from a different (and often contradictory) set of values.

[DaveMcKenz]

Originally Posted by Tremelune

It would not make a dent. They are but a small portion of the 1%.

There is a very big difference between keeping the wealth disparity within a few orders of magnitude and making every cost based on income.


I have trouble understanding the practical opposition to moving in this direction. Unless you are a billionaire, you will gain financially. If you are a billionaire, your happiness is no longer tied to your wealth, even if the majority of it were to disappear overnight.


It is risky to conclude that an opposing viewpoint on a complex issue is ignorant or inferior. Often the disjoint stems not from facts, but from a different (and often contradictory) set of values.

It's all about the right to personal property. The more it is eroded, the less is your freedom. Some cherish this more than others.
Dave

[grizzfan]

Tremelune posted:

I have trouble understanding the practical opposition to moving in this direction. Unless you are a billionaire, you will gain financially. If you are a billionaire, your happiness is no longer tied to your wealth, even if the majority of it were to disappear overnight.


It is risky to conclude that an opposing viewpoint on a complex issue is ignorant or inferior.

Your rationale for 'moving in this direction' and inability to understand the opposition to it, is simply to "stick it to those rich people" and wanton greed. We've been 'moving in this direction' since before FDR with near confiscatory tax rates for the rich and leaving nearly 50% at the bottom who pay none of the federal income tax burden. And nobody is happy. Certainly not the poor, who also rake in untold largess from the state (provided by the rich), and the rich who spend inordinate amounts of time protecting their wealth. I am not a rich man by any measure, but why should I suddenly become happy taking ill gained money from the rich? Unless I'm a jealous, vindictive, spiteful person.

The opposing points of view on this thread, from mine, are certainly naïve and may well be wrong-headed. I am not of the opinion that all values and opinions are equally merited. Some ideas, as the one espoused on this thread and politicians from the left, are just plain wrong.

Cheers,

Tom

PS: Had to chuckle that your number of posts is "666"!!

[Tremelune]

Not all values and opinions are equally merited, but the belief that your own are irrefutably correct is the sign of a closed mind.

I don't think we're discussing the same thing, but I'd like to clear up at least one spot that my words could leave up to interpretation: I don't believe you should support an idea just because it benefits you. I do believe the wealth disparity in this country will lead to far worse than a few people having a slightly less insane amount of money.

[Tremelune]

Originally Posted by grizzfan

PS: Had to chuckle that your number of posts is "666"!!

Me too...Give it time—you'll get there.

[Matt Monson]

The Obamas are far from 1% ers. They aren't even close. And they give quite a bit to charity.
Obamas’ 2014 Tax Return: Income Down, Donations Up - Washington Wire - WSJ
It's on the public record.

But what do I know? I'm just a niave entrepreneur with degree in Economics from UC Berkekey,one of the top schools in the country in the field.

[tomphot]

Originally Posted by Matt Monson

The Obamas are far from 1% ers. They aren't even close. And they give quite a bit to charity.
Obamas’ 2014 Tax Return: Income Down, Donations Up - Washington Wire - WSJ
It's on the public record.

But what do I know? I'm just a niave entrepreneur with degree in Economics from UC Berkekey,one of the top schools in the country in the field.

You are incorrect - with an AGI of $477,000 they are.....
The latest tax data released by the IRS is for the tax year 2011.
AGI Income levels are
Top 1% - $388,905
Top 5% - $167, 728
Top 10% - $120,136
Top 25% - $70,492

[Matt Monson]

There are more recent independent results putting it at $525k as of 2013.

[tomphot]

Originally Posted by Matt Monson

There are more recent independent results putting it at $525k as of 2013.

I would prefer to go with Actual results as published by the IRS - Independent sources, both liberal and conservative have a tendency to not be trusted.
Nevertheless, even if the number was $525k and their return was $477k - is that "far from it"?