If immortality technology existed, but only the rich could purchase it . . .

Dixie said:
You also earn a different type of income than Romney. Most of his income is from dividends and not salary, yours is mostly salary. You and Mitt use the same U.S. Tax Code, and if you made his type income, you'd pay the same exact rate he pays, regardless of your wealth. Also, if Mitt earned income through wages like you, he would pay the exact same rate as you, regardless of his wealth. As a matter of fact, when Mitt was like you, he paid a higher tax rate than you are paying now. You actually have more advantage than he did.
Click to expand...

Nah, we both have income, doesn't matter the terminology used to describe the income. The rich have a definite advantage in income tax, alone, nevermind the rest of the benefits they enjoy.
Deny reality all you want, but that will not make your argument true.
 
Rune said:
Nah, we both have income, doesn't matter the terminology used to describe the income. The rich have a definite advantage in income tax, alone, nevermind the rest of the benefits they enjoy.
Deny reality all you want, but that will not make your argument true.
Click to expand...

Yeah, you both have income, but as I correctly said, you have different types of income. Nothing in the tax code says rich people get to pay less tax. He pays the same rate on dividend income as you would pay on dividend income, the rate is not determined by your wealth amount. You pay the same rate he would pay on income from wages. The same tax code applies to both of you, and you've not shown any "advantage" by the rich. Again, before Mitt was wealthy, when he was earning income from wages, he paid a higher percentage of income tax than you are paying now. For all intents and purposes, you have it easier than Romney had it.

Your meme has been destroyed and dismantled, right before your very eyes. I know this comes as a shock, because your Socialist masters didn't warn you this could happen, but happen it has. You've failed to show where "the rich" have any special advantage over anyone else, with regard to our tax code and laws. The reason is simple, such an advantage doesn't exist.
 
Dixie said:
Yeah, you both have income, but as I correctly said, you have different types of income. Nothing in the tax code says rich people get to pay less tax. He pays the same rate on dividend income as you would pay on dividend income, the rate is not determined by your wealth amount. You pay the same rate he would pay on income from wages. The same tax code applies to both of you, and you've not shown any "advantage" by the rich. Again, before Mitt was wealthy, when he was earning income from wages, he paid a higher percentage of income tax than you are paying now. For all intents and purposes, you have it easier than Romney had it.

Your meme has been destroyed and dismantled, right before your very eyes. I know this comes as a shock, because your Socialist masters didn't warn you this could happen, but happen it has. You've failed to show where "the rich" have any special advantage over anyone else, with regard to our tax code and laws. The reason is simple, such an advantage doesn't exist.
Click to expand...

This is the stupidest argument I have ever heard. Income is income, and the rich at taxed at a lower rate. This is so stupid, it reminds me of Bravo's claim that gays have the same marital rights as straights, since either of them can marry the woman of their choice. Are you really as stupid as Bravo?
 
Rune said:
This is the stupidest argument I have ever heard. Income is income, and the rich at taxed at a lower rate. This is so stupid, it reminds me of Bravo's claim that gays have the same marital rights as straights, since either of them can marry the woman of their choice. Are you really as stupid as Bravo?
Click to expand...

But income is NOT income, according to our tax code, which was approved and passed into law by our legislative representatives. Rich people didn't do that. Rich people ARE NOT TAXED AT A LOWER RATE! You can keep repeating it, but that's just not true. Dividend income is taxed at a lower rate than salaries, tips and wages. There is no prerequisite regarding wealth. It does not matter if you are rich or poor, you use the same exact US Tax Code. Either you can refute that with some facts, or you can't.
 
Why not present it as a yacht, or private jet? The answer is yes, who can afford it is immatterial.
 
Dixie said:
In America, the wealthy don't get any special privileges just because they are wealthy. Sorry, it's a failed argument.
Click to expand...

You actually believe that? If so, you have an amazing ability to delude yourself.
 
Jughead said:
You actually believe that? If so, you have an amazing ability to delude yourself.
Click to expand...

I stated it as a fact, not a belief. Your challenge is to refute it, and you can't. Therefore, you want to claim it is something we can believe or not believe, and we need to clarify, I stated it as a fact. When you have an established fact, you don't need faith in beliefs.
 
Useful Idiot said:
But income is NOT income, according to our tax code, which was approved and passed into law by our legislative representatives. Rich people didn't do that. Rich people ARE NOT TAXED AT A LOWER RATE! You can keep repeating it, but that's just not true. Dividend income is taxed at a lower rate than salaries, tips and wages. There is no prerequisite regarding wealth. It does not matter if you are rich or poor, you use the same exact US Tax Code. Either you can refute that with some facts, or you can't.
Click to expand...

Actually, rich people did indeed do that. Point out the poor members of Congress and the Senate please. Not only are the legislators themselves rich, but they do the very bidding of their donors, the rich. You are a useful idiot.
 
Dixie said:
I stated it as a fact, not a belief. Your challenge is to refute it, and you can't. Therefore, you want to claim it is something we can believe or not believe, and we need to clarify, I stated it as a fact. When you have an established fact, you don't need faith in beliefs.
Click to expand...

I see, if Dixie states it as a fact, it becomes our challange to refute it. Dixie does not have to support anything that comes out of his ass.
 
I am a genius. Now that Ive stated that, it is an established fact until someone is able to prove otherwise.
 
Dixie said:
I'm absolutely serious. The only thing you've presented is the obvious thing, money. Well, people are always going to have money, right? And there will always be some people with more than others, right? So how are rich people advantaged in the legal system with money? Are courts and juries paid off, is that what you are claiming? I will go so far as to say, if you can find any instance of a judge or jury deciding a case based on someone's wealth, I am opposed to this and think it should be stopped. No law on the books says, if you are wealthy it doesn't apply to you.

Now, I will state it again. The rich are afforded NO ADVANTAGE over others in our society. Yes, they do have money. Rich people are always going to have money, we're never going to know a universe in reality, where rich people don't have money. Our system of free market capitalism allows people to have money. Our system also provides an equal opportunity for everyone to acquire money. But most importantly, and this is something you need to pay close attention to... our rules of law are NEVER determined, based on a person's wealth or lack thereof. NEVER! It's against our general principles as well as the Constitution.

You and the Socialist Marxists, have crowed with this continuing meme about the advantage of the rich, and there isn't any. But you just keep on spewing it, and soon, moderate people start listening to this shit. Incrementalism. Win over a few at a time, to this wrong-headed viewpoint, and eventually you can transform our capitalist free market system, into a vibrant Socialist Marxist system where NO ONE HAS WEALTH except for the Ruling Class!
Click to expand...

Wait until someone in your family has a child custudy case and the ex can afford an attorney and your family can not, as an example. WE will see whether or not you still believe that wealth does not afford extra legal benefits.
 
Independent said:
Wait until someone in your family has a child custudy case and the ex can afford an attorney and your family can not, as an example. WE will see whether or not you still believe that wealth does not afford extra legal benefits.
Click to expand...

Divorce, criminal charges, etc. children of two friends, one affluent, the other lower middle class, arrested for discharging a firearm in the city limits, a paintball gun, the affluent child, got off with a warning, the other had to do community service. Both children had no prior record, but good students! One had a private attorney, the other no lawyer.
 
Last edited:
Independent said:
Wait until someone in your family has a child custudy case and the ex can afford an attorney and your family can not, as an example. WE will see whether or not you still believe that wealth does not afford extra legal benefits.
Click to expand...

It doesn't matter how much money you pay a lawyer, the rule of law is still the same for everyone. There are absolutely no legal benefits to hiring an expensive lawyer. Now, perhaps a higher priced lawyer will know and understand the rules and laws and how to make them work to his client's advantage? Maybe a cheaper lawyer is not as smart? There is nothing in the law that says poor people must only use cheap lawyers, or rich people must only use expensive lawyers. There is no law which states it can be applied on the basis of how much an attorney is making. No court ruling is ever made on the basis of how much the lawyers are paid.

We still live in a Capitalist society, where a person's worth is determined by their ability and knowledge, and what they bring to the table. Therefore, smart lawyers are always going to command a higher rate than dumb lawyers.
 
Dr. Krieger said:
Lets say that we invent some new technology that allows one to live forever and perfectly fine.

But it's really expensive, and will always be expensive. Only the top 3% will ever be able to purchase it. And only for themselves and their close family members.

Basically, 97% can't have it.

1) would society outlaw this out of spite?
2) what are your specific thoughts? should it be allowed?

this is not a leading question or a mott-type switcharoo thread.
Click to expand...

Wouldn't the costs eventually go down?

I'd be fine with banning if not.
 
Dixie said:
It doesn't matter how much money you pay a lawyer, the rule of law is still the same for everyone. There are absolutely no legal benefits to hiring an expensive lawyer. Now, perhaps a higher priced lawyer will know and understand the rules and laws and how to make them work to his client's advantage? Maybe a cheaper lawyer is not as smart? There is nothing in the law that says poor people must only use cheap lawyers, or rich people must only use expensive lawyers. There is no law which states it can be applied on the basis of how much an attorney is making. No court ruling is ever made on the basis of how much the lawyers are paid.

We still live in a Capitalist society, where a person's worth is determined by their ability and knowledge, and what they bring to the table. Therefore, smart lawyers are always going to command a higher rate than dumb lawyers.
Click to expand...

Did your mother drop you on your head as a child? How can you have so little common sense?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top