APP - Question for Jarod

[Teflon Don]

Jarod,

Serious question here.

What would you say if I came to your local government and got them to pass an ordinance where I become an executor of your business? Basically, I would request the power to take the earnings of your business and distribute it as I see fit. What do you think about that scenario?

I mean, I would use all of that money you make to first pay your paralegal $500,000 a year with 6 weeks paid vacation, a company car, and even pay for her utilities, food and housing. Then I would distribute what is left.

How would you feel about that?

 

[Jarod]

Jarod,

Serious question here.

What would you say if I came to your local government and got them to pass an ordinance where I become an executor of your business? Basically, I would request the power to take the earnings of your business and distribute it as I see fit. What do you think about that scenario?

I mean, I would use all of that money you make to first pay your paralegal $500,000 a year with 6 weeks paid vacation, a company car, and even pay for her utilities, food and housing. Then I would distribute what is left.

How would you feel about that?

I would feel amused by your belief that in a million years my local government would pass such an ordinance, then amused that any court in the nation would uphold such an ordinance.

That's my honest answer based on your question. I am sure now you are going to try to draw some silly parallel to something that you claim is happening now in real life.

 

[Teflon Don]

I would feel amused by your belief that in a million years my local government would pass such an ordinance, then amused that any court in the nation would uphold such an ordinance.

That's my honest answer based on your question. I am sure now you are going to try to draw some silly parallel to something that you claim is happening now in real life.

Why couldn't I get a local government to pass it? All I have to do is accuse you of being the 1% which you are. And all I have to do is accuse you of not paying your fair share, which you obviously are not because we know that the 1% do not pay their fair share.

And on what constitutional basis would a court strike it down? Cite precedent please.

 

[Teflon Don]

Also, why would you oppose such a scenario and what grounds do you oppose it? Are you greedy?

 

[Jarod]

Why couldn't I get a local government to pass it? All I have to do is accuse you of being the 1% which you are. And all I have to do is accuse you of not paying your fair share, which you obviously are not because we know that the 1% do not pay their fair share.

And on what constitutional basis would a court strike it down? Cite precedent please.

This is tiresome, I am not going to take the time to do research or cite precedent. Sorry.

The government would not pass such a law because nobody would agree, that you, with no particular credentials should personally have any claim to do something with the proceeds of my business. There are Constitutional and other common sense bases for striking such a law. Equal Protection, Due Process are two that come to mind off the top of my head.

 

[Jarod]

Also, why would you oppose such a scenario and what grounds do you oppose it? Are you greedy?

I would oppose it because I already pay what the collective of our democracy says I should pay to society in general. The remainder is mine to do with what I chose.

Its not greedy to not chose to give my money over to your personal executorship.

 

[Teflon Don]

This is tiresome, I am not going to take the time to do research or cite precedent. Sorry.

The government would not pass such a law because nobody would agree, that you, with no particular credentials should personally have any claim to do something with the proceeds of my business. There are Constitutional and other common sense bases for striking such a law. Equal Protection, Due Process are two that come to mind off the top of my head.

What if we just call it a tax? You aren't opposed to paying a tax are you? What if we make it apply to just the 1%? Would you support it then? Because then it wouldn't be singling you out, but the top 1% and as we have agreed, the top 1% aren't paying their fair share. That has been readily established.

How do you know I don't have the credentials to spend your money better than you do? I would just have them make me a government bureaucrat no different than someone working at the Post Office or welfare office.

 

[Teflon Don]

I would oppose it because I already pay what the collective of our democracy says I should pay to society in general. The remainder is mine to do with what I chose.

Its not greedy to not chose to give my money over to your personal executorship.

So you would disagree with the notion that the 1% (you) aren't paying their fair share and should pony up more?

 

[Teflon Don]

This is tiresome, I am not going to take the time to do research or cite precedent. Sorry.

The government would not pass such a law because nobody would agree, that you, with no particular credentials should personally have any claim to do something with the proceeds of my business. There are Constitutional and other common sense bases for striking such a law. Equal Protection, Due Process are two that come to mind off the top of my head.

How can this be tiresome? We only just got started. We haven't even scratched the surface. I am stunned by your reluctance in opposing my scheme to redistribute your income. That was, based on comments by you, the goal of the left. Aren't you for income inequality? Don't you think your worker should earn $500,000 a year? Didn't you once say you couldn't do without her? She is obviously making your shop run. Why should you make more than her? What gives you that right?

 

[Teflon Don]

I would oppose it because I already pay what the collective of our democracy says I should pay to society in general. The remainder is mine to do with what I chose.

Its not greedy to not chose to give my money over to your personal executorship.

But, I am going to redistribute your money to the needy. I promise to give you receipts and everything. I am going to reinvest that money back into your community for jobs and infrastructure and food and housing. Why would you oppose that on a personal level?

 

[Jarod]

What if we just call it a tax? You aren't opposed to paying a tax are you? What if we make it apply to just the 1%? Would you support it then? Because then it wouldn't be singling you out, but the top 1% and as we have agreed, the top 1% aren't paying their fair share. That has been readily established.

How do you know I don't have the credentials to spend your money better than you do? I would just have them make me a government bureaucrat no different than someone working at the Post Office or welfare office.

If a majority of Americans supported officials who found a way to legally pass such a tax, that applied to everyone across the board and not just me, that would be a very different story. I don't think that would be possible.

 

[Jarod]

So you would disagree with the notion that the 1% (you) aren't paying their fair share and should pony up more?

Not necessarily, but in some instances yes.

One huge difference is that I am in the 1% of earning, I am not in the 1% of having. I did not inherit money, I was not given a job in a family business, and I don't have enough assets to be in the 1% of wealth, just the 1% of earning. I would pay extra taxes if the collective agreed that I should based on a law passed by the rules of the land that applied across the board.

 

[Teflon Don]

If a majority of Americans supported officials who found a way to legally pass such a tax, that applied to everyone across the board and not just me, that would be a very different story. I don't think that would be possible.

So all I would have to do is get people to agree to tax the top 1%? That is easy. We do that all the time. So I am not sure why you think it is impossible.

I am not sure what you mean by this across the board stuff? Surely you aren't supporting regressive taxation on the poor are you?

 

[Jarod]

How can this be tiresome? We only just got started. We haven't even scratched the surface. I am stunned by your reluctance in opposing my scheme to redistribute your income. That was, based on comments by you, the goal of the left. Aren't you for income inequality? Don't you think your worker should earn $500,000 a year? Didn't you once say you couldn't do without her? She is obviously making your shop run. Why should you make more than her? What gives you that right?

She could not run the place without me also. I went into debt to pay for law school, she did not. I am not against income inequality in all instances and never claimed otherwise. You are simply putting words in my mouth. What is tiresome is playing this game where I answer questions you have based on unsubstantiated claims about my personal beliefs.

 

[Jarod]

But, I am going to redistribute your money to the needy. I promise to give you receipts and everything. I am going to reinvest that money back into your community for jobs and infrastructure and food and housing. Why would you oppose that on a personal level?

I can oppose it on many levels, you are not the arbitrator. At some level a collective is, but you are not.

 

[Teflon Don]

Not necessarily, but in some instances yes.

One huge difference is that I am in the 1% of earning, I am not in the 1% of having. I did not inherit money, I was not given a job in a family business, and I don't have enough assets to be in the 1% of wealth, just the 1% of earning. I would pay extra taxes if the collective agreed that I should based on a law passed by the rules of the land that applied across the board.

You are spinning a bit now. This country has never taxed wealth. You are the top 1%. When the lefties speak of the top 1% they are speaking of those like you. They never speak of assets. Oh sure, they use people like Warren Buffett as foils, but they never, ever talk about taxing assets so you are building a straw man.

I am talking solely on income. We have established precedent that

a) gobblements have a broad authority to tax and not even tax equally so you don't have a leg to stand on with that
b) The top 1% do not pay their fair share as is spoken by the left continually to say otherwise would be an outright fabrication
c) We have a long history of the gobblement spending money as they see fit. You have not established one precedent or moral argument to oppose such a measure, other than you don't want to. Sorry. Just because you don't want to and you want to be greedy with your money is not good enough. You are responsible for this income inequality and I am merely trying to level the playing field.
d) We have a history of getting the "collective" to single out the 1%ers such as yourself so it isn't hard to get them to vote for it. Do you really think it would be hard for me to come to your community and promise to take YOUR money and give it to other people? You really think I can't get people to vote for that?

I am extremely disheartened at your abject greed and heartlessness here. I thought a committed left winger such as yourself would jump at the opportunity to reduce the level of income inequality in your small slice of heaven. It is clear that I have misjudged your character.

 

[Teflon Don]

She could not run the place without me also. I went into debt to pay for law school, she did not. I am not against income inequality in all instances and never claimed otherwise. You are simply putting words in my mouth. What is tiresome is playing this game where I answer questions you have based on unsubstantiated claims about my personal beliefs.

I am disheartened by your greedy nature and your unwillingness to share. You didn't build that.


It was the taxpayers who subsidized your student loans. You didn't build that. It was the taxpayers that subsidized the roads so your clients can get to your offices. You didn't build that. It was the taxpayers that funded everything you do. You make yourself sound like a self mad man. You didn't build that

 

[Teflon Don]

I can oppose it on many levels, you are not the arbitrator. At some level a collective is, but you are not.

Are you against infrastructure? Are you against helping the poor? Do you want children to starve? Are you against schools?

Those things require money. Your money. Stop being greedy. Allow me to redistribute your income

 

[Jarod]

So all I would have to do is get people to agree to tax the top 1%? That is easy. We do that all the time. So I am not sure why you think it is impossible.

I am not sure what you mean by this across the board stuff? Surely you aren't supporting regressive taxation on the poor are you?

No, you originally said that YOU (an individual) were going to petition to take authority over MY (an individual) money. That is very different from the democratic process determining how we are going to go about paying for the things that the collective has decided the government needs to pay for.

If you will allow me... You believe the government should never attain any money from anyone? They should never raise money to pay for an army or a road or the salary of a police officer?

Using your logic, why should I have to pay for a police officer if I can afford to hire my own private security force?

 

[Jarod]

You are spinning a bit now. This country has never taxed wealth. You are the top 1%. When the lefties speak of the top 1% they are speaking of those like you. They never speak of assets. Oh sure, they use people like Warren Buffett as foils, but they never, ever talk about taxing assets so you are building a straw man.

I am talking solely on income. We have established precedent that

a) gobblements have a broad authority to tax and not even tax equally so you don't have a leg to stand on with that
b) The top 1% do not pay their fair share as is spoken by the left continually to say otherwise would be an outright fabrication
c) We have a long history of the gobblement spending money as they see fit. You have not established one precedent or moral argument to oppose such a measure, other than you don't want to. Sorry. Just because you don't want to and you want to be greedy with your money is not good enough. You are responsible for this income inequality and I am merely trying to level the playing field.
d) We have a history of getting the "collective" to single out the 1%ers such as yourself so it isn't hard to get them to vote for it. Do you really think it would be hard for me to come to your community and promise to take YOUR money and give it to other people? You really think I can't get people to vote for that?

I am extremely disheartened at your abject greed and heartlessness here. I thought a committed left winger such as yourself would jump at the opportunity to reduce the level of income inequality in your small slice of heaven. It is clear that I have misjudged your character.

Most of the above is horse shit, we have established no such thing.