Obama Says: Steve Jobs Deserves to be Rich

Page 8 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Guide community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Status
Not open for further replies.

MotorMouth

Distinguished
May 24, 2008
10
0
18,560
The problem is spending and it's only going to get worse. Some here have asked for ways to help here is my list.

1. Stop the current tax system and go with a fair tax. This means everyone keeps money you earn you only pay taxes when you buy something. This is not a VAT! The total price after the taxes will remain around the same. No tax breaks for anyone!
http://www.fairtax.org/

2. For people 50 and older keep the Social Security the way is is. People 40-50 start moving a bigger percentage of there money into a 401k private account. People 30- 40 have the SS fund 30% private 70%. For people below 30 all money goes into a 401K they control. This way people will have to be more responsible in their younger years. If you don't work lay around drunk and/or doped it's your fault. Then you should die because you didn't take care of yourself!

Before anyone of you with 1 brain cell take this the wrong way this does not mean that people who need help like special needs kids and the very sick will not get it. It means if you can work and you don't then you should starve to death. YOU are responsible for yourself!

I cannot understand who would want the government ran healthcare knowing how messed up SS and Medicare are.

3. No more welfare state. If you take money from the government to support you then you need to be more reasonable. You must submit to a drug test, take birth control, WORK and not get arrested for dealing drugs. If you are a male and father a child and you don't work you will have to or face jail for being a menace on society.

4. No more Federal unemployment! When the sate coffers run out get a job picking veggies and fruit if you have to!

Now this things will probably will never happen. Here are a few things people that are so bent on taking money from someone else to support them.

I keep seeing the phrase make the rich pay more! A family of 4 making $30,000 buying a home does not pay a dime! The fact is they get money from a person who pays taxes because they get the (God I hate the this term) earned credit. It should be called unearned credit. Yes, they get back all of their taxes plus some extra. So if you get unearned income tax money back you have no right to say you pay taxes! Most of the total taxes paid into the IRS are from top 1% in 2008 they paid 38% of all taxes!
http://www.ntu.org/tax-basics/who-pays-income-taxes.html

The Government needs to stop all spending on things we don't need. If it means that we have to many teachers, police, firefighters ( volunteer works here pretty good it can else where too), city workers and politicians then downsize. Obama has spent 2 times as much in 2 years as Bush did in 10 how is that being responsible?

I seen a post about Clinton left a surplus. Did you know the surplus was a projection? The US didn't actually have the extra money in the bank. That would be a surplus!

Now back on subject. Jobs deserves all the money he can get. He is what's great about this country. You have to work to make money and he has. I don't own any apple products except the free version of Quicktime.

Yes, Mac has moved a lot of jobs overseas. With the taxes and insurance that companies have to pay for every employee x4 (FICA, health, unemployment and workman's comp). Over there they don't have all of the taxes. So that means companies do move and take the jobs with them because of taxes!




 

cmartin011

Distinguished
Jan 15, 2010
119
0
18,630
yeah Steve jobs is living the American dream and employing over sea workers to make the goods. workers that are not taxed in the American way right? jobs is got small salary anyway what a dollar or something right?
 

alyoshka

Distinguished
Oct 2, 2009
576
0
19,010
Well, I say even I deserve to be rich.... but does it really count?... I really didn't get the point of this bit of Info on Tom's..... Obama maybe Brand Ambassador to BB :) but that doesn't really make his POV count....lol
 

punnar_tg

Distinguished
Dec 22, 2010
1
0
18,510
By Chinchilla: "That's redistribution at its best: take from those who can afford to give, give to those who need it."

Take? When does someone have the right to take anything from anyone? That is stealing. We have lots of charities out there and it should always be voluntary, not forced.
 

kronos_cornelius

Distinguished
Nov 4, 2009
14
0
18,560
[citation][nom]Silmarunya[/nom]You make redistribution of wealth sounds like a bad thing, while it's the cornerstone of a welfare state...Nobody expects Jobs to give everything away. But imagine this: you make a few million dollars a year. Your neighbour is ill, can't work and can't pay his bills. If you were to give him, say, 1k dollars, he could lead a life above the poverty limit. Not far above, but still liveable. You on the other hand wouldn't even notice it. That's redistribution at its best: take from those who can afford to give, give to those who need it.Nobody expects a working class person to support the poor, but it's reasonable for a millionaire to do so. Nobody expects a lazy ass that never did something productive in his life to be supported. But is it wrong to transfer money from the super rich to the disabled, elderly, poor and other groups of people who would otherwise be dangerously close to the poverty line?And how would that fundamentally transform society? The rich remain rich, so no change. The middle class doesn't receive or gives a lot in this model, so no change. The poor remain rather poor, they'll just be able to pay their bills and feed their children. Not a fundamental change, rather an incremental one.Also, redistribution of wealth supports the economy. A rich person can only buy so much before he has everything he desires. The remaining money is not spent and thus doesn't stimulate the economy (unless perhaps through capital investment). A poor person will spend every additional dollar he has on health care, food, basic appliances,... Because of that, this money will directly stimulate the economy. In turn, a growing economy provides jobs and lifts the poor out of poverty. These people won't need redistribution of wealth anymore, on the contrary they'll pay taxes, thus reducing government deficit. It's a win win situation!(Before someone mentions this doesn't belong in a tech forum, he's right. But if the person above can post political comments, so can I)[/citation]

The better argument for distribution of wealth is that rich people draw more profit from the infrastructure created by government than poor people therefore should pay more. Waltmart investors draw more profit from the interstate system than the average jo. So, when the Waltmart investor gets his $1B profit, he sure does owe some to the governement. To proof the point, take Richard Brandson at 20 years old, and put him in Nicaragua. He won't be able to make the billions he has made with UK/US because Nicaragua does not have the infrastructure to facilitate it.

 

mj4358

Distinguished
May 28, 2009
68
0
18,580
[citation][nom]f-14[/nom]do you really want a 40 page list that will make your head spin and either commit suicide or go postal on capital hill?cuz that's what it pretty much leaves me with is a headache and a feeling so sick i could cry or rage to put an end to it all.and that's just what was done in since the carter adminstration.i would think that visiting usdebtclock.org would be enough of a dismal panic. but if you really want to pry start looking at who okay'd the borrowing from social security. just keep following all the big finacial that were enacted into laws. you know like walmart board of directors hillary clinton and trade agreements and WTO membership then bush and enron/oil companies cheney-halliburton gov't contracts barry obama and rezcorp construction campaign funding for back door city and state government contracts, lawyer michelle obama hospital medical insurance and obamacare. those are just tips of the iceberg in the democrat/republican scams to bilk tax payers out of money for campaign contributors and capital lobbiest.it's really simple you just have to find out whose getting the money and look at how much they put into a polticians campaign fund. a prime example is follow how much money all the pill manufacturers are funding political parties and individual politicians who just happen to vote in their favor leading to the health care bill. they weren't the only ones now follow all the insurance companies who gave to politicians who voted in their favor in the health care bill and how they got the public option removed. now look at why the public option was removed. took forced spending on their polcies out of their pockets and stuck them with a lower maximum profit margin due to them having to cover every person no matter the cost to keep them alive til death took them or they got tired of life. i'm going to laugh when people live to 150 years old before they finally decide being blind, crippled and sick all the time isn't worth the last 70 years of their lives and this countrys retards and disabled out number the healthy. oh and by the way 1/3rd of americas population is already supporting the other 2/3rds and we're already at 13.8 trillion dollars broke and a positive balance of 1.7 trillion for the social security bank account is gone back when democrats decided it was okay to spend it instead of save it for the baby boomers to retire on before they needed it which is right now.but that's ok you want to pay 50 percent of everything you make every year to the government who promises to spend it on you for your health, just like the promise they made to the baby boomers about social security for when they retire.enough facts for you to follow? or do i need to change your diaper give you a bottle and spell everything out to you like a 2 year old learning abc's?[/citation]

For all your ranting to still failed to provide proof to this inane conjecture. Instead of spouting off petty insults try offering educated research. You Simpleton!
 

englandr753

Distinguished
Sep 4, 2007
45
0
18,610
The bottom line first thing that needs to be done is stop the lobbyist. Put it into law that anyone that comes forth after 1/1/2011 to lobby will be shackled and put before a Judge for sentencing and 90% of the BS will stop.

Working in a private sector business, it was and still is against company policy to take gifts from a vendor to keep from basically getting "bribed" to give them a contract for business. This same practice should be used in our governmental system to remove the corrupt business transactions of special interests...
 

konjiki7

Distinguished
Jan 12, 2009
48
0
18,580
[citation][nom]Silmarunya[/nom]You make redistribution of wealth sounds like a bad thing, while it's the cornerstone of a welfare state...Nobody expects Jobs to give everything away. But imagine this: you make a few million dollars a year. Your neighbour is ill, can't work and can't pay his bills. If you were to give him, say, 1k dollars, he could lead a life above the poverty limit. Not far above, but still liveable. You on the other hand wouldn't even notice it. That's redistribution at its best: take from those who can afford to give, give to those who need it.Nobody expects a working class person to support the poor, but it's reasonable for a millionaire to do so. Nobody expects a lazy ass that never did something productive in his life to be supported. But is it wrong to transfer money from the super rich to the disabled, elderly, poor and other groups of people who would otherwise be dangerously close to the poverty line?And how would that fundamentally transform society? The rich remain rich, so no change. The middle class doesn't receive or gives a lot in this model, so no change. The poor remain rather poor, they'll just be able to pay their bills and feed their children. Not a fundamental change, rather an incremental one.Also, redistribution of wealth supports the economy. A rich person can only buy so much before he has everything he desires. The remaining money is not spent and thus doesn't stimulate the economy (unless perhaps through capital investment). A poor person will spend every additional dollar he has on health care, food, basic appliances,... Because of that, this money will directly stimulate the economy. In turn, a growing economy provides jobs and lifts the poor out of poverty. These people won't need redistribution of wealth anymore, on the contrary they'll pay taxes, thus reducing government deficit. It's a win win situation!(Before someone mentions this doesn't belong in a tech forum, he's right. But if the person above can post political comments, so can I)[/citation]

Just when i was starting to believe intelligence in America was lost! lol ^ 1+

Couldn't have said better myself
 

wildman67

Distinguished
Mar 31, 2009
4
0
18,510
Kon, Sil isn;rt from the USA from from a socialist country in which he thinks that it's only fair that the rich give up everything to support those who are less fortunate. Therefore his opinion doesn't mean shit to those living in the USA since the rest of the world is going to hell in a handbasket based on thier socialistic tendencies.
 

idiom

Distinguished
Jul 9, 2009
23
0
18,560
[citation][nom]haryyloid[/nom]What Obama failed to mention is that after Steve makes that money that he believes it is his responsibility to give it away to minorities around the county. His fundamental transformation of society by redistribution of wealth.[/citation]


Don't let facts get in the way of your argument. Taxes are at their lowest level in 70 years. Since the 1980's the wealthiest 5% have seen their collective wealth multiply from $1 trillion to over $80 trillion. Transfer of wealth? It's not the poor that are seeing an 80x gain in their collective wealth. Can you specifically point toward any action by this administration that directly raised your taxes? Or the taxes of others?

Turn off Fox News, and go read a book.
 

konjiki7

Distinguished
Jan 12, 2009
48
0
18,580
[citation][nom]wildman67[/nom]I have read all your comments about redistribution of wealth and how the wealthy should be forced to give up their money so that the poor can have it. The fact is that most of you need to learn some accounting and understand where the Democrats stand on. Before any of you start jumping on my case. I have been on this earth for more than 40 years while some of you aren't even wet behind the ears in terms of having real understanding about what is going to happen in the USA. Silmarunya, I feel sorry for you since you live in a socialist state where redistribution of wealth is a common thing. The fact is that the government has no rights in telling anyone how to spend their money that they have earned. You believe that taking from the rich or anyone making above $250K and giving it to some poor person who probably never finished high school let alone attended college. The USA has done more to help the poor than any other nation in the world today. We have bent over backwards in helping this unfortunately souls and it hasn't help yet. Take Haiti for instance. That country is a money pit with corruption and a nation full of souls who want a handout constantly. We have given them billions in aid and little has come from it. IF taxes do go up then you will see the rich stop spending and creating the jobs that helps the economy and you will also see businesses backup and go overseas much like they did in the 70's to today. America has the highest corp. tax rates in the world at 35%. No wonder you see the manufacturing jobs go overseas as if America is a leaking sub heading down to the bottom. Someone mentions that liberals were for freedom. That is true in the old days but not now. Liberals are more of a socialist in nature in today's world. the word liberal was taken over and destroyed by the democrats in the 30's. Silmarunya, there has never been a socialist or a communist state that has ever lasted as long as the USA has. Socialism and communism both are failed economic and political structures which has been tried in almost every country in the world. Obama comes from a background in which he has surrounded himself with anarchists such as George Soros, Bill Ayers( founded the Weathermen aka homegrown terrorists in the late 60's), most of his administration are socialists and want to overthrow the US government. They are doing this slowly so that the public is eased into it without them fully knowing anything about what is really going on. George Soros, is a puppet master in the destruction of more than a dozen governments around the world in the past 20 years. He has admitted to destroying governments as being fun and is trying to do the same in the USA. He also admits that he is like GOD in which he wants to rebuild the world in his own image. These words aren't mine but his in the book. Obama is a socialist underneath the disguise of being a democrat whether you want to believe it or not.[/citation]
Complete moron..... Age doesn't = wisdom. Think about the senior citizens in house and senate.... Think about how the fear of losing wealth and position of reliance in the house/senate affects their ability to work for the country. This same fear accompanied by religious overtone and flat out arrogance is painted throughout your post.(And no i have nothing against religion as I'm religious myself). I feel sorry for you because only cowards let raw emotions and fear speak for them. A skew and amusing version of reality.

BTW
socailist
^ This is not how socialist is spelled. There isn’t anything wrong with having some socialist point of views as no current Politian’s a complete socialist. So there's nothing to fear…
 

tomaz99

Distinguished
Jan 28, 2010
55
0
18,580
[citation][nom]christop[/nom]Steve is living the American dream of selling products not made in America. Thanks for the support Mr. snobs.[/citation]

You must have the dream of working on an assembly line...
 

millerm84

Distinguished
Jan 5, 2009
86
0
18,580
@ Those on the right the jobs left the US because Asian/Central & South Americans people will work for less then a dollar an hour to manufacture our goods. This job loss has nothing to do with government regulation, taxes, or labor unions but good old fashioned bottom line policies. Shipping goods production overseas has made goods cheap and corporate heads wealthy but bankrupted the country. Follow me here for a second. By removing jobs that allow under-educated employees to make a wage with disposable income (that allows them to purchase beyond the necessitates of life: food, shelter, medical care) you 1) Take away a large amount of taxable income 2) Harm the economy because these workers will no longer have disposable income to purchase non-essential goods 3) Create a need for a social security system again no disposable income.

It is paramount to the good of our nation to bring the manufacturing base back to the United States. Forcing companies to follow the same regulatory guidelines overseas that exist in the states, enforcing tariffs on American goods made overseas and shipped back home, and a higher tax rate for companies who outsource jobs that can be done in the US would be a good start.

Redistribution of wealth is what it is a buzz phrase to rile up the ignorant masses. Don't look at taxes as "taking my money and giving it to lowlifes" taxes paid for your education, pays for your roads, helped develop the internet/tv/radio networks you enjoy, protects you from our enemies, and keeps the poor from rioting in the streets. Neither more spending nor major tax cuts/spending cuts will fix the issues our country is experiencing. We need to bring back jobs that pay well above the minimum wage this will provide the government with more taxes, pump disposable income into the economy, and get a large number of people off of welfare. It's the economy stupid and it's built from the ground up.

 

wcnighthawk

Distinguished
Nov 15, 2010
17
0
18,560
What you all fail to see, and what wildman67 touched on perfectly, is that the govt DOES NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO STEAL MY MONEY. They don't. That's what makes America great, is that the govt can't dictate to me on my personal liberties (although that's slowing changing thanks to dumbasses). The govt doesn't make money, they can only take money. Take from some to give to others, that's wrong. Helping people is fine, but it should be my perogative. Not the damn govt's.
 

Silmarunya

Distinguished
Nov 3, 2009
390
0
18,930
[citation][nom]wcnighthawk[/nom]What you all fail to see, and what wildman67 touched on perfectly, is that the govt DOES NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO STEAL MY MONEY. They don't. That's what makes America great, is that the govt can't dictate to me on my personal liberties (although that's slowing changing thanks to dumbasses). The govt doesn't make money, they can only take money. Take from some to give to others, that's wrong. Helping people is fine, but it should be my perogative. Not the damn govt's.[/citation]

If you would willingly give money to help the poor, build roads, maintain an army, educate your children etc., that's great. But do you really think even half of the poor could be helped and the US would have more than two tanks if giving money was voluntary?

Sorry, but people don't like giving money to build a road. Sadly, we need that road. So there are two options: pay a private company to build and maintain the road or pay taxes to build and maintain it. Since the government doesn't have to make a profit out of it and is accountable, it's the cheapest option. Easy choice in other words. And some things, like helping the poor and disabled, simply have to be done by the state.

Not even a die hard socialist likes taxes and the government. You just have to be pragmatic enough to realise you need taxes and the government.
 

wildman67

Distinguished
Mar 31, 2009
4
0
18,510
Sil, you still don't get it nor can you fully understand it. You are a brainwashed by your socialist professors and others who want the government to do everything for them. You talk about the government being accountable, Guess what they haven't been in over 80 years. I seriously doubt that you are from the USA but in Europe where socialism is the norm. We are being taxed enough in the USA and that is the very reason why we had the American Revolution which helped form this country in the first place. We see the writing on the wall by looking at what is happening in Europe where the vast majority of the countries are going down hill financially thanks to the socialist system.

 

greenrider02

Distinguished
Dec 18, 2010
34
0
18,580
Colberg's Stages of Moral Development... it's a pcychology theory that basically says that some people don't understand the golden rule (I'm putting this VERY simply), and never will, because surprisingly enough, it's a concept that, on the universal scale, cannot be conceived by every human mind. If you know what I mean, you'll agree. And if you don't know what I mean, you won't. And Colberg's scale tells me I can't really expect anything more from you. I'm sorry.
 

Silmarunya

Distinguished
Nov 3, 2009
390
0
18,930
[citation][nom]wildman67[/nom]Sil, you still don't get it nor can you fully understand it. You are a brainwashed by your socialist professors and others who want the government to do everything for them. You talk about the government being accountable, Guess what they haven't been in over 80 years. I seriously doubt that you are from the USA but in Europe where socialism is the norm. We are being taxed enough in the USA and that is the very reason why we had the American Revolution which helped form this country in the first place. We see the writing on the wall by looking at what is happening in Europe where the vast majority of the countries are going down hill financially thanks to the socialist system.[/citation]

1) I do not agree with your point, but I am capable of understanding it. If not agreeing with something equals being too stupid to understand it, a lot of great people, including your Founding Fathers, are idiots.

2) We are going downhill? Yeah, but not as fast as the USA. Let's take a look at the facts:

- Most EU members have a lower public debt than the US. A few ones (Belgium for example) go higher, but have a nearly completely internally financed debt. Far better than Chinese debt if you ask me.
- With a few exceptions, most EU members were hit less hard by the recession than the US, despite not having access to some very stable sectors like oil or mining that the US has.
- The amount of people living in poverty is far lower in Europe than it is in the US.
- The EU has a far better network of roads and public transportation.
- Education in Europe is on average far better than in the US, especially at secondary level.
- Literacy rates are higher in Europe.
- The influence of lobbyists is a lot less great in Europe.

That's not to say the EU hasn't got any problems (an ageing population for example), but we aren't doing any worse than the US.

3) Yup, we taxed our fellow European citizens who chose to go overseas too much. Sorry about that.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.