Kidding aside would be kind of happy for ducks if his politics wasn't so annoying
Honestly, I hate to admit it but I can kind of see why ducks is a Republican, he's like "I got four firing brain cells and Im making 80k a year wtf are you guys complaining about??"
Also, not to crowbar my own politics into this but this is a good ad for Biden..any time sometime says the system is so broken it's impossible for the little man to get ahead and it needs to be completely torn asunder I have to point out that ducks is making $80k a year so how bad could it possibly be?
Kidding aside would be kind of happy for ducks if his politics wasn't so annoying
Didn't know Best Buy paid that much tbh.
They don't, especially in Arizona...
https://www.glassdoor.com/Salaries/p...678_KO8,18.htm
Well then, maybe ducks meant household income. Is he married? Either that or he works a load of OT... or he's just full of .
AaronY can back off the ledge.
Prolly has a side business selling MAGA gear to rednecks, tbh
You keep assuming ducks is telling the truth
Ducks does not lie
I can not stand the geek
Squad. I know tons more then those fools.
"But when you say I should pay $100 billion..."
- Bill Gates
What hair you trying to split, Lite? (And that's giving you the benefit of the doubt that you're even doing that).
I believe ducks. He's a weird little dude but for whatever reason I don't think he would lie about something like this. I made $51k last year and this year if all breaks well I could end up with over $60k maybe even $65k which I'm very happy with honestly. I also live in a relatively low cost of living area (im in central Florida) so the money goes far
Remember when you supported Bernie.....then went directly to Trump
Another misstep for Bernie Sanders. Here he indirectly makes a false equivalence between the support for social assistance programs and the support for our current taxation brackets. His sole purpose is to elicit envy; or why else use Bill Gates as the contrast to homelessness? The wealthy are already being taxed at a much higher percentage relative to everyone else (which is why comments in this thread suggesting that their share is “disproportionately lower” is puzzling to me). And so long as their wealth comes from legitimate sources who are we to say what they should do with it? The real immorality here is suggesting that those that produce more need to be forced by the State or anyone else to give up more. In my mind a flat tax would technically provide the most equanimity given that it is by definition the “fairest” concept treating everyone equally. As a society, why do we insist on equality when it comes to everything under the sun (equal treatment under the law, equal protections under the law, equal opportunity, justice for all...) for everything except taxation rate?
Personally, do I believe that any one person “needs” a billion dollars? Or even hundreds of millions of dollars? No, but again if someone has legally/legitimately earned or even inherited that amount of wealth then to me it’s absurd to believe that their wealth shouldn’t be theirs to manage or that it should be the government that should decide how best to spend it. Especially when we know that the Federal Government grossly mismanages the vast sums of money that are appropriated to them already - as indicated by trillion dollar deficits, and debt. That's the side of the argument every socialist proponent avoids like the plague because they know and cannot deny the fact that the government mismanages public funds.
I would point out that the numbers suggest that billionaires and millionaires give or donate more of their wealth by percentage than us regular folk, but “wealth” in general must demonized by socialist systems for their proponents to step in and usurp control. Ironically, socialist leaders will demonize other people’s wealth but will invariably amass illegitimate fortunes of their own. Unfortunately, at that point they also manage to amass a considerable amount of power which makes it near impossible to thwart their corruption. This dynamic has unfolded countless of times within the last 100 years because the pattern keeps repeating itself and because people are fooled into believing that a utopic redistribution of wealth is actually attainable. All built on envy and covetousness.
As an aside, the tactic to focus on the wealthy as the “juxtaposed” cause for society’s problems comes straight out of the Marxist playbook. The strategy exists in order to seed discord between the economic classes. And EVERYWHERE socialist policies have been enacted when driven by that particular wedge issue those countries have ended up in economic shambles.
Bernie also makes it sound like taxation of the wealthy is the solution towards the eradication of homelessness (another false equivalence). It simplifies a very complex problem and trivializes the cir stances by which people end up in that unfortunate situation. The root of those particular problems cannot be solved simply by throwing money at them. What we need for that problem are more people willing to help them and guide them into self-sustenance.
Bill either misspoke or doesn't understand what was being proposed. Of course no one is suggesting he pays $100B in taxes. I don't support Warren's tax either way though.
I wouldn't say no one. And the second you start asset taxing, it's a slippery slope.
Who is suggesting he pay $100B?
And we already tax assets... have you heard of property taxes? I'm sure you don't pay them, so you probably haven't.
You obviously don't understand what Warren is proposing.
Dylan Ratigan: ”The Super Wealthy Have No Country”
You don't understand her moronic tax plan. It's a wealth tax. That means everything year bill gates and bezos have to sell their company just to get cash to pay the big brain fake indian.
What made you like Bernie's policies back when you supported him?
It’s still not a $100B tax.
Not in a single year it's not. Nobody said he was talking about a single year. Elizabeth Warren is proposing brain dead policies tbh.
“sell their company”
They would need to sell some readily marketable securities. Do you not know how publicly traded companies work Nathan?
Selling their shares is selling their company ownership.
It’s selling a fraction of their interest in a company... there’s a big difference than selling the whole company.
I didn't say they have to sell the whole company. The government would be stealing significant portions of their ownership every year.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)