Super rich

[Tuthmes]

But they can until you take their money. That is not rocket science.

I am not even sure what you are arguing now. So I give in.

You don't understand that you have to buy a smaller house if you cannot afford it (anymore)?

 

[dysfunction]

You don't understand that you have to buy a smaller house if you cannot afford it (anymore)?

To put it another way....he can't be bothered arguing with a brick wall.

 

[Tuthmes]

To put it another way....he can't be bothered arguing with a brick wall.

You mean that he cannot see a reason why he should part with his pool in the basement? You can call me a brick wall, but the one i'm talking too is made of bricks aswell. 2 more and we have the beginnings of an beautifull house.

 

[dysfunction]

Indeed. If I have worked hard and built up my wealth. Who gives you the right to take it away? Why do you get to choose where *my* money goes!

If I had 50 billion and someone wanted to steal it from me I would make every effort to stop them! I may even buy a tank if necessary.

 

[Lamp]

Seeing as I will never be super-rich, and there's sod-all I or anyone else can do to change the situation, I'm relatively ambivalent. If you've made a fortune through hard graft, fair play to you. Same if you win £150m on the Lotto. We'd all love to. And if you have inherited the family's billion-pound estate, well then you're a lucky bastard. If you're rich enough to squirrel away millions in off-shore accounts to avoid tax, I'd do the same.

I don't begrudge the rich their money if they came to it through legitimate means. Go after the Abramovich's of the world. It would be nice if they did some good with it, but I don't want to live in a country that requires, by law, on pain of imprisonment, the rich to give vast chunks of their wealth up way in excess of the top rates of tax they already pay. Thats not democratic. You don't see the chief party officials in North Korea or China giving away millions to the poor. It'll be one rule for some, one for the rest.

 

[Mey]

If you can afford the house, go for it. If you cannot afford it, go buy a smaller house. It's not rocket science soze.

If you can't afford to live in a smaller house, live on the streets. See where we can go with this one?

Your argument is retarded.

 

[Tuthmes]

If you can't afford to live in a smaller house, live on the streets. See where we can go with this one?

Your argument is retarded.

That's exactly what I mean. If thats your attitude, why have a country at all? Let's all take care of ourselfs and fk the ones that don't get by. See where I went with this one? Also, if everyone starts earning money bigtime, it would mean there's less for the rich. See where we can go with this one?

I get and got the point. Whats wrong with agreeing there should be a certain standard of living and what everyone else does "above" that is their own business. If the standard is to drop, the ones at the top pay for it as the ones at lower end cannot afford it. Simple.

The problem is the attitude you mention above. Some people couldnt care less if people where to live on the streets. Even if they have 50 billion to spend. Because they "earned" it.

 

[Tuthmes]

Indeed. If I have worked hard and built up my wealth. Who gives you the right to take it away? Why do you get to choose where *my* money goes!

If I had 50 billion and someone wanted to steal it from me I would make every effort to stop them! I may even buy a tank if necessary.

What gives you the right to take it away? Because you live in a country that has rules and people in it. And that we like to take care of that country and the people in it. If that means you have to part with a small bit of your wealth and you cannot, then I cannot see why that country wants to have you nor why you want to live in it. If you cannot contribute to society, whats the point of living in it?

 

[dysfunction]

What gives you the right to take it away? Because you live in a country that has rules and people in it. And that we like to take care of that country and the people in it. If that means you have to part with a small bit of your wealth and you cannot, then I cannot see why that country wants to have you nor why you want to live in it. If you cannot contribute to society, whats the point of living in it?

Take what away? In that scenario I have not taken away. I have created. It's your ideal to be Robin Hood.

A society that would legally steal the vast majority of wealth from it's citizens is a society I would not be a part of.

 

[DaGaffer]

Take what away? In that scenario I have not taken away. I have created. It's your ideal to be Robin Hood.

A society that would legally steal the vast majority of wealth from it's citizens is a society I would not be a part of.

Absolutely, and more importantly, if you were rich and some communist fucknut imposed a 98% tax on you, you'd simply leave. Its been proved time and again; its happening right now with the French and their stupid 70% millionaire tax.

 

[soze]

This shows why the government should not be trusted with the super rich's money. This bitch is laughing at us and she will get away with it. We are the Joke of Europe.

 

[Himse]

Absolutely, and more importantly, if you were rich and some communist fucknut imposed a 98% tax on you, you'd simply leave. Its been proved time and again; its happening right now with the French and their stupid 70% millionaire tax.

Yes. As soon as they announced that it's 100% coming, the property market for homes over 1million euros + increased at a drastic amount. Like double the homes for sale or something.

Same with the previous governments here trying to impose tax on the rich, eventually they'll get pissed off and leave because they can afford to, leaving us right in the shit.

 

[Wij]

I refer everyone to Taxman by The Beatles.

 

[Wij]

Also Thutmes, NOBODY has 50 billion 'to spend'. That's part of the problem with these bullshit wealth figures that get bandied about to justify state control.