Billionaires abound in California. Why not tax their wealth?

Yeah,...Im sure Goldman Sachs paid Hillary 500,000.00 for a 45 minute speech right during the time she was campaigning was because they really wanted her financial advice ?....... :rolleyes: :ROFLMAO: Nothing to do whatsoever with BUYING favor or anything. :rolleyes:
 
Stone said:
Yeah,...Im sure Goldman Sachs paid Hillary 500,000.00 for a 45 minute speech right during the time she was campaigning was because they really wanted her financial advice ?....... :rolleyes: :ROFLMAO: Nothing to do whatsoever with BUYING favor or anything. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
Yes, Hillary was not popular even for Democratic voters.
 
Stone said:
C,Mon.....EVEN YOU aren't THAT dumb. Ill be nice and answer anyway..........because if elected she would have done what they all do......She would have got a tax increase through that would have LOOKED to all the dummies out there like she was doing something but would have left in all the loopholes and most likely added more making the increase meaningless. THAT is just one of the reasons they donated to Hillary among other things. Starving kids in Africa had ZERO to do with it,........having a PUPPET in office they paid for had EVERYTHING to do with it. Get real.
Click to expand...
Stoney, this is your demented opinion, and not fact.
 
Half a Mil for a 45 minute speech. Not bad huh? Yeah,....totally believable. :rolleyes: That and that car dealership that wanted to expand but was running into all kinds of zoning issues,....yeah,...that owner just wanted to do something nice for that Zoning commissioner when he gave him that Lexus. ALL completely on the level and totally legit.

:magagrin:
 
Noking said:
Stoney, this is your demented opinion, and not fact.
Click to expand...
Oh, ok. So then like I say,...as cold hard facts show,.......they all just decided to not care about starving kids in Africa anymore ALL at the exact same time,...which just happened to be right after she lost. :rolleyes: Yeah....got it


:magagrin:
 
Like when Hillary said right during the speech I am talking about........" You know,....some times I have to say things a certain way for THE PUBLIC and other times privately I can say things differently". I'm sure none of them knew what she meant by that,...RIGHT Noking you lying imbecile? :rolleyes:
 
Hey Noking........At the next Nokings rally near me Im thinking of dragging a Commie flag and rainbow flag across the dirt, spitting on them, walking over the top of them, feigning to wipe my ass with them,...then tearing them up right in front of all the No Kingers... :ROFLMAO: Cool right? Protected free speech right? Surely none of them will have a problem with it.............right?

:magagrin:
 
As an added Bonus we could also throw in the BLM and Antifa flags too! WHY not? ALL protected free speech and absolutely nothing wrong with it according to the left. Unintended consequences.............just like the police cam stuff going on now. LOVE IT!

:evilnod::magagrin:
 
Stone said:
People like Hume actually believe that THEY are entitled to someone elses money. Think about it........Do they want THE STATE to just TAKE someone's money and then just sit on it? LOL No, of course they don't. They want the state to take someone elses money and give part of it to them personally in some form of benefit that they want but aren't currently receiving. Its legalized theft thru the force of Government.
Click to expand...
People like Stone actually believe people become billionaires in America without the benefits of the State.

Why does America produce so many billionaires and Yemen does not?

Should the American billionaires properly contribute BACK money to provide for the infrastructure, security, banking sector, etc that is provided to allow them to risk in business without risking elsewhere?
 
QP! said:
People like Stone actually believe people become billionaires in America without the benefits of the State.

Why does America produce so many billionaires and Yemen does not?

Should the American billionaires properly contribute BACK money to provide for the infrastructure, security, banking sector, etc that is provided to allow them to risk in business without risking elsewhere?
Click to expand...
Aristotle criticized this in his "Politics." Oligarchs exploit what is held in common.
 
Hume said:
Aristotle criticized this in his "Politics." Oligarchs exploit what is held in common.
Click to expand...
People like @Stone have no concept of that. That if the people in a society do not pay proportionally for the benefits they tap in to make their fortune (taxes) then those things do not exist for them or future entrepreneurs to become billionaires to begin with.

While they can run from California they will NEVER go to a place like Yemen where they would pay no taxes as they NEED the security, infrastructure, etc, that countries like the US and States like California provide to make that money to begin with.

Moving to a lower rate State or Country AFTER you have made your billions is proof that the former contributed greatly to your success in the first place and that needs to be taxed appropriately.
 
QP! said:
People like @Stone have no concept of that. That if the people in a society do not pay proportionally for the benefits they tap in to make their fortune (taxes) then those things do not exist for them or future entrepreneurs to become billionaires to begin with.

While they can run from California they will NEVER go to a place like Yemen where they would pay no taxes as they NEED the security, infrastructure, etc, that countries like the US and States like California provide to make that money to begin with.

Moving to a lower rate State or Country AFTER you have made your billions is proof that the former contributed greatly to your success in the first place and that needs to be taxed appropriately.
Click to expand...
It is like international investment. You want some place that is stable and reliable--and livable. No one wants to move their business to Arkansas.
 
Hume said:
Sept 20 (Reuters) - No state may be a more natural fit for a tax on billionaires than California. The state leans left politically, needs funds for healthcare and is home to as many as 250 billionaires collectively worth upwards of $2 trillion.
But the November 3 ballot initiative Proposition 40, which asks Californians whether to impose a ‌one-time 5% tax on the state's billionaires, is far from certain to pass, political analysts say, amid a debate that has raised questions about income inequality and the state's future business prospects.

Click to expand...
Because the answer to the problem is not taxation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top