Why don't we tax the rich?
Replies
-
I just want it on record that I am against taxis for the obscenely wealthy. They should have to take public transportation as a trade off for the capitals they have taken from my people.0
-
Some_Watery_Tart wrote: »FatFreeFrolicking wrote: »Some_Watery_Tart wrote: »
...like if someone were saying this is a "political" discussion, rather than economics? Just sayin'.FatFreeFrolicking wrote: »Some_Watery_Tart wrote: »
Are you participating the "political" discussion that you were just condemning? And adding religion to the discussion?FatFreeFrolicking wrote: »__drmerc__ wrote: »
Sure if you want the poor to die. I can't believe you people, so selfish
It's called giving to chareties...
IF the government wasn't taking nearly a third of my paycheck I would be able to give more the groups that actually help people... you know, like the food banks or the missions...
Charity is more toxic then most think.
Truth is, mission trips benefit the volunteers more then they benefit the recipients.
Mission trips are short term and provide instant gratification rather then community development which is what these communities actually need. Community development is long term and not many people are willing to or able to volunteer their time to reshape a community's standard of living or quality of life.
I'm shocked and appalled.
I didn't discuss religion. I discussed charity work. Don't come and try to turn it into something it isn't.
Also, I suggest the US implement a national sales tax. This way everyone is taxed equally based on their consumer behavior. This includes tourists, undocumented immigrants, and the wealthy.
I said it's both. Reading comprehension…..?
Yep, I understood what you were saying. You were saying that the OP should be in trouble for posting a political discussion (about economics). I'm saying, no, he shouldn't. I used an analogy to demonstrate that you inferred politics from economics the same way I inferred religion from charity. But that was probably too subtle to be clear.
So here is what I mean: while one may be related to the other, one does not require the other. We can have a non-political economic discussion, just like you can talk about missions, but not mean religion. You've flagged the post, so your vote has been made. Let's allow the mods decide what constitutes inappropriate discussion material and not throw around our own interpretations in the form of threatening comments.
Anyway, back to my BRILLIANT national sales tax suggestion. Thoughts from anyone? I feel like this would be a good solution.
Do you mean on top of the sales taxes the states are already charging ?
0 -
Some_Watery_Tart wrote: »FatFreeFrolicking wrote: »Some_Watery_Tart wrote: »
...like if someone were saying this is a "political" discussion, rather than economics? Just sayin'.FatFreeFrolicking wrote: »Some_Watery_Tart wrote: »
Are you participating the "political" discussion that you were just condemning? And adding religion to the discussion?FatFreeFrolicking wrote: »__drmerc__ wrote: »
Sure if you want the poor to die. I can't believe you people, so selfish
It's called giving to chareties...
IF the government wasn't taking nearly a third of my paycheck I would be able to give more the groups that actually help people... you know, like the food banks or the missions...
Charity is more toxic then most think.
Truth is, mission trips benefit the volunteers more then they benefit the recipients.
Mission trips are short term and provide instant gratification rather then community development which is what these communities actually need. Community development is long term and not many people are willing to or able to volunteer their time to reshape a community's standard of living or quality of life.
I'm shocked and appalled.
I didn't discuss religion. I discussed charity work. Don't come and try to turn it into something it isn't.
Also, I suggest the US implement a national sales tax. This way everyone is taxed equally based on their consumer behavior. This includes tourists, undocumented immigrants, and the wealthy.
I said it's both. Reading comprehension…..?
Yep, I understood what you were saying. You were saying that the OP should be in trouble for posting a political discussion (about economics). I'm saying, no, he shouldn't. I used an analogy to demonstrate that you inferred politics from economics the same way I inferred religion from charity. But that was probably too subtle to be clear.
So here is what I mean: while one may be related to the other, one does not require the other. We can have a non-political economic discussion, just like you can talk about missions, but not mean religion. You've flagged the post, so your vote has been made. Let's allow the mods decide what constitutes inappropriate discussion material and not throw around our own interpretations in the form of threatening comments.
Anyway, back to my BRILLIANT national sales tax suggestion. Thoughts from anyone? I feel like this would be a good solution.
Do you mean on top of the sales taxes the states are already charging ?
Move to Delaware.0 -
ryanwood935 wrote: »Some_Watery_Tart wrote: »FatFreeFrolicking wrote: »Some_Watery_Tart wrote: »
...like if someone were saying this is a "political" discussion, rather than economics? Just sayin'.FatFreeFrolicking wrote: »Some_Watery_Tart wrote: »
Are you participating the "political" discussion that you were just condemning? And adding religion to the discussion?FatFreeFrolicking wrote: »__drmerc__ wrote: »
Sure if you want the poor to die. I can't believe you people, so selfish
It's called giving to chareties...
IF the government wasn't taking nearly a third of my paycheck I would be able to give more the groups that actually help people... you know, like the food banks or the missions...
Charity is more toxic then most think.
Truth is, mission trips benefit the volunteers more then they benefit the recipients.
Mission trips are short term and provide instant gratification rather then community development which is what these communities actually need. Community development is long term and not many people are willing to or able to volunteer their time to reshape a community's standard of living or quality of life.
I'm shocked and appalled.
I didn't discuss religion. I discussed charity work. Don't come and try to turn it into something it isn't.
Also, I suggest the US implement a national sales tax. This way everyone is taxed equally based on their consumer behavior. This includes tourists, undocumented immigrants, and the wealthy.
I said it's both. Reading comprehension…..?
Yep, I understood what you were saying. You were saying that the OP should be in trouble for posting a political discussion (about economics). I'm saying, no, he shouldn't. I used an analogy to demonstrate that you inferred politics from economics the same way I inferred religion from charity. But that was probably too subtle to be clear.
So here is what I mean: while one may be related to the other, one does not require the other. We can have a non-political economic discussion, just like you can talk about missions, but not mean religion. You've flagged the post, so your vote has been made. Let's allow the mods decide what constitutes inappropriate discussion material and not throw around our own interpretations in the form of threatening comments.
Anyway, back to my BRILLIANT national sales tax suggestion. Thoughts from anyone? I feel like this would be a good solution.
Do you mean on top of the sales taxes the states are already charging ?
Move to Delaware.
Whats up with Delaware ?
0 -
Some_Watery_Tart wrote: »FatFreeFrolicking wrote: »Some_Watery_Tart wrote: »
...like if someone were saying this is a "political" discussion, rather than economics? Just sayin'.FatFreeFrolicking wrote: »Some_Watery_Tart wrote: »
Are you participating the "political" discussion that you were just condemning? And adding religion to the discussion?FatFreeFrolicking wrote: »__drmerc__ wrote: »
Sure if you want the poor to die. I can't believe you people, so selfish
It's called giving to chareties...
IF the government wasn't taking nearly a third of my paycheck I would be able to give more the groups that actually help people... you know, like the food banks or the missions...
Charity is more toxic then most think.
Truth is, mission trips benefit the volunteers more then they benefit the recipients.
Mission trips are short term and provide instant gratification rather then community development which is what these communities actually need. Community development is long term and not many people are willing to or able to volunteer their time to reshape a community's standard of living or quality of life.
I'm shocked and appalled.
I didn't discuss religion. I discussed charity work. Don't come and try to turn it into something it isn't.
Also, I suggest the US implement a national sales tax. This way everyone is taxed equally based on their consumer behavior. This includes tourists, undocumented immigrants, and the wealthy.
I said it's both. Reading comprehension…..?
Yep, I understood what you were saying. You were saying that the OP should be in trouble for posting a political discussion (about economics). I'm saying, no, he shouldn't. I used an analogy to demonstrate that you inferred politics from economics the same way I inferred religion from charity. But that was probably too subtle to be clear.
So here is what I mean: while one may be related to the other, one does not require the other. We can have a non-political economic discussion, just like you can talk about missions, but not mean religion. You've flagged the post, so your vote has been made. Let's allow the mods decide what constitutes inappropriate discussion material and not throw around our own interpretations in the form of threatening comments.
Anyway, back to my BRILLIANT national sales tax suggestion. Thoughts from anyone? I feel like this would be a good solution.
Do you mean on top of the sales taxes the states are already charging ?
Yes. Essentially eliminate income tax and implement a national sales tax in it's place.0 -
Some_Watery_Tart wrote: »FatFreeFrolicking wrote: »Some_Watery_Tart wrote: »
...like if someone were saying this is a "political" discussion, rather than economics? Just sayin'.FatFreeFrolicking wrote: »Some_Watery_Tart wrote: »
Are you participating the "political" discussion that you were just condemning? And adding religion to the discussion?FatFreeFrolicking wrote: »__drmerc__ wrote: »
Sure if you want the poor to die. I can't believe you people, so selfish
It's called giving to chareties...
IF the government wasn't taking nearly a third of my paycheck I would be able to give more the groups that actually help people... you know, like the food banks or the missions...
Charity is more toxic then most think.
Truth is, mission trips benefit the volunteers more then they benefit the recipients.
Mission trips are short term and provide instant gratification rather then community development which is what these communities actually need. Community development is long term and not many people are willing to or able to volunteer their time to reshape a community's standard of living or quality of life.
I'm shocked and appalled.
I didn't discuss religion. I discussed charity work. Don't come and try to turn it into something it isn't.
Also, I suggest the US implement a national sales tax. This way everyone is taxed equally based on their consumer behavior. This includes tourists, undocumented immigrants, and the wealthy.
I said it's both. Reading comprehension…..?
Yep, I understood what you were saying. You were saying that the OP should be in trouble for posting a political discussion (about economics). I'm saying, no, he shouldn't. I used an analogy to demonstrate that you inferred politics from economics the same way I inferred religion from charity. But that was probably too subtle to be clear.
So here is what I mean: while one may be related to the other, one does not require the other. We can have a non-political economic discussion, just like you can talk about missions, but not mean religion. You've flagged the post, so your vote has been made. Let's allow the mods decide what constitutes inappropriate discussion material and not throw around our own interpretations in the form of threatening comments.
Anyway, back to my BRILLIANT national sales tax suggestion. Thoughts from anyone? I feel like this would be a good solution.
You are making perfect sense. Eliminate the income tax and replace it with a consumption/ sales tax on everything except for food(unless maybe eating out) Everybody pays!!!0 -
ryanwood935 wrote: »Some_Watery_Tart wrote: »FatFreeFrolicking wrote: »Some_Watery_Tart wrote: »
...like if someone were saying this is a "political" discussion, rather than economics? Just sayin'.FatFreeFrolicking wrote: »Some_Watery_Tart wrote: »
Are you participating the "political" discussion that you were just condemning? And adding religion to the discussion?FatFreeFrolicking wrote: »__drmerc__ wrote: »
Sure if you want the poor to die. I can't believe you people, so selfish
It's called giving to chareties...
IF the government wasn't taking nearly a third of my paycheck I would be able to give more the groups that actually help people... you know, like the food banks or the missions...
Charity is more toxic then most think.
Truth is, mission trips benefit the volunteers more then they benefit the recipients.
Mission trips are short term and provide instant gratification rather then community development which is what these communities actually need. Community development is long term and not many people are willing to or able to volunteer their time to reshape a community's standard of living or quality of life.
I'm shocked and appalled.
I didn't discuss religion. I discussed charity work. Don't come and try to turn it into something it isn't.
Also, I suggest the US implement a national sales tax. This way everyone is taxed equally based on their consumer behavior. This includes tourists, undocumented immigrants, and the wealthy.
I said it's both. Reading comprehension…..?
Yep, I understood what you were saying. You were saying that the OP should be in trouble for posting a political discussion (about economics). I'm saying, no, he shouldn't. I used an analogy to demonstrate that you inferred politics from economics the same way I inferred religion from charity. But that was probably too subtle to be clear.
So here is what I mean: while one may be related to the other, one does not require the other. We can have a non-political economic discussion, just like you can talk about missions, but not mean religion. You've flagged the post, so your vote has been made. Let's allow the mods decide what constitutes inappropriate discussion material and not throw around our own interpretations in the form of threatening comments.
Anyway, back to my BRILLIANT national sales tax suggestion. Thoughts from anyone? I feel like this would be a good solution.
Do you mean on top of the sales taxes the states are already charging ?
Move to Delaware.
Whats up with Delaware ?
Failure to explain
. They don't have a sales tax. Interestingly, they are so corporation friendly- partially due to a low corporate tax rate- that they don't need the extra revenue. 0 -
because?
0 -
ryanwood935 wrote: »
Failure to explain . They don't have a sales tax. Interestingly, they are so corporation friendly- partially due to a low corporate tax rate- that they don't need the extra revenue.
No joke. If you can establish a physical presence in Delaware, incorporating your business there, or Las Vegas, is wise.
0 -
ryanwood935 wrote: »I agree with all that, except taking that income from another source is reducing someone elses wealth. In this case, the rich become relatively poorer as we reach equilibrium. I was just giving the OP a less ridiculous example of his classroom 'fix'.
I liked your example.
Rich rarely become poor in the literal sense of the word because they have a particular skill set that allows them to continual find those growth revenues. Somewhere I read it called earning habits, where they learn what brings income and they continue to apply it properly in various scenarios. Or really, they have "people" that find those revenue sources for them. They learn how to put both their money and other people's talents to work for them.
Anywho...it's a troll post and it's all in fun.
Cheers.
0 -
-
ryanwood935 wrote: »ryanwood935 wrote: »Some_Watery_Tart wrote: »FatFreeFrolicking wrote: »Some_Watery_Tart wrote: »
...like if someone were saying this is a "political" discussion, rather than economics? Just sayin'.FatFreeFrolicking wrote: »Some_Watery_Tart wrote: »
Are you participating the "political" discussion that you were just condemning? And adding religion to the discussion?FatFreeFrolicking wrote: »__drmerc__ wrote: »
Sure if you want the poor to die. I can't believe you people, so selfish
It's called giving to chareties...
IF the government wasn't taking nearly a third of my paycheck I would be able to give more the groups that actually help people... you know, like the food banks or the missions...
Charity is more toxic then most think.
Truth is, mission trips benefit the volunteers more then they benefit the recipients.
Mission trips are short term and provide instant gratification rather then community development which is what these communities actually need. Community development is long term and not many people are willing to or able to volunteer their time to reshape a community's standard of living or quality of life.
I'm shocked and appalled.
I didn't discuss religion. I discussed charity work. Don't come and try to turn it into something it isn't.
Also, I suggest the US implement a national sales tax. This way everyone is taxed equally based on their consumer behavior. This includes tourists, undocumented immigrants, and the wealthy.
I said it's both. Reading comprehension…..?
Yep, I understood what you were saying. You were saying that the OP should be in trouble for posting a political discussion (about economics). I'm saying, no, he shouldn't. I used an analogy to demonstrate that you inferred politics from economics the same way I inferred religion from charity. But that was probably too subtle to be clear.
So here is what I mean: while one may be related to the other, one does not require the other. We can have a non-political economic discussion, just like you can talk about missions, but not mean religion. You've flagged the post, so your vote has been made. Let's allow the mods decide what constitutes inappropriate discussion material and not throw around our own interpretations in the form of threatening comments.
Anyway, back to my BRILLIANT national sales tax suggestion. Thoughts from anyone? I feel like this would be a good solution.
Do you mean on top of the sales taxes the states are already charging ?
Move to Delaware.
Whats up with Delaware ?
Failure to explain . They don't have a sales tax. Interestingly, they are so corporation friendly- partially due to a low corporate tax rate- that they don't need the extra revenue.
Gotcha, I knew they were corp. friendly did'nt realize they had no sales taxes.
North Dakota used to be the same way, but I haven't lived there for a long time so that's probably changed by now.
0 -
in_the_stars wrote: »
I would also be ok with this idea. Or also and maybe too they could take turns providing rickshaw services to one another. Or on zebras. There are too many zebras and they have had to too good for too long!0 -
ryanwood935 wrote: »I agree with all that, except taking that income from another source is reducing someone elses wealth. In this case, the rich become relatively poorer as we reach equilibrium. I was just giving the OP a less ridiculous example of his classroom 'fix'.
I liked your example.
Rich rarely become poor in the literal sense of the word because they have a particular skill set that allows them to continual find those growth revenues. Somewhere I read it called earning habits, where they learn what brings income and they continue to apply it properly in various scenarios. Or really, they have "people" that find those revenue sources for them. They learn how to put both their money and other people's talents to work for them.
Anywho...it's a troll post and it's all in fun.
Cheers.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rich_Dad_Poor_Dad
Cheers!
0 -
in_the_stars wrote: »
I would also be ok with this idea. Or also and maybe too they could take turns providing rickshaw services to one another. Or on zebras. There are too many zebras and they have had to too good for too long!
I like zebras, use to have one when I was Rich---a long time ago
0 -
Some_Watery_Tart wrote: »FatFreeFrolicking wrote: »Some_Watery_Tart wrote: »
...like if someone were saying this is a "political" discussion, rather than economics? Just sayin'.FatFreeFrolicking wrote: »Some_Watery_Tart wrote: »
Are you participating the "political" discussion that you were just condemning? And adding religion to the discussion?FatFreeFrolicking wrote: »__drmerc__ wrote: »
Sure if you want the poor to die. I can't believe you people, so selfish
It's called giving to chareties...
IF the government wasn't taking nearly a third of my paycheck I would be able to give more the groups that actually help people... you know, like the food banks or the missions...
Charity is more toxic then most think.
Truth is, mission trips benefit the volunteers more then they benefit the recipients.
Mission trips are short term and provide instant gratification rather then community development which is what these communities actually need. Community development is long term and not many people are willing to or able to volunteer their time to reshape a community's standard of living or quality of life.
I'm shocked and appalled.
I didn't discuss religion. I discussed charity work. Don't come and try to turn it into something it isn't.
Also, I suggest the US implement a national sales tax. This way everyone is taxed equally based on their consumer behavior. This includes tourists, undocumented immigrants, and the wealthy.
I said it's both. Reading comprehension…..?
Yep, I understood what you were saying. You were saying that the OP should be in trouble for posting a political discussion (about economics). I'm saying, no, he shouldn't. I used an analogy to demonstrate that you inferred politics from economics the same way I inferred religion from charity. But that was probably too subtle to be clear.
So here is what I mean: while one may be related to the other, one does not require the other. We can have a non-political economic discussion, just like you can talk about missions, but not mean religion. You've flagged the post, so your vote has been made. Let's allow the mods decide what constitutes inappropriate discussion material and not throw around our own interpretations in the form of threatening comments.
Anyway, back to my BRILLIANT national sales tax suggestion. Thoughts from anyone? I feel like this would be a good solution.
You are making perfect sense. Eliminate the income tax and replace it with a consumption/ sales tax on everything except for food(unless maybe eating out) Everybody pays!!!
Exactly. Everybody pays whether they're rich, poor, undocumented, traveling, etc. We all pay based on spending. We can eliminate the resentment that exists between the people that fund our social programs and the people who use them. On food stamps and want to buy the latest iPhone? Well, that's none of anyone's business now. They paid the tax that supports the program just like we did.0 -
in_the_stars wrote: »
I would also be ok with this idea. Or also and maybe too they could take turns providing rickshaw services to one another. Or on zebras. There are too many zebras and they have had to too good for too long!
I am so voting for YOU!
*edited! I didn't like that smile, this one's better.
0 -
This content has been removed.
-
in_the_stars wrote: »
I would also be ok with this idea. Or also and maybe too they could take turns providing rickshaw services to one another. Or on zebras. There are too many zebras and they have had to too good for too long!
I like zebras, use to have one when I was Rich---a long time ago
Rich? Or Richard? Rick?
0 -
This has worked so well in France. Not.0
-
You have an iPhone, don't you?!__drmerc__ wrote: »Some_Watery_Tart wrote: »Some_Watery_Tart wrote: »FatFreeFrolicking wrote: »Some_Watery_Tart wrote: »
...like if someone were saying this is a "political" discussion, rather than economics? Just sayin'.FatFreeFrolicking wrote: »Some_Watery_Tart wrote: »
Are you participating the "political" discussion that you were just condemning? And adding religion to the discussion?FatFreeFrolicking wrote: »__drmerc__ wrote: »
Sure if you want the poor to die. I can't believe you people, so selfish
It's called giving to chareties...
IF the government wasn't taking nearly a third of my paycheck I would be able to give more the groups that actually help people... you know, like the food banks or the missions...
Charity is more toxic then most think.
Truth is, mission trips benefit the volunteers more then they benefit the recipients.
Mission trips are short term and provide instant gratification rather then community development which is what these communities actually need. Community development is long term and not many people are willing to or able to volunteer their time to reshape a community's standard of living or quality of life.
I'm shocked and appalled.
I didn't discuss religion. I discussed charity work. Don't come and try to turn it into something it isn't.
Also, I suggest the US implement a national sales tax. This way everyone is taxed equally based on their consumer behavior. This includes tourists, undocumented immigrants, and the wealthy.
I said it's both. Reading comprehension…..?
Yep, I understood what you were saying. You were saying that the OP should be in trouble for posting a political discussion (about economics). I'm saying, no, he shouldn't. I used an analogy to demonstrate that you inferred politics from economics the same way I inferred religion from charity. But that was probably too subtle to be clear.
So here is what I mean: while one may be related to the other, one does not require the other. We can have a non-political economic discussion, just like you can talk about missions, but not mean religion. You've flagged the post, so your vote has been made. Let's allow the mods decide what constitutes inappropriate discussion material and not throw around our own interpretations in the form of threatening comments.
Anyway, back to my BRILLIANT national sales tax suggestion. Thoughts from anyone? I feel like this would be a good solution.
You are making perfect sense. Eliminate the income tax and replace it with a consumption/ sales tax on everything except for food(unless maybe eating out) Everybody pays!!!
Exactly. Everybody pays whether they're rich, poor, undocumented, traveling, etc. We all pay based on spending. We can eliminate the resentment that exists between the people that fund our social programs and the people who use them. On food stamps and want to buy the latest iPhone? Well, that's none of anyone's business now. They paid the tax that supports the program just like we did.
"fair tax" is really just a huge tax cut for the rich, it's regressive and punishes the poor0 -
in_the_stars wrote: »in_the_stars wrote: »
I would also be ok with this idea. Or also and maybe too they could take turns providing rickshaw services to one another. Or on zebras. There are too many zebras and they have had to too good for too long!
I like zebras, use to have one when I was Rich---a long time ago
Rich? Or Richard? Rick?
Rich left a awhile ago--now I'm just Broke .............Broke Rogers
0 -
in_the_stars wrote: »ryanwood935 wrote: »I agree with all that, except taking that income from another source is reducing someone elses wealth. In this case, the rich become relatively poorer as we reach equilibrium. I was just giving the OP a less ridiculous example of his classroom 'fix'.
I liked your example.
Rich rarely become poor in the literal sense of the word because they have a particular skill set that allows them to continual find those growth revenues. Somewhere I read it called earning habits, where they learn what brings income and they continue to apply it properly in various scenarios. Or really, they have "people" that find those revenue sources for them. They learn how to put both their money and other people's talents to work for them.
Anywho...it's a troll post and it's all in fun.
Cheers.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rich_Dad_Poor_Dad
Cheers!
Yeah, I read that with my Dad, ironically. He brought us up with financial IQ since we were young, always having an eye for the future. Now at 45 that is paying dividends...literally.
0 -
in_the_stars wrote: »ryanwood935 wrote: »I agree with all that, except taking that income from another source is reducing someone elses wealth. In this case, the rich become relatively poorer as we reach equilibrium. I was just giving the OP a less ridiculous example of his classroom 'fix'.
I liked your example.
Rich rarely become poor in the literal sense of the word because they have a particular skill set that allows them to continual find those growth revenues. Somewhere I read it called earning habits, where they learn what brings income and they continue to apply it properly in various scenarios. Or really, they have "people" that find those revenue sources for them. They learn how to put both their money and other people's talents to work for them.
Anywho...it's a troll post and it's all in fun.
Cheers.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rich_Dad_Poor_Dad
Cheers!
Yeah, I read that with my Dad, ironically. He brought us up with financial IQ since we were young, always having an eye for the future. Now at 45 that is paying dividends...literally.
NICE!!!
Share some with Broke!
0 -
in_the_stars wrote: »ryanwood935 wrote: »I agree with all that, except taking that income from another source is reducing someone elses wealth. In this case, the rich become relatively poorer as we reach equilibrium. I was just giving the OP a less ridiculous example of his classroom 'fix'.
I liked your example.
Rich rarely become poor in the literal sense of the word because they have a particular skill set that allows them to continual find those growth revenues. Somewhere I read it called earning habits, where they learn what brings income and they continue to apply it properly in various scenarios. Or really, they have "people" that find those revenue sources for them. They learn how to put both their money and other people's talents to work for them.
Anywho...it's a troll post and it's all in fun.
Cheers.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rich_Dad_Poor_Dad
Cheers!
Yeah, I read that with my Dad, ironically. He brought us up with financial IQ since we were young, always having an eye for the future. Now at 45 that is paying dividends...literally.
Don't forget MILLIONAIRE NEXT DOOR. Read that one with my kids as well.
0 -
There is a whole lot of prejudice on both sides. If you are dubbed "wealthy", you must be a greedy SOB, who wants to crush souls. If you are struggling, you must be a lazy bones. I am for a flat tax rate, period. "X" percent of your income goes to government. What that percent is would have to be worked out and debated. Oh, and no breaks for dependents. Same flat rate.0
-
Thought they closed this post, now re-opened ?0
-
This content has been removed.
-
This content has been removed.
-
__drmerc__ wrote: »Dear Posters,
I wanted to offer a brief explanation for closing this topic.
The forum guidelines include this item:
16. No Political Topics in the Main Forums
Political content is not allowed on the Main Forums. This includes images. Please form or join a Group if you would like to engage in political debate on MyFitnessPal.
If you would like to review the forum guidelines, please visit the following link:
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/welcome/guidelines
At our discretion, this closed topic may be deleted entirely in the near future.
With respect,
Rachel
MyFitnessPal Staff
Why is this thread no longer showing up in the listings?
I think it's clear: the Bilderbergs and the Illuminati have joined forces to drive this thread into the phantom zone. WE HAVE ALL BEEN MARKED!!0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions