The Black Vault

Well at least you don't think he's the antichrist.

frrostedman wrote:

humphreys wrote:What is so wrong about taking more from those who have more to give? In a church, should a beggar be expected to donate the same as Donald Trump?

The Church doesn't operate that way. The tithe is 10% across the board. The beggar with a dime should donate at least a penny. Donald Trump should donate his 10%.

Why is that not acceptable to you? Why should Donald Trump be expected to pay 75%, like the wealthy do in France?

Yeah, we can see that the Europeans have a GREAT handle on things, can't we. This country, thanks to Obama and his kind, is headed straight down the path of Greece, Spain, Italy, etc.

10% of what? Sorry, I'm not sure how the church system works.

Obviously there is a line, but I don't think it's wrong for Trump to pay a higher percentage than the tramp. The tramp could pay nothing and he'd still be starving and ruffling bins for food, and Trump could pay 90% and still have way more money than he knows what to do with.

The problem is that we live in a society where the difference between the top (Trump) and the bottom (tramp) is so unreasonably vast it's beyond absurd. Anything that cuts into that gulf even slightly is generally okay to me, but of course, let's not go too far. The rich will still be rich, and the poor still poor.

humphreys wrote:

frrostedman wrote:

humphreys wrote:What is so wrong about taking more from those who have more to give? In a church, should a beggar be expected to donate the same as Donald Trump?

The Church doesn't operate that way. The tithe is 10% across the board. The beggar with a dime should donate at least a penny. Donald Trump should donate his 10%.

Why is that not acceptable to you? Why should Donald Trump be expected to pay 75%, like the wealthy do in France?

Yeah, we can see that the Europeans have a GREAT handle on things, can't we. This country, thanks to Obama and his kind, is headed straight down the path of Greece, Spain, Italy, etc.

10% of what? Sorry, I'm not sure how the church system works.

What? Tithing is the practice of giving up 10% of your earnings to the church. Pretty simple.

Obviously there is a line, but I don't think it's wrong for Trump to pay a higher percentage than the tramp. The tramp could pay nothing and he'd still be starving and ruffling bins for food, and Trump could pay 90% and still have way more money than he knows what to do with.

It's not all about Trump. If Trump pays 90% then he has no money to make investments and create jobs. Poor people don't do those things. Wealthy business owners do.

England is almost at 100% debt vs. GDP. Do you really think the nanny-state model works?

The problem is that we live in a society where the difference between the top (Trump) and the bottom (tramp) is so unreasonably vast it's beyond absurd.

No. It's not absurd. It doesn't mean a hill of beans to you if Trump has a few billion. Unless of course, you're jealous and self-entitled. Zuckerberg just became one of the most wealthy people on the planet overnight. He will be paying California about 3 billion in taxes this year. (sidenote, maybe that will help them solve their 16 billion dollar annual deficit due to nanny-state issues and promises they can't afford to keep... can you say Greece?).

Must Zuckerberg also cut humphreys (or anyone else) a check? And if so, on what grounds do you deserve it?

humphreys wrote:If everyone who was rich got there through their own hard work and ingenuity, you might have a point.

The vast majority of wealthy people got that way because they worked hard to get it. And it's completely inappropriate for anyone else to stake claim to someone else's money just because their relative built an empire.

You bring up an interesting topic, and that is, we should work for our money.

Do you feel the same way about all the people in the lower class? Or do you support the vast majority of them, who have all the free time in the world to do what they want, while the government sends them checks every month.

Should a retired person who is capable of working, but stays home and collects retirement income, should that person cut a check to the poor?

Anyway, back to your point. The vast majority of wealthy people worked for it. And I'll also add that the vast majority of poor people are capable of working their way out of poverty but choose not to.

The American farmers right now, are unable to fill positions because no one wants the work. The Mexicans used to do it, but they ran home scared due to immigration pressures.

frrostedman wrote:What? Tithing is the practice of giving up 10% of your earnings to the church. Pretty simple.

Like I said, I don't know how the church system works, but that sounds outrageous to me.

frrostedman wrote:England is almost at 100% debt vs. GDP. Do you really think the nanny-state model works?

That's why I said there was a line. That does not mean we can't hit the rich harder than we hit the poor without going too far.

frrostedman wrote:No. It's not absurd. It doesn't mean a hill of beans to you if Trump has a few billion. Unless of course, you're jealous and self-entitled. Zuckerberg just became one of the most wealthy people on the planet overnight. He will be paying California about 3 billion in taxes this year. (sidenote, maybe that will help them solve their 16 billion dollar annual deficit due to nanny-state issues and promises they can't afford to keep... can you say Greece?).

Must Zuckerberg also cut humphreys (or anyone else) a check? And if so, on what grounds do you deserve it?

I'm not asking anyone to cut me a check, I'm simply saying if there is a system in place that evens up the gulf in wealth just a little that can't be a bad thing.

Don't you think the gulf is a little outrageous?

Does it really matter to you if Zuckerberg has 2 and a half trillion instead of 3 trillion to spend? Does it even matter to him? I doubt it, it's such a stupid amount of money. It is not right that anyone should have to starve while another has 20 cars and 8 houses, even if he did have a good idea. Without the people, Zuckerberg is nothing.

frrostedman wrote:Do you feel the same way about all the people in the lower class? Or do you support the vast majority of them, who have all the free time in the world to do what they want, while the government sends them checks every month.

What is there to do when you have no money? I don't support scroungers and people who make no effort, but when hardworking people are struggling just to survive, especially where health care is involved, then there is a problem.

Any system can be abused, and people will abuse it, and we need to hit the lazy non-workers hard, but for those honestly looking for work and failing to find it, and for those in unfortunate situations, of course they need support, and if there are people out there literally with such vast amounts of money they could not spend even if they wanted to, I have no problem with hitting them harder.

You make out that money earned is equal to the work put it. Did Zuckerberg do 3 trillions worth of hard work? No, he just had a good idea, executed it well, and got lucky. Right time, right place, right idea etc.

Does Trump work harder than a husband doing two jobs just to feed his family? I doubt it.

frrostedman wrote:Should a retired person who is capable of working, but stays home and collects retirement income, should that person cut a check to the poor?

The retired have paid their dues.

frrostedman wrote:Anyway, back to your point. The vast majority of wealthy people worked for it. And I'll also add that the vast majority of poor people are capable of working their way out of poverty but choose not to.

You're looking at the real extremes. Sure, many poor people can work their way out of poverty and manage to survive, living in a house and eating food off a plate instead of out of a bin, but they will still struggle. The distribution of wealth will still be all out of proportion, the system is FUBAR, as they say.

screw Johny Depp..he fb'd my FB buddy and blew me off..he can go to hell

Also..I want to see Dark Shadows..

and don;t even BOTHER now Johny Depp..because even if you do..I will "unfriend you"
betch

frrostedman wrote:Must Zuckerberg also cut humphreys (or anyone else) a check? And if so, on what grounds do you deserve it?

I'm wondering on what grounds does the church deserve it?

On what grounds does the government deserve so much of my damn money in the first place? The US and UK governments combined have literally raped me with outrageous immigration fees already, and then I have to bend over more while they give me a going over after every pay check.

Zuckerberg can handle a little extra raping and still come out trillions to the good with his ass intact, me, I'm tired, bleeding, and struggling to stay on my feet