The Dolphins Make Me Cry.com - Forums

I have been seeing people bitch about this in my Facebook feed but didn't trust the environment there to get into it.  I was waiting for it to pop up here and it never did, so here I am.

Yes, individuals having so much money that they can cure hunger and instead go to space is a problem.  However, it speaks to wealth inequality and not that individual person's choices, nor the quest to go spend money on things that are beyond us.

I've never liked the mentality that "we could be spending that money here to help people".  Yes, we could.  But that argument could always be made to never seek out anything better.  Why spend time scavenging outside the cave?  We have problems inside the cave we need to solve...y'know?

Also, I personally am not interested in flying to space.  Seems scary.

As private citizens, if it's their money, they can do whatever they want with it. You need to look at your government. They're too busy wasting money on bullshit.

A billion dollars to India for gender studies? WTF? $500 million to the Kennedy foundation? WTF they do? $12 million to some obscure college somewhere for a few eggheads to study the impact of forest fires on the blue gill horney toad beetle. The list goes on and on. But it is our own fault for electing the same greedy politicians over and over. Disclaimer, no need to fact check and argue about those examples. I made them up, to illustrate the wasteful nature of our government, but you get the point.

We don't have allies, we have prostitutes. Stop the money flow and free handouts and watch all those allies turn into cold bitches.

I don't want to judge them but for some reason it rubs me the wrong way.

I think it's just the nature of unchecked capitalism.  You really shouldn't be able to have a billion dollars, because you can't earn it.  You have to get it off the backs of others.

But in terms of using stupid money to go to space to no immediate, obvious gain, I'm all for it.

Well if I had a billion dollars I wouldn't use it to go to space, but if you have it you can do anything with it you like, legally anyways.  That argument can be made for many things, for instance that guy shouldn't be spending a billion dollars on an NFL team when he could be housing the homeless.

The fact is most of these guys do give a great deal of money to charities.

Another way to look at it also is that the money they are spending on going to space goes into our economy providing jobs for many people, so that they can avoid homelessness.  I'd rather be angry about millionaires that let their money sit in a bank account and just watch it grow, this hurts the economy by taking money out of circulation.  If you really think about the economy it's all about people earning money and spending it, which leads to other people earning the money you spend, and then they spend it, etc. etc.  Bad recessions/depressions are caused more by fear, when people stop spending and hoard their cash out of fear.  This stops the flow of money and has ripple effects throughout the economy leading to recessions.

For me, I have to break this down into two separate issues.  The first being taxation of the "rich".   I think most of us here have expressed our varying opinions that one at one time or another, none of us are likely to change our minds, and if we try to address taxation, we will go far down the rabbit hole and away from what I think (correct me if I'm wrong, Dave) was the original intent of Dave's post.  

The second issue which I'm going to focus on is the implications (moral and otherwise) of the AFTER TAX spending by individuals.  SHOULD the rich spend a larger percentage of their net income on problems "inside the cave" than a middle class person?  My opinion is that they should.  The key words in that sentence being "opinion" and "should".   It is okay for me to have the opinion that they should address problems "inside the cave" as opposed to "outside the cave".  But I wouldn't like the idea of my opinion becoming the expectation or any kind of mandate.  I don't like the idea of telling people how they should spend their own money.  I wouldn't like anyone telling me how I am to spend my own money so it would be hypocritical of me to do it to others.  You can have an opinion on how I should spend my money, but you shouldn't have the ability to tell me how to spend my money.  Before I go putting expectations on other people, I always try to turn the tables on myself and ask how I would feel about those same expectations being put on me.  Kind of a check and balance on my own potential hypocrisy. LOL

It is fine if I think that Bezos is a selfish cheapskate for what he does with his money.  It isn't fine for me to have the authority to mandate what he does with his money.  Again, keep in mind that I'm strictly talking about money AFTER taxes.  

Reputation laundering at best.

I'm actually very much for eliminating any charitable deductions from the tax code. If you want to donate to a charity then by all means, go for it. But it has nothing to do with how much tax you should pay. While we're at it, I would also eliminate any non profit tax exemptions. It's all a racket. The NFL for the longest time was a non-profit entity. Bullshit.

I don't care that Bezos went to space, or whomever. But he should pay taxes, at least not pay less taxes than I do.

What I will say about private space travel is just how shitty at it these companies are. The government developed, funded and went into space 70 years ago.

I don’t have a problem with the space part per se.

I do have a problem with the ever widening income gap.  There has always been an income gap.  There has always been rich and poor folks.  However, the difference between the two has ballooned to unprecedented levels.  Unquestionably, Cornelius Vanderbilt was wealthier than the guys driving the trains.  But the gap between the lowest paid train employee and Vanderbilt was tiny compared between a driver for Amazon and Bezos.

Every billionaire is a policy failure.

We should not have a system that even allows people to become billionaires.  And I mean this at multiple levels: from confiscatory tax rates, to regulations on pay differentials within companies.  (I'll make an exception for value in stock holdings, which are themselves fleeting until actually converted into money.)

Let's keep in mind that we, as taxpayers, subsidize any business that operates in America and claims a tax break for business-related expenses.  We permit them to avoid taxes in the hopes that the growth of their business is ultimately good for society.  But if you don't like the idea of some government bureaucrats telling you how much profit you need to share with your employees, then I'm willing to meet you halfway: you should be able to voluntarily opt-out of all business tax exemptions, pay full taxes on every single dollar that comes in your door, and then you can be left to do with your profit as you will.

You're willing to meet halfway? Wow, that's mighty white of you. Poor people jealous of rich people, the neverending story.

What’s your cut off?  $999,999,999

That story wouldn't even be possible without poor people licking the boots of their paymasters, in the vain hope that one day they'll be the one wearing the boots.

I don't see the issue because it isn't my place to tell him what to do with his money. I use Amazon regularly and appreciate his idea that makes it so convenient and inexpensive to get things. He could be an arsehole or the most giving person there is and yet it should be his choice what he does with it IMO.

I think the title of this thread, Billionaires in Space, would be a great name of an alternative band i.e. the Dead Kennedys, Butthole Surfers, etc or the name of a kids television cartoon. 

This.  If you're pissed off at Bezos or Amazon, stop using it then.  Me?  I'm going to continue to get my convenient items delivered to me while I watch the latest and greatest Amazon Prime TV shows or Movies (Wheel of Time November 2021 wooo!)

WoT 11/21 confirmed?

https://www.google.com/amp/s/collider.com/wheel-of-time-season-1-release-date-amazon/amp/ (https://www.google.com/amp/s/collider.com/wheel-of-time-season-1-release-date-amazon/amp/)

yay!

I find it weird that you guys seem to give Jeff Bezos personal credit for the services provided by the company he founded.  I don't give Bill Gates personal credit for the fact that I have a Windows PC, nor am I appreciative of his idea every time I play Diablo III.

I don't think the objection here is that Bezos et al. are spending their money on a space trip instead of 5 more vacation homes and a couple of new private jets.  Speaking for myself, I don't particularly care what they spend their money on (save when they are buying government influence).  The point is that the government should not allow them to have that much money, be it via regulations on executive pay ratios, or via confiscatory tax rates (like those we had under the well-known communist Dwight Eisenhower).

Sure they should. And do...

Here is something no one is mentioning. For the people with children what about the environmental impact? If you really want to have a better life for your future generations these flights have no scientific value at all and have quite a footprint.

"California über alles...Über alles CALIFORNIA!"

...thanks, I needed that.

LOL, I figured if anyone got the Dead Kennedys reference, it would be you. 

^^^ ...and followed it up with the Dead Milkmen's classic "Bitchin' Camaro."

My morning is going groovy so far. ;)

I wonder if UFOs are alien billionaires?  :D

This is so scary to me. Our government was created by our founders to be run by the people. I don't understand the mentality that people want the government to run us. It certainly isn't based on our history. Honestly that seems like a mental issue to me.

And since when does our government have the right to tell us how much money we can and can't have?   You like Socialism so much?  Pack your shit and move to Cuba.  Let's see how you feel after a year or two there.

Literally since 1913 and the 16th amendment to the constitution.

The same founders who put leeches on their bodies and called it medicine? The same founders that created laws that govern the number of lanterns you can have lit up on the back of your wagon?

Pretty safe to say that the founders never once considered the 21st century...or any of its problems, while they were doing all of that founding.

None of your smart arse answers reveal why you feel so helpless that you would want the government to tell you how to live.

Think of the children. It's for the children

The above quote was your reply to ArtieChokePhin's question of "since when does our government have the right to tell us how much money we can and can't have?"  

I get where you are coming from with your response, but it isn't really accurate.  The 16th Amendment re-established federal income tax (One had been passed in the 1890s but tossed out in 1895 by the Supreme Court).  Specifically, the 16th Amendment allowed Congress to levy a tax on income from any source.  So the 16th Amendment was in no way telling anyone how much money they can or can't have.  The 16th Amendment was intended solely to make sure that the Government got their cut.  It definitely did not establish any kind of "income cap" on anyone.

I agree 100%.  But then we in the 21st century are left with quite a dilemma.  Does the antiquity of founding principles (I'll just say the Constitution for example) mean the Constitution should be thrown out in it's entirety, some of it thrown out, some or all of it updated to reflect modern times (and who would be given that enormous responsibility and power), etc.?  Hell, Congress can't agree on the simplest of things, I can't even imagine the clusterfuk they would make out of doing a major rewrite of the Constitution.  The Supreme Court does some of the work for us in establishing modern interpretations on laws written over 200 years ago, but that is just a drop in the bucket when compared to the task that the US would be undertaking if they were to re-write the Constitution for modern days.  The antiquity of the Constitution definitely creates some problems for us today.  But I just don't see a realistic way around it that didn't have a very high risk of making things worse.  Personally, I will take the Constitution as it is (even with the problems that it's antiquity can create in the modern world) over changes that could very well make things worse. 

The most realistic way would be to keep the Constitution as written. It's made us the greatest country to ever exist. Anyone who thinks otherwise might find another country that fits their views better.

If you hate socialism so much, why are you willingly living in a country with socialist roads, with socialist fire departments, with socialist public schools, with socialist Medicare, with socialist water infrastructure, etc.?

Maybe you should move to Somalia, where there is no socialism.

That only allows the government to take a percentage of money earned.  And that needs to be amended as well because government taxes are so crazy.   You have to pay tax on money you earn, tax on money you gain, tax on money you win, tax on money you inherit (money that's already been taxed).  Hell, you have to pay taxes to buy, sell, and own property, businesses or vehicles.

Taxation is theft

So in your view, what part of the Constitution allows property taxes?  Or do you think property taxes are unconstitutional?

I don't see how a wealth tax is any different than a property tax.

Just to clarify: when I said that the government "should not allow" a person to have billions of dollars, I was not talking about taking that money away from them after the fact (although I do support a wealth tax).  I was actually talking about preventing them from accumulating that much money to begin with, be it via regulations on executive pay ratios, or via confiscatory income tax rates.

The Venn diagram of "people who are fine with billionaires accumulating enough wealth to take joyrides in space" and "people who think climate change concerns are all a hoax" is just a circle.

Well now that you bring it up. The federal government is generally prohibited from imposing direct taxes unless such taxes are then given to the states in proportion to population. Thus, ad valorem property taxes have not been imposed at the federal level. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Property_tax_in_the_United_States) That's exactly why property tax is implemented at the state level.

Because

Courtesy of Google:
Does the federal government charge property taxes?

The federal government occupies the majority of the income tax base, receiving 87 percent of all income tax revenue in FY 2006. The federal government does not levy a general sales tax, nor does it tax property. Instead, it relies almost entirely on income levies for its collections. (https://www.ncsl.org/documents/fiscal/statefederalandlocaltaxes.pdf)

You're trying to blur the line by trying to conflate a non existent federal wealth tax with state property tax. They are two totally different things on two different levels. The fact that the federal government classifies them as two different things actually means that they are two different things. You'll need a constitutional amendment since the 13th amendment only authorized an "Income Tax".  And if you ever see that constitutional amendment pass. You'll also see most of the billionaires leave and live another country that fits their views better.

So you're talking about stealing confiscating people's money? I'd love to see what part of the constitution you think authorizes that kind of "radical" experiment in failure. Seems to me that's why this country even exists.

mod edit: restored original message

I accept your terms.

Name this fictional country.  It doesn't exist.

Dave, you clicked Modify instead of Quote.  I restored pondwater's original message from my cache.

Again, a direct tax must be apportioned.

 Such a tax must be apportioned. To be apportioned, a tax must be the same amount per person in every state, a very difficult burden to satisfy. For example, a dollar-per-acre tax would fail unless every state had the same acreage per capita. As a result, federal land taxes do not exist. States, unhampered by apportionment, routinely impose real property taxes. In contrast, a dollar-per-human tax (also known as a capitation) would be constitutional, as it would be the same amount per capita in every state. The United States, however, has never imposed such a tax, arguably the only form that a direct tax could constitutionally take. (https://constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/interpretation/article-i/clauses/757)

You can't directly target billionaires if you have to tax everyone the same amount. That's the great part of this country. If you don't like California or New York. You can go to Florida, Texas, or Wyoming.

Neither does your fictional wealth tax. I thought we were playing make believe again. One day they might both exist.

You are arguing with yourself.  You just posted a link that said that direct taxes are unconstitutional UNLESS such taxes are then given to the states in proportion to population.  So which one is it?

When composing your response, keep in mind that federal estate taxes exist.

The threat being made is that if we increase taxes, billionaires will flee to some other country with more Freedom.
But this country doesn't exist.  So it's an empty threat.

Are you arguing this point? If so you're arguing with argue with constitutioncenter.org and all the other websites that say the same thing.

That has nothing to do with the federal government's responsibility to apportion any direct tax on citizens.

Actually, the threat being made is a wealth tax/confiscation/theft. And since direct taxes must be apportioned, that's not possible without a constitutional amendment. We can play make believe all day long. And since neither will happen in my lifetime, it's a moot point.

Estate taxes are 1) direct and 2) not apportioned.  Q.E.D.

Seems like your source has their facts wrong about the constitutionality of direct taxes.

I encourage you to reach out and notify constitutioncenter.org and inform them that they are wrong. Please let us all know their reply, LMFAO