Mark Cuban just became the 2nd most hated rich guy in the USA!

My assertion from the beginning was that Cuban was not a good "voice" for the "rich" because I think he represents roughly 1% of the nation. I threw out a range of 100k to 200k a year as being more realistic. Maxie believes that 100k is not "rich" because it doesn't go far in Manhattan, which I disagree with because in the majority of the country, someone who makes between 100k-200k would be doing very very well. I posted a link that showed that only 15% of the country makes 100k plus every year.

I never asserted who should or shouldn't pay more taxes. I just merely think that if we are going to start talking about taxing the "rich" more, opinions should be coming from a more widely represented body of the "rich" and I think 100k-200k a year is more realistic.

 

Sure you can because the point falls apart on its own. Not in Oxford or LD Debate, but in Parlimentary Style debate, you bet that's the case.

Paragraph deleted because I felt like too much of a dick after reading it.

 

Yes. I'm glad we agree.

 

You give barfo a hard time for his style, but you're way worse.

 

Wow, your butthurt knows no bounds. Don't blame me for your silly points of view.

 

Kind of surprised that nobody here has pointed out actual average wages in New York City:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_New_York_City#Income

If you go by average (mean) income, it's $121k per HOUSEHOLD in Manhattan. If you go by median income (middle number among all incomes) it's only $64k. Obviously, a lot of extremely wealthy people drive up the average.

Of course, the Manhattan population is self-selecting. People who live there do so because they can afford it. If they can't, they commute.

Someone commuting into Manhattan from the Bronx ($34k/year median household) or Brooklyn ($41k median household) might consider a single man living in Manhattan earning $100k somewhat rich, or a household earning $200k very rich.

 

Anyway, just happened to see this infographic today, and since we're doing the whole "that's not rich!" vs "that's greedy!" thing again, I figured I'd post it:



Link

Everybody start breaking out your predetermined conclusions about why this is/isn't any big deal.

 

mook kills it!

and yeah, this country has been going straight down the toilet since reagan, everyone knows that

 

He just made you look stupid. He's attacking your policies.

And mook is an Obama supporter, so he should hide that chart.

 

lol, once again, nobody on earth can understand your gibberish, congrats

the chart shows the rich are getting richer, the poor are getting poorer, and people are having to work much harder to keep the same standard of living as they used to.

sooooooo wtf are you babbling about? save it

 

FWIW...

http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/blog/ba...t=AiGJip0XWXm7TBz2KTd0v9K8vLYF?urn=nba-wp8498

 

he paid mike finley like 50 million dollars to play for the spurs too, what a sweetheart

 

Something like that.

 

There's no confusion anywhere you simply lack reading comprehension.


The chart clearly shows our debt-to-GDP ratio has only recently gone over 65%. Our spending is at an unsustainable level. And you cheerleaded the policies that got us here along with Mook. The chart shows SPENDING has gone up exponentially over the past decade. Insolvency is our problem.

 

NOBODY can "comprehend" your musings, sorry hombre

 

Just worked for his HDNet last night...... thanks for the work Mark, I don't hate!

 

You support terrible policies that even socialists like FDR disagree with.

Look at the chart again, and go over some of your previous posts. You are part of the problem bruh.

Los gigantes son débil y patético. Tu equipito de cojudos se jodieron.


[video=youtube;p3-eavMSBnk]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p3-eavMSBnk[/video]