Ragged Trousered Philanthropists

[La Li Lu Le Lo]

Well I have to assume that you performed a service for the money he 'gave " you.  More than likely the money he gave you was less than the money he made from the service you provided. If not and your labor added less value than then you where paid then have cause to be grateful. I don't feel that way about the service and skills I provide. 

The money I was paid is what I agreed to when I took the job. It was satisfactory to me. The second I feel undervalued I start shopping around.
 
That is the difference between you and I. I decide what I am worth whereas the TWU decides what you are worth.
 

I can tell you that most Drug dealers consider themselves to be Capiltalists. I guess you figure that Warren Buffett is a Communist as well because he has commented on how there is an us vs them;
 
“There’s class warfare, all right, but it’s my class, the rich class, that’s making war, and we’re winning.”― Warren Buffett

Warren Buffet makes his money through dividends and capital gains  at a 15 percent tax rate.
 
This is money that was already taxed then invested.
 
So Warren Buffet pays taxes twice then still has to figure out a way to make a profit.
 
When you pay taxes twice on your money let me know.
 

Ok, without the tax breaks tell me what would the Rich do with the money they don't spend? To say that people would would not continue to put money to work making money unless they paid less taxes than those who make money with their labor is absurd, it's a fallacy promoted by the wealthy and repeated so often that many, such as yourself  came to believe it. This fallacy is a twist on something that is true,  Tax incentives were a way to promote targeted investments, investments in things that would not otherwise attract investment because more money could be made elsewhere, such as savings bonds, not the whole concept of investment. People will invest regardless of the tax breaks and they did so before many of todays breaks were put in place. Like I said if they have billions, even millions in disposable Capital, if not invest it, what else would they do with it? 

Wealthy people typically don't keep a lot of cash. It's not like they have a billion dollars sitting in checking accounts. They typically invest it. I rather that money go toward business and growing the economy than to the bloated government. 
 
Apparently this is  what you think rich people do with their money
 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aPX5mRSQ3pw
 
Absurd.
 

Obviously you are, you are OK with taking it away from people who work for the Government.

Show me where I said that.
 

You got the refund of the Prefunding match? Did you buy the Supplemental medical? If so did you get any refund of those Premium? 

No. No. No.
 

Sounds like an issue with the way the company is managed to me. Just like wages, Unions can only enforce what they negotiate and nowhere in any contract at AA have I seen language that protects people playing Dominos while others work all day. 

Well I guess it's just not happening then is it Bob..............
 

Thats the nature of the industry we chose, its no different at Delta which is Non-union. They are just as trapped as we are. 

What does that have to do with anything.
 
I said the INDUSTRY being so UNONIzed locks you into your employer unless you want to start as a day one employee (as far as schedule and days off). Them being the odd man out does not remove them from that situation. If they seek employment at another airline they would still be subjected to the seniority ladder.
 

Calling this question "stupid" is infantile. Its a legitimate question, you said we have too many entitlements, well, how about some substance and not generalized proclaimations? What , other than Welfare, and the cheats that abuse it offends you? 

Are the cheats that abuse it not enough?
 
Fine I will provide more.
 
There are 3 issues I have with welfare
 
1. No oversight
 
2. No expectations on the recipient
 
3. The government rewards stupid self destructive behavior

 

[Bob Owens]

The money I was paid is what I agreed to when I took the job. It was satisfactory to me. The second I feel undervalued I start shopping around.
 
 
 
Warren Buffet makes his money through dividends and capital gains  at a 15 percent tax rate.
 
This is money that was already taxed then invested.
 
So Warren Buffet pays taxes twice then still has to figure out a way to make a profit.
 
When you pay taxes twice on your money let me know.
 

Not really, he gets taxed on the profits, not what he invested. In other words if he already paid taxes on the $10 he invests and the stock goes to $20 he doesn't get taxed on the $20, he gets taxed on the $10 profit. Whats wrong with that, we get taxed on every dollar we earn with our labor, why shouldn't he pay tax on money that was earned with no labor? 
 
 
 

Wealthy people typically don't keep a lot of cash. It's not like they have a billion dollars sitting in checking accounts. They typically invest it.
 

 Exactly, because after you have purchased every material thing you need what else are they going to do with it, so there is no need to incentivize them to invest, because what else are they going to do with it?
 

I rather that money go toward business and growing the economy than to the bloated government. 
 

I'd rather they pay their fair share so we could pay less. 
 

Apparently this is  what you think rich people do with their money
 

 
Your comprehension is somewhat limited, thats the opposite of what I said they do, thats what you claim they would do if we didn't give them tax breaks. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Are the cheats that abuse it not enough?
 
Fine I will provide more.
 
There are 3 issues I have with welfare
 
1. No oversight
 
2. No expectations on the recipient
 
 
3. The government rewards stupid self destructive behavior
 

Enough for what?
 
Ok, so because the government has failed to provide oversight and some have abused it you say that all should be punished, even those who legitimately need it? 
I agree that the government rewards stupid and destructive behavior, such as bailing out banks and providing corporate welfare to corporations who don't need or deserve it. I think the government should have more oversight, but keep in mind that would require more spending to do so. Maybe if we cut some of the corporate welfare it would free up some funds. 

 

[La Li Lu Le Lo]

Not really, he gets taxed on the profits, not what he invested. In other words if he already paid taxes on the $10 he invests and the stock goes to $20 he doesn't get taxed on the $20, he gets taxed on the $10 profit. Whats wrong with that, we get taxed on every dollar we earn with our labor, why shouldn't he pay tax on money that was earned with no labor? 

No labor? If you say so Bob. I push buttons all day on a computer and make a fine living doing it.... I guess by your standard I have no invested labor either.......
 
Every time he moves money he gets taxed. 
 
http://money.cnn.com/retirement/guide/investing_taxes.moneymag/index2.htm
 
When you own stocks outside of tax-sheltered retirement accounts such as IRAs or 401(k)s, there are two ways you might get hit with a tax bill. If your stock pays a dividend, those dividends generally are taxed at a rate of up to 15% at the end of each year.
In addition, if you sell a stock, you pay 15% of any profits you made over the time you held the stock. Those profits are known as capital gains, and the tax is called the capital gains tax. One exception: If you hold a stock for less than a year before you sell it, you'll have to pay your regular income tax rate on the gain - a rate that's higher than the capital gains tax.
In case you can't count Bob that is getting hit twice for investing his money to the tune of 30 percent of his total gain not to mention  the tax he paid before he ever invested it. If the original gain was counted as income it was taxed at 39.6 percent (or it would be with Buffets kind of money). That is a pretty hefty price tag to enter the stock market. Sure once you get the ball rolling you can make good money but if getting to that point were easy we would all be doing it.
I would also ask why you think he should pay so much more than you? Does he get any more benefit from the government than you do as a citizen?  I thought you libtards were all about EQUALITY. Charging someone way more money for the same services does not sound very equal to me.

Exactly, because after you have purchased every material thing you need what else are they going to do with it, so there is no need to incentivize them to invest, because what else are they going to do with it?
 
I'd rather they pay their fair share so we could pay less. 

I can tell you I recently read about a construction business owner that decided to invest his profits into starting a telecom business. His company now carries 80 percent of GLOBAL phone calls and 60 percent of GLOBAL internet traffic. Because of that man's investment he has provided a great service to many businesses and given a lot of people a great paying job.
 
What would have happened if the government had not given him the opportunity to invest in that enterprise?
 

I agree that the government rewards stupid and destructive behavior, such as bailing out banks and providing corporate welfare to corporations who don't need or deserve it. 

The government bailed out the banks to stabilize the economy to repair the damage done by forcing banks to make high risk home loans. You can thank the Democrats for that.

 

[La Li Lu Le Lo]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QrCkK0pCLVI
 
I think this guy makes a lot of good points about the damage long term welfare can do.

 

[Bob Owens]

No labor? If you say so Bob. I push buttons all day on a computer and make a fine living doing it.... I guess by your standard I have no invested labor either.......
 
Every time he moves money he gets taxed. 
 
 

Wrong, Only if he makes gains, if he loses money he gets to write it off and pay less taxes.  When we took pay cuts we couldn’t write it off, why, because only new money gets taxed, the money isn’t taxed twice.




 

When you own stocks outside of tax-sheltered retirement accounts such as IRAs or 401(k)s, there are two ways you might get hit with a tax bill. If your stock pays a dividend, those dividends generally are taxed at a rate of up to 15% at the end of each year.
In addition, if you sell a stock, you pay 15% of any profits you made over the time you held the stock. Those profits are known as capital gains, and the tax is called the capital gains tax. One exception: If you hold a stock for less than a year before you sell it, you'll have to pay your regular income tax rate on the gain - a rate that's higher than the capital gains tax.

 

In case you can't count Bob that is getting hit twice for investing his money to the tune of 30 percent of his total gain not to mention  the tax he paid before he ever invested it. If the original gain was counted as income it was taxed at 39.6 percent (or it would be with Buffets kind of money). That is a pretty hefty price tag to enter the stock market. Sure once you get the ball rolling you can make good money but if getting to that point were easy we would all be doing it.
 

 
I can count, the question is can you read? Thing is Buffett isn't complaining about being over taxed. He says that the tax structure is screwed up because he pays less than his secretary, so what part of that are you not getting? He is paying his tax as it his gains are realized, thats not the same as getting hit twice, and since most of his earning are unearned, in other words he didn't use his labor to make that money, that his money makes him money, he pays a lower rate than you or I do because pretty much all of our earnings fall into "counted as income" and subject to higher rates. 
 

I would also ask why you think he should pay so much more than you? Does he get any more benefit from the government than you do as a citizen?  I thought you libtards were all about EQUALITY. Charging someone way more money for the same services does not sound very equal to me.
 

 

Like I said if I’m a libard I guess that would make you a retard.
 
If I make the kind of money he makes from my labor then nearly all of it would fall under the 39% tax number, but he makes his money off his money, and if he doesn't cash out for a year he only pays 15% on it.  Progressive taxation has been a part of civilized society since the Roman times, it has proven to be the best formula for building both a prosperous, and stable, society by minimalizing wealth inequality. Any society that strays away from Progressive taxation eventually suffers economic decline and instability because the wealth becomes concentrated in fewer and fewer hands. As a result overall economic activity declines and hardship causes instability and eventually that Society declines. Why should poor people defend a society where all the wealth is in the hands of the few? Invaders have nothing to gain from the poor, their target is the wealth.  Extreme wealth inequality destabilizes society and eventually becomes a threat to the wealthy themselves, as the Monarchs of France and Russia found out the hard way.
 
What you fail to understand is the dynamics that compounded wealth creates. Your ability to produce wealth is limited by the amount of compensation earned off your labor and the amount that you can set aside after paying for the basic needs of survival. There are only 24 hours in a day and you cant split yourself into two and earn multiple wages at the same time 24 hours a day so your earning from labor are limited by your human condition. But there are no limits to the amount of money money can produce. Money does not need to rest, it can replicate itself through earnings , dividends and interest to earn even more money, yet even with that advantage over people who earn money off their labor you feel that those who earn money off their labor  should pay higher taxes than those who earn money off their money off their money. You keep claiming they get taxed twice, but they aren’t, they are getting taxed only on new income or realized gains just as you are taxed on your wages as you earn them. If Warren Buffett buys 1 million shares at $1 a share and it goes from $1 to $10 his wealth just increased by $9million dollars, but unlike you and I who earn our wealth through labor he doesn’t pay one penny in tax on that increase in wealth unless he sells it. If he sells it within a Year of buying it the money gets taxed just like your wages get taxed, but if he holds it for a year he only pays 15% and he only pays that tax on the $9 million gain.
 
 

 
What would have happened if the government had not given him the opportunity to invest in that enterprise?
 

 

So you are saying that the government has to provide “opportunities” for the rich but nothing for the poor?


 

The government bailed out the banks to stabilize the economy to repair the damage done by forcing banks to make high risk home loans. You can thank the Democrats for that.

 
 

 

Wrong, more neo-con hype that tries to affix blame on a simplistic argument. The fact is both parties had a hand in it when a Republican controlled house and a Democratic President allowed Glass Steagall to be repealed.  We had laws that kept banks stable for 50 years, then they got greedy like before the Great Depression and we had a similar outcome. They bailed out the banks to save the rich. Try reading the book "When Genius Failed". See how time and time again when the rich are about to lose all of a sudden we "have to" bail them out because all of a sudden our whole system is so fragile that if a few rich connected people lose their money everything will all of a sudden collapse but when working people need help we are told that they need to learn a lesson and not be dependent on the state. Its all about the rich socializing the losses and privatizing the profits. 





 
 

 

[Bob Owens]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QrCkK0pCLVI
 
I think this guy makes a lot of good points about the damage long term welfare can do.

Yes he does, I don't think that welfare recipients should be given cash, as he pointed out, she has tattoos, bling and a fancy hairdo and no job, they should be given food, shelter and training to become productive, but again that would cost more money than just handing them a check, and its cheaper to just give them cash and let people like you point the finger at them for all that pisses them off instead of getting pissed at the people who make billions not off their labor but off their money, some of which they got by paying the right politicians to put in laws that make it easier for them to cut your wages and take away benefits. 

 

[La Li Lu Le Lo]

Wrong, Only if he makes gains, if he loses money he gets to write it off and pay less taxes.  When we took pay cuts we couldn’t write it off, why, because only new money gets taxed, the money isn’t taxed twice.

Let me clarify.
 

In case you can't count Bob that is getting hit twice for investing his money to the tune of 30 percent of his total gain not to mention  the tax he paid before he ever invested it.

The fact is he paying tax up to 3 times (initial earnings tax, tax on dividends, tax on the sale of stock) on the money from his initial investment.
 
I understand he is only paying on his gains. However before he gets any money back he got hit for taxes up to 3 times and twice even if he doesn't sale.
 
That's paying taxes up to 3 times (and 2 times for sure as I originally stated) on the same investment transaction. The act of him investing that money led to him paying taxes at least twice.
 
You can bet that tax bill would add up to more than any person here pays per year.
 
To say he pays less taxes than you do is ludicrous.  
 
You also never touched on the question I asked you. Why should he as a citizen pay many times what you do in taxes? The fact he makes more money is NOT an acceptable answer.  
 

So you are saying that the government has to provide “opportunities” for the rich but nothing for the poor?

Nothing for the poor?
 
We have a program here in Tulsa that trains unemployed or underemployed people for careers.
 
https://www.facebook.com/pages/Transportation-Connections-WorkAdvance/205013246277439?fref=nf
 
I know at least 2 people that went to the school this program uses to train CNC machinist (the people I know were not part of the program and had to pay out of pocket) and it is a very good school. 
 
Is that not giving the poor an opportunity?
 
I tell you what is NOT giving the poor an opportunity and that is letting them sit on on welfare their whole lives living from handout to handout.
 

Wrong, more neo-con hype that tries to affix blame on a simplistic argument. The fact is both parties had a hand in it when a Republican controlled house and a Democratic President allowed Glass Steagall to be repealed.  We had laws that kept banks stable for 50 years, then they got greedy like before the Great Depression and we had a similar outcome. They bailed out the banks to save the rich. Try reading the book "When Genius Failed". See how time and time again when the rich are about to lose all of a sudden we "have to" bail them out because all of a sudden our whole system is so fragile that if a few rich connected people lose their money everything will all of a sudden collapse but when working people need help we are told that they need to learn a lesson and not be dependent on the state. Its all about the rich socializing the losses and privatizing the profits. 

No that was your Dumbocratic party pushing the socialist agenda everyone should have access to the American dream of home ownership even if they didn't earn it by forcing the banks to make ridiculous high risk loans.
 
The only grain of truth to what you said is the selling of credit default swaps, but then again that goes right back to covering high risk loans.
 
I will take you up on your challenge Bob. I will read "When Genius Failed", though I am sure it is nothing more than socialist propaganda.

 

[La Li Lu Le Lo]

Yes he does, I don't think that welfare recipients should be given cash, as he pointed out, she has tattoos, bling and a fancy hairdo and no job, they should be given food, shelter and training to become productive, but again that would cost more money than just handing them a check, and its cheaper to just give them cash and let people like you point the finger at them for all that pisses them off instead of getting pissed at the people who make billions not off their labor but off their money, some of which they got by paying the right politicians to put in laws that make it easier for them to cut your wages and take away benefits. 

It costs more money to train someone and tell them to get a job and support themselves than it does to support them their whole life?
 
Really?
 
That is your argument?

 

[Bob Owens]

It costs more money to train someone and tell them to get a job and support themselves than it does to support them their whole life?
 
Really?
 
That is your argument?

No, it costs more to train them than they are allocated to spend now. In order to do that they would have to increase spending in the here and now for a savings that wont be realized until later and most politicians only look at improvements that can show results within an election cycle. Congressmen only have two year terms. 

 

[Bob Owens]

Let me clarify.
 
The fact is he paying tax up to 3 times (initial earnings tax, tax on dividends, tax on the sale of stock) on the money from his initial investment.
 
I understand he is only paying on his gains. However before he gets any money back he got hit for taxes up to 3 times and twice even if he doesn't sale.
 
That's paying taxes up to 3 times (and 2 times for sure as I originally stated) on the same investment transaction. The act of him investing that money led to him paying taxes at least twice.
 
You can bet that tax bill would add up to more than any person here pays per year.
 
To say he pays less taxes than you do is ludicrous.  
 
 
 
 

Lower rate, lower than his secretary. 
 
http://money.cnn.com/2013/03/04/news/economy/buffett-secretary-taxes/
 
He is paying three times because he is earning money three times, thats like saying you were taxed 52 times because you were taxed every paycheck. The act of you going to work and getting paid every week leads to you paying taxes 52 times a year, every year. Three times is better than 52 isn't it? 
 
I think we both agree that Warren Buffett is an extremely intelligent man. Yes or no? Why do you think he is campaigning for higher taxes on the Rich? Because he is an intelligent man, not a nut-job neo-con and he recognizes the damage that wealth inequality is doing and knows that long term its not even in the best interests of the rich to continue on this path. Even the rich will suffer if Society deteriorates and becomes unstable. 
 

You also never touched on the question I asked you. Why should he as a citizen pay many times what you do in taxes? The fact he makes more money is NOT an acceptable answer.
 

 
I answered, since when do I have to provide answers you find "acceptable"? 
 
 
 

We have a program here in Tulsa that trains unemployed or underemployed people for careers.
 

 
Is that one of the entitlements you want to get rid of? Or is that an entitlement you find acceptable? I asked for a list since you said we had too many entitlement and so far you only cited welfare.
 
 
 
 

I tell you what is NOT giving the poor an opportunity and that is letting them sit on on welfare their whole lives living from handout to handout.
 

 
OK
 
 

No that was your Dumbocratic party pushing the socialist agenda everyone should have access to the American dream of home ownership even if they didn't earn it by forcing the banks to make ridiculous high risk loans.
 

 
Not my party, but I do consider them to normally be the lesser of two evils. 
 

I will take you up on your challenge Bob. I will read "When Genius Failed", though I am sure it is nothing more than socialist propaganda.
 

 
Written by a reporter from The Wall Street Journal, hardly a leftist organization. 

 

[La Li Lu Le Lo]

No, it costs more to train them than they are allocated to spend now. In order to do that they would have to increase spending in the here and now for a savings that wont be realized until later and most politicians only look at improvements that can show results within an election cycle. Congressmen only have two year terms. 

I disagree. There are many 1 year programs out there.
 

 
Lower rate, lower than his secretary. 
 
http://money.cnn.com/2013/03/04/news/economy/buffett-secretary-taxes/
 
He is paying three times because he is earning money three times, thats like saying you were taxed 52 times because you were taxed every paycheck. The act of you going to work and getting paid every week leads to you paying taxes 52 times a year, every year. Three times is better than 52 isn't it? 

Lower rate does not mean he is paying less taxes than his secretary. Warren Buffet pays more taxes per year than any person on this board many times over.
 
Paying 3 times a year he still pays more taxes than you.
 

I answered, since when do I have to provide answers you find "acceptable"? 

As a dollar amount he already pays many times in taxes what you do.
 
Justify why you think he should pay more when he is already paying many times more than you. 
 
Even at 15 percent he pays way way WAY more than you do. Does he get many times the service from his tax dollar?
 

Is that one of the entitlements you want to get rid of? Or is that an entitlement you find acceptable? I asked for a list since you said we had too many entitlement and so far you only cited welfare.

 I find any entitlement that leads to self sufficiency acceptable. 
 
Bob there are now 126 "anti poverty" programs. 
 
72 of these pay cash or in-kind benefits.
 

Not my party, but I do consider them to normally be the lesser of two evils. 

Not your party? You sound JUST LIKE THEM.
 

Written by a reporter from The Wall Street Journal, hardly a leftist organization. 

I told you I would read it............

 

[Bob Owens]

 

 
 
 
I think we both agree that Warren Buffett is an extremely intelligent man. Yes or no? Why do you think he is campaigning for higher taxes on the Rich? Because he is an intelligent man, not a nut-job neo-con and he recognizes the damage that wealth inequality is doing and knows that long term its not even in the best interests of the rich to continue on this path. Even the rich will suffer if Society deteriorates and becomes unstable. 
 
 
 

 
Lower rate does not mean he is paying less taxes than his secretary. Warren Buffet pays more taxes per year than any person on this board many times over.
 
Paying 3 times a year he still pays more taxes than you.
 
As a dollar amount he already pays many times in taxes what you do.
 
Justify why you think he should pay more when he is already paying many times more than you. 
 
Even at 15 percent he pays way way WAY more than you do. Does he get many times the service from his tax dollar?
 
 

Ok, then explain to me why Warren Buffet is the one saying that his tax burden should be increased?  
 
http://www.forbes.com/sites/clareoconnor/2012/04/10/the-buffett-rules-billionaire-backers-meet-the-super-rich-who-want-to-pay-more-taxes/
 

That’s wrong,” he said. “It isn’t fair. And it’s time for us to choose which direction we want to go in as a country. Do we want to keep giving tax breaks to the wealthiest Americans like me, or Warren Buffett, or Bill Gates – people who don’t need them and never asked for them? Or do we want to keep investing in things that will grow our economy and keep us secure? That’s the choice.”
 

By the way Gates feels the same way. 

 

[La Li Lu Le Lo]

Ok, then explain to me why Warren Buffet is the one saying that his tax burden should be increased?  
 
http://www.forbes.com/sites/clareoconnor/2012/04/10/the-buffett-rules-billionaire-backers-meet-the-super-rich-who-want-to-pay-more-taxes/

How the hell should I know Bob?
 
Don't ask me ask HIM. 
 
Maybe he is getting political favors for his "endorsement".
 
 
http://www.forbes.com/sites/clareoconnor/2012/04/10/the-buffett-rules-billionaire-backers-meet-the-super-rich-who-want-to-pay-more-taxes/
 
On Tuesday afternoon President Obama took a break from fundraising in Florida to make his pitch for the ‘Buffett Rule’, a proposal that would see the country’s wealthiest pay at least 30% of their income in taxes.
 
 
 
 
I would have to say I agree more with the Kock brothers. I rather the wealthy invest that money and grow the economy than pay our bloated government taxes. 
 
Then there are the Koch brothers, the ultimate free-market, flat-tax champions;Charles Koch came out against Buffett last year, saying his investments do more good for society than more taxes would.

 

[Bob Owens]

How the hell should I know Bob?
 
Don't ask me ask HIM. 
 
Maybe he is getting political favors for his "endorsement".
 

I asked you what you thought, you dont seem to have any problem expressing an opion on the motives of those who recieve entitlements so why is there such a reluctance to express an opinion on what motivates Mr Buffett and why he has taken this position?
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

I would have to say I agree more with the Kock brothers. I rather the wealthy invest that money and grow the economy than pay our bloated government taxes. 
 
Then there are the Koch brothers, the ultimate free-market, flat-tax champions;Charles Koch came out against Buffett last year, saying his investments do more good for society than more taxes would.
 

 
 
 
 
That doesnt suprise me, and that is what makes you a "Ragged Trousered Philanthropist'. By advancing a lower tax rate for them you are also advancing paying a higher rate for yourself. You are paying more so they can pay less. Even if we cut off welfare, we would then still need to pay those taxes to build more prisons because if you take away peoples  ability to feed themselves they will most certainly resort to stealing what they need. You would still need to pay taxes for roads, the military, and scores of other things that are not going away no matter which party controls the government. Even if they did away with government jobs they would simply privatize those tasks and you would still have to pay for them through higher taxes. Taxes have been around since before the Romans, they arent going away any time soon. 

 

[Bob Owens]

Different topic but its still the rich that benefit and us that pay the price.
 
Could be another reason for Mr Buffetts conscience as far as his personal taxes. 
 
http://www.newsweek.com/corporate-deadbeats-how-companies-get-rich-taxes-268303