Mitt Romney

George Washington Would Beat Out Romney as Richest President; John Kerry Would Have, Too

|

Amid the recent hullabaloo over Romney finally releasing his tax returns—apparently we are less concerned with the privacy of our political candidates—Americans have learned the extent to Romney's great wealth, estimated between $190-$250 million dollars. However, Aaron Blake at the Washington Post finds that controlling for inflation, in fact George Washington would be the nation's richest president. John F. Kennedy would have beaten that had he inherited his father's nearly a billion dollar fortune, and John Kerry would have even beaten that had he been elected president.

In today's dollars, Washington's net worth would amount to more than $500 million. Thomas Jefferson, as estimated by 24/7 Wall Street , is believed to have been worth $212 million.

Among presidential candidates and primary contenders, John Kerry likely beats out Mitt Romney with a net worth, as disclosed by his 2004 personal financial disclosure report, at $237-312 million; however, including his wife Theresa Heinz Kerry, their combined net worth is as much as $1 billion. Also notably, 1990s third-party candidate Ross Perot has an estimated net worth of $3.58 billion, and former Republican primary contender Steve Forbes is estimated at $450 million, according to a Wealth X study.

NEXT: George Washington Would Beat Out Romney as Richest President; John Kerry Would Have, Too

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. George Washington was probably a racist Rethuglicant KKKer.

    /Occutards United

    1. Whereas in fact it was Washington’s slaves who were racist against him.

      1. Washington just didn’t rape his slaves enough. If he had dug in a little deeper with his cock, that would have shut them the hell up.

        1. Hey Max! Do you have a news letter?

      2. -1, shitty attempt.

      3. I visited Mount Vernon a few weeks ago. The docents didn’t like it when I kept referring to it as Slave Camp #1.

      4. Nords, redguards, dunmer – you shall all cower before my boot.

    2. Yea, but what did his secretary pay in taxes?

      1. the pay of secretaries should be mandated by government at 1,000,000 dollars and the tax rate should be a universal 90%.

        oh crap, marx, you’re so sexy!

      2. Did he use one of his slaves as a secretary?

        1. Then she paid no taxes, but he might have paid taxes on her. Washington wins again!

  2. ROMNEY PAYS THE SAME IN TAXES AS HIS SECRETARY!!111!!!!!!1!!

    CRUSH THA RICH!!!1!!!!!!1!!!

      1. NWA: teabaggers?

        1. Impossible: They are African-American.

          1. Anti-War on Drugs, Anti-Unionized Government Workers…They’re well on our way to being Ron Paul supporters…Wait, didn’t NWA debut in 1988?

      2. Sweat from my ballz!

  3. Is this supposed to be fucking news? Who cares?

    Yeah, Washington had a trazillion spacebucks but all you could buy back then were shit like wood and slaves. Fuck that, I can get a motherfuckin’ Wii for like 200 dollars. I’ll beat Jefferson’s motherfuckin’ ass at some bowling. Yeah fuck those dudes with their wood and slave fortunes.

    And Mitt Romney, more like Bitch Romney. Asshole has TOOHUNDERDMILLINDOLLARS and wants to fuck around tryin to be president. What the fuck is wrong with people. Someone please raise your hand if you had TOOHUNDERDMILLINMOTHERFUCKINDOLLARS if you’d be out beggin’ motherfuckers for a job that paid 500k a year.

    Fuck Bitch Romney with Washington’s seven million dollar wooden teeth…in the ass.

    1. G.W. was so Pimp that his teeth were gold and ivory.

      1. WOOD AND SLAVES!

        1. His gloves weren’t leather, either, but black slave skin.

        2. How could you leave out tobacco and hemp in a blog for a magazine called “Reason”?

          1. I just wanted to justify a DRINK!

            1. It doesn’t count if you did it intentionally.

        3. “Wood and slave fortunes” is some funny shit.

          But more seriously, what else is Mitt going to do with his time and money but run for President? It’s not like he can pursue the finer things in life, like hookers and blow. Poor, poor Mormon Mitt.

          1. The wealth is wasted on him.

            1. I spent a lot of money on booze, birds and fast cars. The rest I just squandered.

          2. I would think his 13 Mormon wives would keep him occupied…

    2. Not just wasting time begging, but wasting tons of your money in the process. Fucking moron.

      Also: this, sir, is one high quality rant.

      1. Also: this, sir, is one high quality rant.

        I was sold on the Wii for $200 bucks…

      2. Agreed, bravo cap-l!

      3. Fucking moron

        The other “m” is optional.

    3. This is a thing of beauty. Reason should run it as its next cover.

  4. Look, GW needed that money. It’s not cheap to patrol the land on a horse made of crystal, with the mason ring and schnauzer and his perfect hands.

    1. I heard that motherfucker had like thirty goddamn dicks

      1. Marthafucker.

  5. I’m on a fucking slow aircard so can’t get the full PDF tax return to load: anyone check to see if he included his state return(s) as well? I am curious whether he’s been filing CA as well as MA. Yes, I am a tax geek and also nosy. Fuck his privacy if he wants to run for Fuckhead in Chief.

    1. canadia fuck yeah???

    2. My understanding is that you wouldn’t get the full PDF to load if you were on a CRAY supercomputer with a 3 gig line. NPR reported his tax return was something like 500 pages.

      Amidst all the babble about how rich he is, what his effective tax rate was, I kept thinking, “500 pages? Schfuck me we need tax reform in this country…”

  6. John Kerry would have even beaten that had he been elected president.

    Yeah, except Kerry married into it, so that’s different.

    1. Not really. George Washington also married into money

      1. When he married Martha he became the richest man in Virginia.

        1. and he shudda been hung’d rite then n ther 4 bein a rich fuhk

  7. Personal wealth means exactly jack shit when it comes to the list of qualities I use to evaluate presidential candidates.

    Honestly, who gives a shit?

    1. Class warfare socialist dickwads?

  8. Washington only had $500 million?

    I thought he personally owned most of Ohio or some such shit.

    After all, wasn’t the entire District of Columbia land Washington just gave away because he didn’t need it? (Since it was mostly swamp and since he, you know, fucking owned Ohio.

    Let’s try to estimate not just the inflation-adjusted value of Washington’s fortune, but how much he would be worth if he still owned Ohio and was renting it to the Ohioans. Cleveland’s not pretty, but fuckers still gotta pay SOME rent.

    1. Washington only had $500 million?

      I thought he personally owned most of Ohio or some such shit.

      Wouldn’t owning half of Ohio constitute a net loss?

      1. Have you seen property values in Cleveland and Cincinnati? It’s not Detroit, but they’re fucked.

    2. I think Ohio was almost entirely Indian country in Washington’s day.

    3. Ohio didn’t exist yet.

    4. You think a lot of things.

      Doesn’t mean they’re true.

      Washington only picked the location of DC; he didn’t own any land there. Other than the land needed for the federal buildings, the property in DC stayed in the same hands after the District was established.

      You might be getting the Ohio thing from The Patriot, where Cornwallis is offering ownership of Ohio to Gen. Tavington if he does some dirty work for him.

    5. He tried once to lobby the British government to give him rights to part of what today is Ohio. The British government refused because at the time the King viewed that as being owned by the Indian tribes.

  9. Who gives a shit how much money a presidential candidate makes/has?

    1. Nobody, but that’s how the GOP wants you to think about it. No one cares how rich Romney is, and in fact I would LOVE to be that rich. But were I that rich I would expect to pay more than 13% on my income taxes.

      1. Nitpick: According to NPR, it’s more like 15%. But that’s neither here nor there.

        I think the general feeling here in H&R land is, if you’re that rich, why are you running for president? Did the world run out of hookers and blow?

      2. You don’t get that rich by handing Uncle Scam a check for 40% of your average annual earnings.

        Besides, try taxing that shit at 30%, see what happens. Y’know all those wonderful ROADZ and subways and various and sundry construction projects that people seem to love, they get them because muni bonds are tax free and people like Mitt will take a lower return and some risk for the tax exempt status. The second you remove that, local govt gets bent the fuck over… but that’s the goal for Obama. Local govt defaults = federales takeover.

        We. Are. Fucked.

        1. You mean local government would have to live within their means? *grabs pearls, faints onto couch*

      3. So wait, are you saying I’m a victim of false consciousness? Because that seems to happen to me a lot. Every time I disagree with a Team Blue partisan, as a matter of fact.

    2. I for one find it refreshing to know that the guy running the executive branch ain’t just doing it to get rich.

    3. Real-life concern trolls and liberals whose entire notion of frugal society and just existence is centered around the belief that having more money than them is cause for distrust and disdain. Fuck those statist pieces of shit all the way to Satan’s heels.

      1. That lame psychobabble does not completely erase any legitimate discussion of an unfair tax code or wealth inequality, though I’m sure the rich are grateful for your carrying their water with such dedication.

        Something must explain the fact that wealth at the very top has grown exponentially while the vast majority of people have seen stagnation. It’s not that the wealthy worked that much harder or that everyone else was that much lazier.

        1. Well, the wealthy generally see exponential growth because when you reach a certain point of wealth, it tends to grow exponentially due to a) all income past a certain point being discretionary/savings/investment slush fund and b) the reality that the tax code is set up in such a way so as to encourage the wealthy to put their money into either public investments for infrastructure spending or business investments that will have beneficial reverberating economic effects.

          1. So as this wealth disparity has grown massively, where have all the “beneficial reverberating economic effects” been?

            If it appears that giving more and more wealth to the top fraction of a percent doesn’t actually produce prosperity for all, would you be open to doing something about those favorable tax policies?

            Speaking of dimestore psychoanalysis, what malfunction is it that causes you to defend every single cent in the hands of the ultrarich no matter how lame the excuse?

            1. “If it appears that giving more and more wealth to the top fraction of a percent doesn’t actually produce prosperity for all”

              http://img443.imageshack.us/img443/599/yodmf.jpg

            2. haha guys, look at how amazingly clueless i am as to the intrinsic relationship between wealth accumulation and wealth production — i’m such a retarded freaking keynesian cocksucker!

            3. If it appears that giving more and more wealth to the top fraction of a percent doesn’t actually produce prosperity for all, would you be open to doing something about those favorable tax policies?

              First off, a growth in disparity does not mean a worsening situation for the lad at the lesser end of the disparity growth. If A’s income goes from $1,000,000 to $1,500,000 and B’s income goes from $100,000 to $125,000, A’s rate of income growth has increased 100% more than B’s and the income gap is widening, but B is still receiving a beneficial income growth. This is the typical situation. Usually, B’s income will only decrease in periods in which A’s income also decreases, although there will be shorter periods around the start of recessionary recoveries where A will see a growth in income while B is static.

              That being said, no one is giving anyone anything. The guy with a shit ton of money may not be “earning” it in the sense of conventional labor. But nor is anyone simply “giving” the person money. The money is the profit from an investment in a company, muni bond, or property. That return is the reward received for providing that capital for whatever productive (or generally unproductive in the case of tax exempt muni bond) use that the money was provided for.

              1. yeah but sudden, the stuff you just wrote implies i have any idea whatsoever what value actually is, and how doing valuable shit and creating wealth is good for everybody.

                clearly you’re a koch-ethereal

              2. There are graphs like these all over the place that make the disparity clear and show that prosperity hasn’t been shared in any real way.

                The point is that favorable tax policy means that merely already having wealth is much, much more rewarded than doing any work or anything else of value. There’s no justification for this and “rich people may decide to bestow charity on the public” doesn’t cut it.

                1. so for all you rubes i’ll summarize my points in the previous post-

                  1. by using graphs inappropriately, i’ve managed to completely fuck up yet again, because producing a graph that illustrates a net increase in income across the board and forgetting that the sector of the graph showing the high spike in “rich people”‘s income is in the recent age of new industry emergence en-masse (which always cause investor classes and capital-swingers to gain, since they do shit of value, which i don’t) not only demonstrates i’m a fucking imbecile that doesn’t seem to notice that everybody’s gotten richer, but that i don’t understand how expansion in the spheres for investment and capital allocation actually generate massive increases in income for “rich guys” ONLY when said investments actually helped produce MASSIVELY, M A S S I V E L Y, profitable enterprises that are exceptionally conducive to the production of wealth, either by revolutionizing entire sectors of economies or creating new ones, …

                  but i’ve also shown that i have no understanding of an economic basic so simple it should be stamped onto every would-be economist’s forehead — in capitalistic societies, when non-state produced rich people get richer, it’s indicative that society is getting wealthier as a whole, because they actually needed to do useful shit for this to happen.

                  oh, obama, TURN BACK TO ME!

                2. The graph essentially vindicates my thesis. The gap in income may have increased, but income across all mapped quintiles increased. If I gain 16% income increase, I couldn’t give a shit if you gained 30%. Would I prefer to have a 30% gain, sure, but I haven’t lost in absolute terms, I’ve gained.

                  As for the merely already having wealth being rewarded, that is true. But a big part of the reason it’s true is discretionary income left over after expenses. Say I earn $100k/year after tax, and you earn $1,000,000/year after tax. I manage to get by with expenditures of $75,000 and invest the remaining $25k. You live a more lavish lifestyle, and say you spend an equal percentage on living expenses. You have $250,000 left over and will therefore gain more from your investments than I will from mine. Now, admittedly, if you’re making $1 mil a year, chances are you will have a greater percentage of your income left for savings and investment than someone on one-tenth that amount.

                  1. The graph shows virtual stagnation in the bottom two quintiles and most of the growth in the top quintile being at the top 1% (go smaller and the rate of growth is even larger). 400 families have as much wealth as the poorer half of the entire country. I think it’s fair to say at some point such wealth concentration itself is obscene, and evidence, by itself, of something terribly wrong. I realize you probably need more justification. Peanuts in growth for 98% of the country doesn’t justify historically unparalleled growth for the richest of the rich, especially as expenses go up.

                    1. This is largely the by-product of soaring health care costs. If you include wages + benefits, then poor people would have equal rates of increased income. But their wage increases have been eaten up by pricer benefits, namely health care. We have the government to thank for that. Thanks a lot, assholes.

                    2. No, healthcare cost increases have been pretty much all in the private sector. The only thing there is evidence for is that to reduce healthcare spending we should make it a nationalized program for everyone.

                    3. The graph shows virtual stagnation in the bottom two quintiles and most of the growth in the top quintile being at the top 1% (go smaller and the rate of growth is even larger).

                      I’ll just refer you to this:

                      https://reason.com/archives/201…..nt_2621430

                  2. If I gain 16% income increase, I couldn’t give a shit if you gained 30%.

                    Only because you’re not an envious, grasping class warrior struggling with daddy issues and a general lack of ability.

            4. So as this wealth disparity has grown massively, where have all the “beneficial reverberating economic effects” been?

              Look around, Tony.

              You don’t really need to look any further than that thing you’re typing on.

              1. Also, Tony the Troll falls into the implicit assumption commonly made by all on the Left on this issue – that the members of the various quintiles remain the same across the years. In fact, there is a great deal of movement between the quintiles.

            5. And you’ve yet to establish why I should give two shits about the disparity. Is it coming out of my wallet? Not by any measure or proof I can find. What? They should have to pay me off like some b-movie mafioso for the privilege of having their own money? What kind of freak thinks that what anyone else has need “defending” or “excusing”.

        2. That lame psychobabble does not completely erase any legitimate discussion of an unfair tax code or wealth inequality, though I’m sure the rich are grateful for your carrying their water with such dedication.

          Why don’t you start by looking at what your beloved Federal Reserve actually does?

        3. Working ‘harder’ means nothing in the modern economy. A strong man can shovel coal twelve hours a day seven days a week and not get rich.

          You earn a lot of money by working smarter, i.e. intellectual value-added. Steve Jobs worked hard, in the sense of working long, intense hours. That’s not why he got rich.

      2. In case you were curious, it’s largely the result of the capital gains/wages disparity that benefits people like Mitt Romney so much.

        Are petty emotional issues the only possible explanation for questioning whether someone should make more in a day than the average person makes in a year while not doing any work and paying half the taxes?

        1. He pays more in taxes each day than the average family makes in income in a month. So it’s not like he’s short changing the system.

          1. The prick isn’t susceptible to discourse or arguments. He’s an authoritarian paragon, and his mind will never be changed.

          2. Um, the salient point being the humongous difference between his income and that of the average family’s. Why should he pay a smaller percentage in taxes again?

            1. In part, because dividend payouts are already taxed at the 35% corporate tax rate, so that additional 15% dividend tax brings the total tax rate paid on such earnings to approx. 45% (not accounting for corporate deductions). So, although you don’t see it because the initial tax is paid on the corporate level, it’s paid by the company in which the ultimate dividend recipient is a shareholder and paid out of the potential dividend payout that’s already taxed. For every dollar in dividend income a person receives, the company has already paid ~35% in taxes on it.

              1. That was trippy… Mitt Romney was on my TV saying almost the same words as I was reading them in your post, for serious.

                It’s all bullshit of course–that money is income same as any other kind, only difference being no finger was lifted to earn it. The taxes stockholders pay are completely separate (with different rates and regulations) from the taxes corporations pay on income, as they are two completely separate legal entities. Stockholders are not management.

                Furthermore the corporate income tax is entirely voluntary. If you don’t want to pay it then you don’t have to accept the government handouts that come with incorporation like limited liability. If you’re cozy enough with the tax code writers you probably won’t be paying any corporate income tax anyway.

                1. you see how i outright claim that corporations are made of unicorns and leprechauns and hot green horned chicks from obscure fantasy novels rather than people, and that therefore those people are taxed? hahahaha im such a skilled debater

                  1. So I’m sure you’re just as concerned about the fact that wage earners have to pay income tax in addition to the social security tax in addition to sales taxes once they spend the money… triple taxation! At least!

                    This is BULLSHIT fed to you by people who KNOW IT’S BULLSHIT and also KNOW YOU’RE INCREDIBLY STUPID AND GULLIBLE.

                    1. *sluuuuuuuuuuuuuuurp* OH MR GEITHNER SLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUURP

                2. -that money is income same as any other kind,

                  For tax purposes, no, it’s not. For example, the money my company pays me is untaxed by the company. They pay taxes only on profits, and profits aren’t factored until after payroll is met. So, $100k in income to me (sadly, I don’t make this much, I simply use it for simple math purposes) is paid out BEFORE any taxes are paid on the money (disregarding FICA for the sake of not complicating the analysis). So I receive 100k, pay something around an effective 25% rate after standard deduction. Now, say the company I work for made $100,000 in profit at the end of the year. The net profit after taxes would be $65k. Now say there is only one shareholder who receives all of that profit in dividends. He will then have to pay 15% in dividend taxes.

                  So after all is said and done, the $100k company profit ends up at $55,250 with an effective tax rate of around 45% while my $100k in earned income ends up around $70k (after FICA), assuming non-itemized deduction, and an effective tax rate of around 30%.

                  Fucking math, how does it work?

                  1. the funny thing, mr sudden, is that those calculations are easy and reasonable, you see, and reveal a fact about how these things function, offering insights into the systems of taxation in our country, but i don’t care about that, you see, because i’m a disingenuous little rat motherfucker who will stick his dick in a meat grinder before admitting i made a mistake.

                  2. The corporation is a legal entity separate from its shareholders, with legal rights and benefits all to itself. That means it has a separate responsibility to pay taxes. You can argue against taxing certain activities but that’s a separate issue from whether it’s unfair to tax dividends because that money’s been taxed already. My income is the result of a chain of transactions with various taxes applied at certain points.

                    The argument for taxing capital gains is that it’s just unfair to punish labor income by taxing it more that sitting-on-your-ass income. Companies rampantly get away with not paying their full corporate tax responsibility anyway.

                    1. The corporation is a legal entity separate from its shareholders, with legal rights and benefits all to itself. That means it has a separate responsibility to pay taxes.

                      Careful, Tony. You’re getting awfully close to CORPORASHUNS ARE PEEPLE, TOO!

                    2. I get the sense you haven’t earned much in the way of capital gains. It’s not quite as easy as you seem to think, especially over the last twelve years. Remember that to make a capital gain one has to put capital at risk. Consider the unfortunate case of someone who invested in Citicorp stock back in 2005.

                  3. Except the corporation did not pay the tax. Instead, the tax was passed on to the consumer through taxation. If you are going to have an income tax, then it should include capital gains. However, corporate taxes should not exist. Flat 10% rate on any and all income. Bam, I own the IRS.

            2. Forget the tax rate for a moment. Why should one family pay four hundred times the tax bill that the average family pays? Is the Romney family getting four hundred times more government services than the average family?

      3. In case you were curious, it’s largely the result of the capital gains/wages disparity that benefits people like Mitt Romney so much.

        Are petty emotional issues the only possible explanation for questioning whether someone should make more in a day than the average person makes in a year while not doing any work and paying half the taxes?

        1. Abso-fucking-lutely. You don’t understand the most basic facts of capitalism, and your dumb, despicable, lecherous ass is going to keep spewing the same shit you always have, isn’t it, Tony? Seriously, fuck off and die.

          1. I realize you’re taking an indefensible position, but you could at least attempt to bullshit through it instead of being so obvious about it.

            1. i get my ass handed to me every day by everybody on all issues of economics and politics, yet i still try snarky shit like this with libertarians because i have to compensate for my monumental stupidity and delusions.

              wow, i really suck. my mama should have blown my brains out the moment i came out screaming.

              hey obama, turn around back this way, will ya? *slurp*

              1. And when I lose this argument, I’m going to start another one weeks later pretending like this one never happened.

  10. It’s not about the wealth, but about the privilege. It’s the taxes, bitches!

  11. “[I]t is essential that you should practically bear in mind that towards the payment of debts there must be revenue; that to have revenue there must be taxes.”

    –George Washington’s farewell address 1796

    1. And yet no federal income tax until 1913. Go figure.

      1. Andrew Jackson paid off the national debt by selling public lands. I doubt any Dem could get away with doing that today, though.

    2. hey, you know, now that i think about it, i really don’t do stuff like this nearly enough! you know, quoting great people i know literally nothing about in a disgusting attempt to justify stupid and retarded shit said people would have hanged themselves before advocating or even considering.

      dumb libertards can’t see through my sneaky debate fallacy bullshit! i’m such a cool guy and all the bitches want my cock too!

      1. all the bitches want my cock too!

        True as that may be, I’m afraid I’m not interested in giving my cock to any “bitches.”

        1. i should have probably revealed to you guys sooner that i don’t play for the usual team, you know? it’s obama’s dingaling all the way for me! and if he’s too busy droning the living fuck out of some shithole in asia or northern africa, or playing golf with one of his crony brown-nosers, i’ll just give joe biden a blowjob instead.

          of course, joe’s wife might object, but so what? i’m better at pleasuring the man.

          1. There’s that storied libertarian wit again.

            1. sorry guys, my mama was in the room wiping my ass, so i had to pretend the post at 8:45 was a spoof i was addressing to make sure she didn’t find out i like cock.

              she was wiping my ass. i have a bucket under my chair (with a hole in it) because my social security checks are all used on xbox and anal lube and my foodstamps are used to by organic vegan sushi.

              is it okay to have pictures of obama’s head photoshopped onto the body of a naked black stripper arouse me so? oh lordy lord!

    3. Debts= Expenditures – Income. If revenue is zero, debts can also be zero.

    4. Therefore, fuck rich people making money through capital gains.
      Great point, Tony.

      1. Therefore, fuck rich people making money through capital gains creating and growing successful companies that employ people.

    5. Telling that you left off the lead in to that quote. Let me help you out.
      “As a very important source of strength and security, cherish public credit. One method of preserving it is to use it as sparingly as possible, avoiding occasions of expense by cultivating peace, but remembering also that timely disbursements to prepare for danger frequently prevent much greater disbursements to repel it, avoiding likewise the accumulation of debt, not only by shunning occasions of expense, but by vigorous exertion in time of peace to discharge the debts which unavoidable wars may have occasioned, not ungenerously throwing upon posterity the burden which we ourselves ought to bear. The execution of these maxims belongs to your representatives, but it is necessary that public opinion should co-operate. To facilitate to them the performance of their duty, it is essential that you should practically bear in mind that towards the payment of debts there must be revenue; that to have revenue there must be taxes;”

  12. In answer to all these arguments, suggested by reason, illustrated by examples, and enforced by our own experience, the jealous adversary of the constitution will probably content himself with repeating, that a senate appointed not immediately by the people, and for the term of six years, must gradually acquire a dangerous preeminence in the government, and finally transform it into a tyrannical aristocracy.

    To this general answer the general reply ought to be sufficient; that liberty may be endangered by the abuses of liberty, as well as by the abuses of power; that there are numerous instances of the former as well as of the latter; and that the former rather than the latter is apparently most to be apprehended by the United States.

    1. wow dude you’re almost as awful at context as i am!

  13. Nobody is as awful as you Tony; only little girls really blush and women never really faint.

  14. Simple:

    Make cap-gains and income taxes the same 15% rate.

    Cut spending by 15%.

    Then… shut the fuck up about how much money some people have.

    Problem solved.

    1. Make taxes more regressive then cut back on social welfare spending. You get paid to peddle this crap?

  15. The problem with the eat the rich crowd is that they fundamentally misunderstand human emotion and psychology. They assume that wealthy folks will just sit back and let themselves be fucking hosed. The rich have the option to move and or shelter their money, and if they get hosed enough, they’ll set up shop somewhere else. People don’t like to get hosed.

    1. They don’t care if the rich go elsewhere. As long as they get elected that’s all that matters.

  16. I have no idea what I’m going to do in Nov if Gingrich or Santorum gets the nom. Obama’s pervasive suckitude had prepped me to swallow whatever the GOP offered, or so I thought… but those two are just awful. And things would have to get significantly worse for either of them to beat BO.

    1. I’ve resolved to not vote, if it comes down to Obama/Gingrich or Obama/Romney.

  17. For some reason it really saddens and depresses me – and this debate over Willard has reinforced these feelings – that this country and the people in it cannot even conceive of thinking even a nanometer beyond confines of the box in which they live when it comes to a discussion “fair” taxes.

    The entire concept of “income” taxes are intrinsically unfair. It makes no sense to argue over whether segments within that system are more fair than others when the entire system itself is unjust and inimical to the natural rights of man.

    Nowhere in this debate has anyone anywhere in any position of prominence – except maybe Ron Paul himself – have questioned the system itself, and even then he has to couch it in campaign terms of “everyone should be zero!” lest he upset the cart and start talking over people’s heads.

    I mean, seriously, if no one is even asking the question, “Why do we have income taxes in the first place?” isn’t everything lost? The American people have been conditioned to think of their own labor and their own existence as being owned by the government and that “take home pay” – what the government allows them to keep after PAYROLL WITHHOLDING – is the natural way of the universe.

    To me, this is extraordinarily sad. We are not free people at all and most people don’t even realize it.

    1. And I guess I should clarify that a “consumption” tax of some sort would be much better and more just, whether that’s a national sales tax or a standalone VAT or a pseudo-flat-rate income tax with all net-savings counting as one big massive deduction.

      1. I agree in principle. I tend to oppose VATs because they are subject to endless gaming and crony favoritism.

        Sales taxes can also be used to pander and distort, but I’m torn between them and a flat tax of some kind.

        The problem I have with any form of income tax is that it makes your business, the government’s business.

  18. Tony please give your money to poor African orphans, your ridiculous wealth compared to what they have, and the unjust way you earned that wealth is unacceptable. I say you give 50% of your money to them, until you do, you contradicting your own argument and are a hypocritical piece of shit.

    1. He should also give them his computer.

    2. Gotta love libertarians… they’re totally narcissistic selfish assholes, and formulate policy based on that mindset, but at least they aren’t hypocrites!

      1. Gotta love progressives…they’re totally envious selfish assholes, and formulate policy based on that mindset, but at least they aren’t hypocrites!

  19. Gotta wondr who comes up with all that stuff. I mean like seriously.

    http://www.vpn-privacy.tk

  20. I’m curious as to how John Kerry came to have $200 million honestly while working in government his whole life. Remember it says he has $1 billion if Theresa’s cash is included.

    1. As I recall, Teresa wasn’t his first rich wife. Could be wrong, though.

      1. Correct. He got a pile from wife #1 and a much bigger pile from wife #2. Say what you want about Kerry but he sure had that figured out.

  21. I thought Washington was “land rich and cash poor”, certainly not in the same league as today’s millionaires?

  22. I dunno about Jefferson being worth $212 million- he went broke remolding his house and buying books.

    The economics were different then- even if you ignore the complexity of a slave economy- there simply weren’t the financial services available back then- rich people (in land) often had no liquidity and had to sell their land for a song.

  23. Good article, but I have a hard time believing the mention of Jefferson. I have always read that he was in debt when he died, or at least had lost most of his wealth.

    1. So was Washington, he had to get his first loan ever at age 67 to cover his normal bills.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.