Lambo?. I think yes.


What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
#170 - rainbowsgoboomtwo **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
#158 - anon (08/24/2012) [-]
I'll leave this here!
#1 - rcathell (08/23/2012) [-]
Another point to the rich white people!
#11 - thisnick (08/23/2012) [-]
Dropped out of college, got arrested, later becomes a millionaire
User avatar #19 to #11 - dafunkad (08/23/2012) [-]
he didn't really dropped out, he took some lesson with some private tutors
#112 to #19 - anon (08/24/2012) [-]
User avatar #14 to #11 - insanemanoo (08/23/2012) [-]
*Smile for mugshot
*Become millionaire
User avatar #18 to #14 - crafty (08/23/2012) [-]
Still Billionaire
User avatar #17 to #11 - thereisaguy (08/23/2012) [-]
You misspelled Billionaire
#22 to #17 - thisnick (08/23/2012) [-]
Yeah my bad, was in a hurry
Yeah my bad, was in a hurry
#24 to #22 - thereisaguy (08/23/2012) [-]
Ah just foolin'
Ah just foolin'
#29 to #24 - AceofHearts (08/23/2012) [-]
Good gif of her giving a blowjob though...
Good gif of her giving a blowjob though...
User avatar #40 to #29 - thereisaguy (08/23/2012) [-]
Yep Sarina Valentina, I did it but I'm into weird ****
User avatar #30 to #29 - aldheim (08/23/2012) [-]
User avatar #41 to #30 - thereisaguy (08/23/2012) [-]
Sarina Valentina
#159 to #30 - anon (08/24/2012) [-]


and the captcha was 69 but nobody cares
User avatar #171 to #17 - zeldafaggot (08/24/2012) [-]
well, technically he is a millionaire.
User avatar #178 to #171 - thereisaguy (08/24/2012) [-]
"The exact figure of his wealth is not exactly known because different articles, magazines, newspapers, etc. publish different figures. In the year 2006, Bill Gates net worth was calculated to be $56 billion. In the year, 2009 when he was crowned the world’s second richest man, his total wealth was $53 billion. His current wealth is somewhere between $50 billion to $56 billion, although the exact figures are not known. According to his net worth, he can provide $40,000 every year to approximately 250,000 Americans, for a period of 5 years. It has been found that Gates is becoming wealthier day after day."
#97 - iLime (08/24/2012) [-]
what the **** is saving up?
#5 - anon (08/23/2012) [-]

No, this ************ deserves every penny he gets.
User avatar #7 to #5 - DerpScout (08/23/2012) [-]
Taxing the rich is counter productive anyway.
#9 to #7 - anon (08/23/2012) [-]
Silly Americans and their trickle down economics!
User avatar #32 to #9 - allamericandude (08/23/2012) [-]
Well, it may not necessarily be counter productive, but it isn't productive either. Taxing every rich person in America would--at the very most, like a 100% tax rate--bring in $1.4 trillion. The US government spent that much money while I was typing this comment*. With the way our government is spending right now, raising taxes on the rich (or anyone for that matter) is rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.

*before anyone gets butthurt, I didn't mean that literally.
User avatar #60 to #32 - deltadeltadelta (08/24/2012) [-]
Your math is a little off, buddy. Taxing the rich at 100% would bring in nearly $13 trillion (this is simply going by the IRS and does not include money hidden in tax havens).

Ending the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy and removing the capital gains loophole would bring in about $1.2 trillion in revenue, nearly eliminating the deficit.

The difference could be made up by slashing away at the military which is grossly overbloated. The US makes up 41% of the world's military expenditure. The next highest is China at 8.2% and Russia at 4.1%. The US Navy is larger than the rest of the world's navy combined.
#82 to #60 - xtheherox (08/24/2012) [-]
Well good sir I have only two things to contribute to this conversation and one doesn't really pertain to you. One we need the us navy to be larger than any other its a term called sea power. we wouldn't be the same country with out it. Also the rich are already taxed a bunch they have to pay alot more than those bums on well fare! Any way that was my two cents and I know what im talking about when it comes to the navy im a P02.
User avatar #98 to #82 - deltadeltadelta (08/24/2012) [-]
Does the US need a navy larger than the rest of the world's navies combined?

The wealthy ($388,351+) in the US are taxed very little compared to the rest of the developed world. Furthermore, because of capital gains loopholes they only have to pay 15%, which is 10% less than Joe/Jane America ($35,351 – $85,650). In the US the top tax bracket is 35% (which hardly anyone pays). In Canada the top tax bracket is 46% ($126,265 +).

Because the wealthy only have to pay 15% in taxes because of the capital gains loophole, that means they're paying the equivalent of someone making an income of $8,701 – $35,350.
#181 to #98 - xtheherox (08/24/2012) [-]
One im getting thumb down? two- sea power good sir. Sea power is the ability to protect sea trade and control the sea. So if america trades a lot we are going to need sea power. Majority of trade is over sea. Also that ten percent is still more money. 10% of 1000 is 100 and 10% of 100 is 10 see?
User avatar #69 to #60 - allamericandude (08/24/2012) [-]
The $1.4 trillion is the combined total assets of every household in America making over $250k (the 1%). It doesn't include corporate profits. Micheal Moore will tell you $13 trillion, but that's just factually incorrect.

And I think it's your math that's a bit off, because the deficit is over $15 trillion. Eliminating the Bush tax cuts wouldn't even come close. Although I agree cutting military spending would help. We need to cut spending in non-essential areas and use it to pay off the deficit.

And can I just say how ironic it is that your avatar is a person wearing a Guy Fawkes mask--which I'm assuming means you disapprove of people with power--and yet you want people to pay more taxes to the government? You're not very good at this anarchy thing.

"Support anarchy! Pay your taxes!" ~~Wut.
User avatar #76 to #69 - deltadeltadelta (08/24/2012) [-]
I don't know what Michael Moore has to do with it. I'm looking at the IRS's report of personal income in the United States.

The debt is $15.59 trillion. The deficit is $1.32 trillion.

You're a fool if you associate anonymity with anarchy. I am not an anarchist.

Sir, you don't know what the **** you're talking about.
User avatar #101 to #76 - allamericandude (08/24/2012) [-]
It doesn't take a huge leap of imagination to think that someone wearing a Guy Fawke's mask supports anarchy. That's kind of the point of a Guy Fawke's mask. It's like walking around in scrubs and a lab coat and then saying "What the **** could possibly make you think I'm a doctor?"

The $1.32 trillion deficit is for the 2011 fiscal year alone. The $15 trillion is the sum of all of our deficits.

If you can send me a link to that IRS report, that'd be great.
User avatar #116 to #101 - deltadeltadelta (08/24/2012) [-]
You have no idea what a Guy Fawkes mask represents. It has nothing to do with politics and everything to do with anonymity.

No the $1.32 trillion deficit is the gap in the budget made from the 2012 budget. In 2011 it was $1.56 trillion.

The deficit is the difference between revenue ($2.469 trillion) and expenditure ($3.796 trillion).

I don't know where you can find it, but you could likely find it via google. I have the excel sheet saved on my computer. You should search for the file name us-tpi.xls
User avatar #137 to #116 - allamericandude (08/24/2012) [-]
The white hoods of the KKK are about anonymity too. But they also symbolize a political/social movement. Anarchist movements around the world have used the Guy Fawke's mask as their symbol. If you don't want people to think you're a part of their movement, stop wearing the symbol.

They haven't calculated the 2012 deficit yet, because the fiscal year isn't over. It ends in November (I think). They've made projections, but nothing has been set in stone yet.

But now we're just beating around the bush. My point is that the government is spending way too much--which you have helped confirm--and even raising the tax rates to 100% (which is essentially Marxism) wouldn't help. The spending is the problem. We're pouring money into broken programs and an oversized military. If you raised the taxes on the rich right now, you'd just be taking their money and throwing it away.

I'll just leave you with that. I have an 8am lab tomorrow and I need sleep. I've stated my opinion: take it as you will. I respect your opinion, I just disagree with it.
User avatar #83 to #32 - jinjo (08/24/2012) [-]
In my opinion everyone who is employed should have a fixed perectage that they pay. It's the most fair and doesn't **** anybody.
User avatar #86 to #83 - deltadeltadelta (08/24/2012) [-]
Flat tax rates lead to income inequality. Nearly all the nations which use a flat tax are third world or tax havens. This is why most of the world uses a progressive tax rate.
User avatar #94 to #86 - jinjo (08/24/2012) [-]
User avatar #109 to #94 - deltadeltadelta (08/24/2012) [-]
Taxing away 30% of the income from a man that makes $50,000 hurts a lot more than it does to a man making $50,000,000.

The US is a consumer-based economy. It requires Joe & Jane America to be able to afford the goods and services to run the economy. If they can't afford to buy products or services, the economy collapses.

Letting the wealthy hoard their money doesn't benefit society, nor does it help create jobs. The wealthy get their money from stock, which comes from corporate profits. They don't dump their own money in to a company. I'm just pointing out the fallacious argument many make about why the rich need more tax cuts.

Of course the wealthy should be able to enjoy the fruits of their labour, but not at the detriment to the rest of society. They should be taxed appropriately.
#133 to #109 - natedizzie (08/24/2012) [-]
"The wealthy get their money from stock, which comes from corporate profits. They don't dump their own money in to a company."

Having stock is putting money into a company when you buy stock you support a company.
And the loop holes aren't for the "rich" my dad uses those same loopholes for his stocks and he is no where near rich. (moms a teacher, dads a civil engineer)
The Capital gains came from 401ks so people could save for their retirement with stocks so that they wouldn't be taxed out the ass.
People now wants those loopholes closed because a lot of people don't use them and find them unfair for people who don't use them.
User avatar #35 to #9 - mayedh (08/23/2012) [-]
The money has been trickling down over a decade and I still haven't seen my share.
#85 to #35 - bemysenorita **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #130 to #85 - mayedh (08/24/2012) [-]
i was joking, but trickle down economics don't work. It's like saying we should help the poor by giving the rich a tax break, so they will spend more which will make it to the poor. That doesn't help the guy in the back making $8/hr. We are supposed to hope the rich grace our stores with their presence, but the middle class are both the biggest spenders and entrepreneurs. Btw I don't hate the rich. I would like to be one of them someday, but I recognize bs when I see it.
#180 to #130 - bemysenorita **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #115 to #9 - JuliusC ONLINE (08/24/2012) [-]
the only reason we have poor people is because those same people didnt make anything of themselevs i.e. their fault
#126 to #115 - thefloppinater (08/24/2012) [-]
If you think that EVERY poor person brought it upon them self, you're sorely misguided.
User avatar #135 to #126 - randomlunchbox (08/24/2012) [-]
Thumbed you back up.
User avatar #138 to #126 - JuliusC ONLINE (08/24/2012) [-]
oh, the "born poor" gag, there are plenty of examples of rags to riches in this country, as well as plenty of opportunities and scholarships to be had, hell some people get full rides just because they are black
tl:dr ********
User avatar #146 to #138 - woodrowwildfire (08/24/2012) [-]
Dude, you are sorely misguided. Not everyone has the willpower or self confidence to bring themselves up. A lot of people have been lied to and told they essentially "deserve" to be poor. It's not as simple as saying "pull yourself up."
#144 to #138 - thefloppinater (08/24/2012) [-]
It's funny cuz I don't remember ever saying anything about the "born poor" gag.
You sound like a man (or woman) who's had money their whole life.
User avatar #154 to #144 - JuliusC ONLINE (08/24/2012) [-]
/death or supportes/breadwinners in family and the denial of life insurance, that is also ******
User avatar #151 to #144 - JuliusC ONLINE (08/24/2012) [-]
ok im sorry i forgot the third option, layed off/unemployed/injury yes that sucks and yes those people are a victim of circumstance, but those people ,while yes their situation is ****** , probably should have had some money sacked away for such an occurrance and before the "well they dont make enough money to afford to sack away" is called living above their financial means, its always important to have backup money, but for those who DID do that but could not, find a job/not get better in time/denied unemployment checks or healthcare coverage and DO exhaust their fallback money... well that just sucks and is totally ******
#155 to #151 - cmaystead (08/24/2012) [-]
You are clearly forgetting the people who run their own small business, who got slammed during the recession, and lost absolutely everything. They may have had stored away money, but that went down the ******* to stay afloat.
User avatar #160 to #155 - JuliusC ONLINE (08/24/2012) [-]
those people are, again, victims of circumstance as stated above, there are countless examples of occurances like these and while the people you refer to may have had money to stay aloft but drowned well that is ****** . HOWEVER, the majority of poor in this country are NOT victims of circumstance, im not saying the large majority because after the recession millions went to **** . and these people do deserve support, however the lazy ***** that do nothing but collect unemployment all day while not even attempting to find a job do not
User avatar #156 to #7 - ilikebigdick (08/24/2012) [-]
It's also unconstitutional
#88 to #5 - sniperfusion has deleted their comment [-]
#166 - dbanks (08/24/2012) [-]
#147 - sirgawain (08/24/2012) [-]
Did someone say Lambo?
#152 to #147 - amadeuseap (08/24/2012) [-]
how did you get out again?
#66 - controlled (08/24/2012) [-]
Comment Picture
User avatar #70 to #66 - yungmoula (08/24/2012) [-]
what did i just watch :l
#145 - novastroyer (08/24/2012) [-]
This again? Really? Steve Jobs was still around when this was first posted.
User avatar #157 to #145 - reddeadtroll (08/24/2012) [-]
It hasn't even been that long since he died...
#87 - theoriginalmexican (08/24/2012) [-]
Every second he makes about 4000 dollars so if he were to buy an 2012 aventador it would actually take roughly 94 seconds
User avatar #132 to #87 - toosexyforyou (08/24/2012) [-]
scroll slowly
#75 - anon (08/24/2012) [-]
Let's wait for someone to repost this again

#153 - mehhwhateverworks (08/24/2012) [-]
still funny
still funny
#65 - fuckinirohman (08/24/2012) [-]
Gonna wait to make more money than you will in 10 lifetimes of constant working...
#163 - quincyadam (08/24/2012) [-]
Oh rich people
Leave a comment
 Friends (0)