"Leeches shouldn't vote" or why Socialism fails.

[~Rocktar~]

Ok,

So Romney comes out and says something about the 47% and the media loses it's mind, takes it out of context (dying of not surprised) and of course pundits run rampant with it. So, in the fallout of that, a lot has been said about haves and have not's and stake holders and so on participating in government. Well, I came across this explanation of why those who are reasonable able bodied and who contribute absolutely NOTHING, never have and never will should not be allowed to participate in voting and the government in general. It is well argued and salient and embodies the reasoning behind the quote from Thomas Jefferson "When the people find they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic." Since he worded it better than I may have, here is the link. While reading this, consider that we have 4th, 5th and 6th generation cradle to grave welfare recipients who have never generated a single coin of tax input since they are only recirculating previous tax revenue (or growing debt) and are able bodied.

http://greedygoblin.blogspot.com/2012/09/why-shouldnt-leeches-vote.html

He has several posts in his blog about financial interests and society including some interesting discussion about morons and slackers as they relate to society and online games.

Have fun.

[Tgo01]

So Romney comes out and says something about the 47% and the media loses it's mind, takes it out of context (dying of not surprised)

I must have missed this explanation from the Romney campaign. How are they claiming it was taken out of context?


Well, I came across this explanation of why those who are reasonable able bodied and who contribute absolutely NOTHING, never have and never will should not be allowed to participate in voting and the government in general.

I didn't even have to read the link to know I disagree with it. What's next, poor people shouldn't vote? Rich people shouldn't vote? Corporations shouldn't vote?! That's just nonsense.

[~Rocktar~]

I must have missed this explanation from the Romney campaign. How are they claiming it was taken out of context?

Please point to here I said the Romney campaign said it was taken out of context.


I didn't even have to read the link to know I disagree with it. What's next, poor people shouldn't vote? Rich people shouldn't vote? Corporations shouldn't vote?! That's just nonsense.

So you are admiting that you are making an emotionaly driven decision to remain ignorrant? OK, gotcha, way to go, keep up the good work there.

[Tgo01]

Please point to here I said the Romney campaign said it was taken out of context.

My bad, I had assumed that's what you meant. So are you saying it was taken out of context? How so?


So you are admiting that you are making an emotionaly driven decision to remain ignorrant? OK, gotcha, way to go, keep up the good work there.

There is no possible good reason for basing someone's right to vote on their financial or employment status.

I'm not even going to point out the irony of misspelling ignorant. Oh wait.

[Parkbandit]

Representation without taxation!

It's a dumb idea.

[Latrinsorm]

(1) "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights..."

(2) The founders had no concept of an American income tax. They would probably be baffled at the modern fascination with non-income-taxpayers.

(3) Although there are lots of people who don't pay federal income tax, they still contribute monetarily to the government via state income tax, sales tax, excise taxes.

(4) How do you propose we would determine that someone "never will" contribute to the government?

[Tgo01]

(4) How do you propose we would determine that someone "never will" contribute to the government?

If they voted for a Democratic president at least three times.

[TheEschaton]

A Democratic President, or a Democratic candidate? There hasn't even been 3 Dem Presidents since I've been alive.

[Tgo01]

A Democratic President, or a Democratic candidate? There hasn't even been 3 Dem Presidents since I've been alive.

Carter, Clinton, Obama, GTFO.

Unless you mean there haven't been three Democratic presidents who have been in a second presidential election yet, in which case you're right, by only a month.

[~Rocktar~]

(1) "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights..."

None of which involved living for multiple generations off the government dole without doing anything to contribute to society in any meaningful way.


(2) The founders had no concept of an American income tax. They would probably be baffled at the modern fascination with non-income-taxpayers.

They would be horrified at the idea of income tax, the number of people that don't pay taxes and the number of people on the Federal payroll not to mention welfare rolls.


(3) Although there are lots of people who don't pay federal income tax, they still contribute monetarily to the government via state income tax, sales tax, excise taxes.

Annnnnddddddd if you had bothered to ACTUALLY READ the linked article, you would know these are not the people I am discussing. Thank you for playing with your usual lack of comprehension and assumptions.


(4) How do you propose we would determine that someone "never will" contribute to the government?

Contribution to Society is what is needed. Being productive members of society and not just a consumer of resources while producing nothing. How about we introduce them to the idea of supporting themselves? Or how about civil service in exchange for welfare, you know, like WORK?

[Velfi]

Annnnnddddddd if you had bothered to ACTUALLY READ the linked article, you would know these are not the people I am discussing. Thank you for playing with your usual lack of comprehension and assumptions.

I just wanted to add that I read the article, several times in fact, and your statement about it holds water like a sieve. Its apparent target is welfare recipients, who in fact still have to pay sales tax, excise taxes, and so forth. So, perhaps you're not correct in this regard.

[TheEschaton]

Carter, Clinton, Obama, GTFO.

Unless you mean there haven't been three Democratic presidents who have been in a second presidential election yet, in which case you're right, by only a month.

I wasn't born in the 70s, you old man.

[~Rocktar~]

I just wanted to add that I read the article, several times in fact, and your statement about it holds water like a sieve. Its apparent target is welfare recipients, who in fact still have to pay sales tax, excise taxes, and so forth. So, perhaps you're not correct in this regard.

The target is people who have never generated an income of their own. Since their income is entirely from the government, they don't actually generate any new tax revenue. There are a substantial number of people who have worked and now don't, at least they did produce something. Those who are able bodied and have never produced anything other than more leeches are what really hurts.

[TheEschaton]

Next maybe we should round them all up, and put them in some sort of camp, and figure out some sort of solution to deal with them.

[Tgo01]

I wasn't born in the 70s, you old man.

I could have sworn you were 32 which would put your year of birth in 1980 and Carter was president until 1981. BOOYA!


The target is people who have never generated an income of their own.

What about house wives or trophy husbands who are married to someone who generates income, do they still get to vote?

[TheEschaton]

I am 31, and was born in 1981. ;)

[~Rocktar~]

Next maybe we should round them all up, and put them in some sort of camp, and figure out some sort of solution to deal with them.

Or maybe we could dispense with the childish argument to the extreme and have a meaningful discussion about how to get as much as 25% of the population off the long term government dole and get them to work being productive in some meaningful way. Maybe we can even manage this before the growth of wealth redistribution programs to support the chronically lazy destroy this republic in the same way it has destroyed others before it leading down the path to Oligarchy and tyranny? Do you think that may be possible, or are you just going to continue trolling like you usually do with your poor arguments to emotional causality which lack any real substance and add nothing to the debate?

Oh, and they already are in camps patrolled by combat troops, they are called ghettos, slums and government tenements and oops, I meant to say police with armor and automatic weapons. But hey, we wouldn't want to call them that because that isn't nice and it is driven primarily from policies developed by Democrats in the 60s under the term "Great Society". It's funny how the economic enslavement of vast hunks of the population was sold as "a hand up, not a hand out" or as "a social safety net". Or is it?




What about house wives or trophy husbands who are married to someone who generates income, do they still get to vote?

Keep that argument to the extreme going, it's just a distraction from meaningful debate.

[Liagala]

Maybe we can even manage this before the growth of wealth redistribution programs to support the chronically lazy destroy this republic in the same way it has destroyed others before it leading down the path to Oligarchy and tyranny?
Wow. I sure am glad Rocktar's here to be the voice of reason and dispense with childish extreme arguments.

[Tgo01]

have a meaningful discussion about how to get as much as 25% of the population off the long term government dole and get them to work being productive in some meaningful way

Is this another argument altogether or are you saying almost 100 million people in the US don't generate an income of their own and live off the government dime?


Oh, and they already are in camps patrolled by combat troops, they are called ghettos, slums and government tenements and oops, I meant to say police with armor and automatic weapons. But hey, we wouldn't want to call them that because that isn't nice and it is driven primarily from policies developed by Democrats in the 60s under the term "Great Society". It's funny how the economic enslavement of vast hunks of the population was sold as "a hand up, not a hand out" or as "a social safety net". Or is it?

So the obvious solution to get people out of the ghettos and slums is to take away their right to vote?


Keep that argument to the extreme going, it's just a distraction from meaningful debate.

Distraction from meaningful debate? I thought this whole issue was people who have never generated their own income? Or are we really just talking about people who are on government assistance? Can someone move in with family members and give up their benefits then regain their right to vote?

[Latrinsorm]

None of which involved living for multiple generations off the government dole without doing anything to contribute to society in any meaningful way.I'm not sure you've grasped the meaning of the phrase. The rights are (1) endowed by the Creator and (2) unalienable, so logically they would be granted even to people who don't "contribute".

Being the wacky bunch they were, of course, the founders immediately compromised on this guarantee by massively restricting the right to vote. Like the right to not be a slave, however, it's generally understood now that those compromises were wrong however practical they were.
Annnnnddddddd if you had bothered to ACTUALLY READ the linked article, you would know these are not the people I am discussing. Thank you for playing with your usual lack of comprehension and assumptions.You think there are people who pay no sales tax, no excise tax, and no state income tax?
Contribution to Society is what is needed. Being productive members of society and not just a consumer of resources while producing nothing. How about we introduce them to the idea of supporting themselves? Or how about civil service in exchange for welfare, you know, like WORK?Okay... how would you determine someone "never will" be a productive member of society, "always will" be a consumer of resources while producing nothing, or "never will" support themselves?
Maybe we can even manage this before the growth of wealth redistribution programs to support the chronically lazy destroy this republic in the same way it has destroyed others before it leading down the path to Oligarchy and tyranny?Which republics do you have in mind, specifically?

[msconstrew]

I am just amused that everyone in this thread knows how to define a "contribution" to society. Like there are specific parameters and if you don't meet them, well, you're non-contributing. Also, this whole thing about, "well, I have to show ID to do everything else!" is a strawman. Voting is distinguishable from ALL of the activities named because it is a right granted by the Constitution.

[Tgo01]

Also, this whole thing about, "well, I have to show ID to do everything else!" is a strawman. Voting is distinguishable from ALL of the activities named because it is a right granted by the Constitution.

Who said anything about that in this thread? Why have the courts found it constitutional to deny felons the right to vote? Did we name the color orange after the fruit or did we name the fruit after the color orange?

[Back]

For long I've been suggesting that leeches should not be allowed to vote. They should be legally treated equal to children: having personal rights but no political ones. This idea is widely questioned and not just by moralists who come with nonsense like "people are equal just because".

I read this FIRST line and thought, "Sounds like Saudi Arabia." No thanks.

America is born from the dream that all people are created equal and that people of all races, colors, creeds, and religions can live together peacefully. At the time this country was founded nothing like it existed anywhere else and no one thought it was possible. This country was built on an ideology that while proving somewhat difficult is not impossible to attain when we work together to make it happen.

[Fallen]

Where do cops carry automatic weapons? Are we counting SWAT or something?

[~Rocktar~]

Many police departments around the country issue AR-15's or similar to patrol cops to carry in the car much like shotguns used to be. LA in particular decided to after the bullet proof bank robbers incident.

[Jarvan]

I am just amused that everyone in this thread knows how to define a "contribution" to society. Like there are specific parameters and if you don't meet them, well, you're non-contributing. Also, this whole thing about, "well, I have to show ID to do everything else!" is a strawman. Voting is distinguishable from ALL of the activities named because it is a right granted by the Constitution.

I know I am late on this.. but the right to carry(own) a gun is granted by the Constitution, yet you need an I.D for that.

That being said, eliminating an entire group of people from voting simply because you feel that they don't contribute is insane. You really are making them second class people, and frankly they would be protected from this by the 14th Amendment I believe. Although it could be said that if you did have an entire group of people, growing ever larger, that got all it's needs granted by the government without any need for work that continued to vote for the same group of people over and over that would continue to give them those needs without any requirements, it could potentially collapse the system. Which if it did, would result in a new system. Thereby correcting itself.

[Warriorbird]

Much like Mitt Romney (whose Dad was on welfare) and Paul Ryan (who wouldn't have gone to college without Social Security) you wouldn't be where you are without the benefit of government assistance, Squiggles. Thus, this line of reasoning makes you an asshole.

[AnticorRifling]

Many police departments around the country issue AR-15's or similar to patrol cops to carry in the car much like shotguns used to be. LA in particular decided to after the bullet proof bank robbers incident.

So you don't know what an automatic weapon is, check.

[crb]

Much like Mitt Romney (whose Dad was on welfare) and Paul Ryan (who wouldn't have gone to college without Social Security) you wouldn't be where you are without the benefit of government assistance, Squiggles. Thus, this line of reasoning makes you an asshole.

Where does government get the funds it redistributes? Surely not from the money tree.

Without productive private citizens and private businesses government has no funding to exist, let alone give to others.

I like this commercial, I've only seen it run on CNBC so you may not see if it you don't want the business new channels, but it is a good commercial:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UnX7TNFIELg

It makes the point rather well, wealthy countries have the luxury of being able to take care of the poor, take care of the environment, and they get that way with free market capitalism.

edit: Also, the solution to the original poster's issue is not to deny people the right to vote, because we can't. Though if one were designing a new constitution limiting voting rights to taxpayers might be a good idea because, obviously, you can have a tyranny of the majority otherwise. The solution is just to fix the taxation problem. Cancel all refundable tax credits, create a minimum tax bracket of 1%. Everyone pays something.

[~Rocktar~]

So you don't know what an automatic weapon is, check.

Cause no AR-15 can ever be auomatic amirite? Quit being a fucking retard.

[~Rocktar~]

Much like Mitt Romney (whose Dad was on welfare) and Paul Ryan (who wouldn't have gone to college without Social Security) you wouldn't be where you are without the benefit of government assistance, Squiggles. Thus, this line of reasoning makes you an asshole.

I have always been an asshole, deal. And did either of those people STAY on welfare their whole life? Did they make kids who lived cradle to grave on welfare?

[Warriorbird]

I have always been an asshole, deal. And did either of those people STAY on welfare their whole life? Did they make kids who lived cradle to grave on welfare?

While you and the rest of the self hating people pushing a Reagan meme may not have been aware of it, Bill Clinton and New Gingrich changed it back when people were still willing to work together in American politics.

I'd also suggest you look a little more closely at the composition of the "47%." You might even see some things that give you pause.

[~Rocktar~]

While you and the rest of the self hating people pushing a Reagan meme may not have been aware of it, Bill Clinton and New Gingrich changed it back when people were still willing to work together in American politics.

I'd also suggest you look a little more closely at the composition of the "47%." You might even see some things that give you pause.

I appreciate your amateur psychoanalysis of my mental state. Just more proof that like assholes, everyone has an opinion and most smell like shit. And while you may seem to think otherwise, we seriously have a massive chunk of society that are now 4-5 generations into not working and living off the government tit and that must change, it is unsupportable in the long term. Or do you have some other way to fund the 70+ trillion in accumulated unfunded social mandate that we have coming due over the next 20 years?

[AnticorRifling]

Cause no AR-15 can ever be auomatic amirite? Quit being a fucking retard.

Because very few actually have an auto lower on them amirite? Quit being a fucking retard.

[Warriorbird]

I appreciate your amateur psychoanalysis of my mental state. Just more proof that like assholes, everyone has an opinion and most smell like shit. And while you may seem to think otherwise, we seriously have a massive chunk of society that are now 4-5 generations into not working and living off the government tit and that must change, it is unsupportable in the long term. Or do you have some other way to fund the 70+ trillion in accumulated unfunded social mandate that we have coming due over the next 20 years?

I didn't actually suggest you were insane, just wrong. It holds for this post too.

[zzentar]

The world of politics changed a few months ago when the average person on gov't assistance made more than the average person working for a living.

The 47% are gonna vote for whoever gives them that check so they can sit on the couch.

Lastly, getting a tax refund when you paid zero taxes or getting a tax refund greater than taxes paid is wealth redistribution. In my opinion, that is that is Socialism in action.

[Back]

I appreciate your amateur psychoanalysis of my mental state. Just more proof that like assholes, everyone has an opinion and most smell like shit. And while you may seem to think otherwise, we seriously have a massive chunk of society that are now 4-5 generations into not working and living off the government tit and that must change, it is unsupportable in the long term. Or do you have some other way to fund the 70+ trillion in accumulated unfunded social mandate that we have coming due over the next 20 years?

4-5 generations? America isn't even that old.

[AnticorRifling]

4-5 generations? America isn't even that old.

America isn't 4-5 generations old?

Living right now...my grandparents, my parents, me, my kids. That's 4...and my grandparents were born in the 1930s.

[Back]

The world of politics changed a few months ago when the average person on gov't assistance made more than the average person working for a living.

The 47% are gonna vote for whoever gives them that check so they can sit on the couch.

Lastly, getting a tax refund when you paid zero taxes or getting a tax refund greater than taxes paid is wealth redistribution. In my opinion, that is that is Socialism in action.

Who gets paid tax money that does not pay taxes? Where do I check that box on my tax form? Seriously.

[Back]

America isn't 4-5 generations old?

Living right now...my grandparents, my parents, me, my kids. That's 4...and my grandparents were born in the 1930s.

Yes, my math is a bit off this morning. Its not much older than that though. I really just want to know where this 4-5 generations on welfare statistic came from.

[AnticorRifling]

Yes, my math is a bit off this morning. Its not much older than that though. I really just want to know where this 4-5 generations on welfare statistic came from.

Not much older than the 1930s? Just oh 154 years. As for the welfare stat I don't know. I do know a few families that are 2 generations deep in that regard but I've not done any real research one way or the other.

[Back]

Not much older than the 1930s? Just oh 154 years. As for the welfare stat I don't know. I do know a few families that are 2 generations deep in that regard but I've not done any real research one way or the other.

My family has long life spans? My grandfather was born 1903. So his grandfather could be 1800. Soooo yeah my math is way off.

But anyway the point is who are these 4-5 generations of people that are not working and living on welfare? Where does that statistic come from?

[zzentar]

Who gets paid tax money that does not pay taxes? Where do I check that box on my tax form? Seriously.

Just one example;

The Basics of the Child Tax Credit

The child tax credit is worth up to $1,000 per child under the age of 17. In order to qualify for the child tax credit, the taxpayer must be able to claim the child as a dependent. Be aware that there are additional criteria for the child tax credit; not all dependents will qualify. For some taxpayers, utilizing the child tax credit can reduce their federal income tax liability to zero. In that situation, any excess or remaining child tax credits may be refundable to the taxpayer. The child tax credit is gradually reduced based on income levels. Technically, there is no limit to how many children you can claim for child tax credit purposes

Another example is that stimulus, remember the 1200.00 check you got a few years back. Everyone got that, people that paid taxes and also the people that didn't.

[Bobmuhthol]

Lastly, getting a tax refund when you paid zero taxes or getting a tax refund greater than taxes paid is wealth redistribution. In my opinion, that is that is Socialism in action.All taxes that discriminate (i.e. everything that isn't a poll tax, which nobody sane wants) are intended to redistribute. You literally just said you think that all taxes are "Socialism in action".

[zzentar]

All taxes that discriminate (i.e. everything that isn't a poll tax, which nobody sane wants) are intended to redistribute. You literally just said you think that all taxes are "Socialism in action".

I guess my education was a lot different than yours, I was taught that taxes were how the gov't paid for the services that gov't provided.

[Liagala]

I guess my education was a lot different than yours, I was taught that taxes were how the gov't paid for the services that gov't provided.
Services that are provided to everyone, regardless of their contribution. You don't drive on smoother roads than the guy down the street because you pay more than he does. I believe that's what Bob is getting at.

[zzentar]

Services that are provided to everyone, regardless of their contribution. You don't drive on smoother roads than the guy down the street because you pay more than he does. I believe that's what Bob is getting at.

not even close to what my statement was or was about, let's go back....


The world of politics changed a few months ago when the average person on gov't assistance made more than the average person working for a living.

The 47% are gonna vote for whoever gives them that check so they can sit on the couch.

Lastly, getting a tax refund when you paid zero taxes or getting a tax refund greater than taxes paid is wealth redistribution. In my opinion, that is that is Socialism in action.


All taxes that discriminate (i.e. everything that isn't a poll tax, which nobody sane wants) are intended to redistribute. You literally just said you think that all taxes are "Socialism in action".

[Back]

Just one example;

The Basics of the Child Tax Credit

The child tax credit is worth up to $1,000 per child under the age of 17. In order to qualify for the child tax credit, the taxpayer must be able to claim the child as a dependent. Be aware that there are additional criteria for the child tax credit; not all dependents will qualify. For some taxpayers, utilizing the child tax credit can reduce their federal income tax liability to zero. In that situation, any excess or remaining child tax credits may be refundable to the taxpayer. The child tax credit is gradually reduced based on income levels. Technically, there is no limit to how many children you can claim for child tax credit purposes

Another example is that stimulus, remember the 1200.00 check you got a few years back. Everyone got that, people that paid taxes and also the people that didn't.

Your bolded line says MAY as in it might depending on the circumstance. I've been Googling around and the person needs to at least pay Social Security to get this. This tax credit is designed to help people who truly need it and should not be abused.

If someone is abusing the system then we need to catch them and change things to prevent that from happening. That goes for EVERYONE from the bottom to top.

I do not believe that poor people are the cause of our problems, however.

[Bobmuhthol]

I guess my education was a lot different than yours, I was taught that taxes were how the gov't paid for the services that gov't provided.You think that that does not have distortionary effects?
Services that are provided to everyone, regardless of their contribution. You don't drive on smoother roads than the guy down the street because you pay more than he does. I believe that's what Bob is getting at.Not my direct point, but this is one extension of it. People are taxed based on who they are (what they buy, how much they make, and other decisions), and therefore taxes affect different people in different ways. Notably, the tax system is progressive -- if you make more money, you pay more than a proportionately higher amount of taxes (in theory) compared to someone who makes significantly less. That by itself is evidence of redistribution effects because the two people are relatively closer in wealth as a consequence of taking more away from the richer person. Public goods (the roads example) only contribute to this effect since a larger amount of funding comes from richer people, and they have equal access to the goods.

[zzentar]

Your bolded line says MAY as in it might depending on the circumstance. I've been Googling around and the person needs to at least pay Social Security to get this. This tax credit is designed to help people who truly need it and should not be abused.

If someone is abusing the system then we need to catch them and change things to prevent that from happening. That goes for EVERYONE from the bottom to top.

I do not believe that poor people are the cause of our problems, however.

I do not believe that poor people are the cause of our problems either.

I am kinda confused as to why my comments are being twisted. I am quoting from IRS.gov, here are the links:

http://www.irs.gov/uac/IRS-Economic-Stimulus-Payment-Information-Now-in-Spanish

http://www.irs.gov/uac/Ten-Facts-about-the-Child-Tax-Credit

[Back]

I do not believe that poor people are the cause of our problems either.

I am kinda confused as to why my comments are being twisted. I am quoting from IRS.gov, here are the links:

http://www.irs.gov/uac/IRS-Economic-Stimulus-Payment-Information-Now-in-Spanish

http://www.irs.gov/uac/Ten-Facts-about-the-Child-Tax-Credit

It probably has to do with this post of yours from before...


The world of politics changed a few months ago when the average person on gov't assistance made more than the average person working for a living.

The 47% are gonna vote for whoever gives them that check so they can sit on the couch.

Lastly, getting a tax refund when you paid zero taxes or getting a tax refund greater than taxes paid is wealth redistribution. In my opinion, that is that is Socialism in action.

This thread seems to be about all the people on welfare who are ruining everything for everyone. Rocktar does not think they should vote.

[zzentar]

I didn't really pay attention to the title of the thread, just saw something that I wanted to comment on. I completely agree with social programs. They are needed to take care of the people that can't take care of themselves and the people that need a hand up when they are down. I or any of you could be there tomorrow and we need a social network to help those people.

That still doesn't invalidate my original statement:

Getting a tax refund when you paid zero taxes or getting a tax refund greater than taxes paid is wealth redistribution. In my opinion, that is that is Socialism in action.

[Bobmuhthol]

Okay, but it's still a trivial statement: all taxes are wealth redistribution.

[zzentar]

Okay, but it's still a trivial statement: all taxes are wealth redistribution.

I disagree and before you say the same thing again, please show me how that is true. I cant argue you saying the same thing over and over without some facts or reference.

Taxes are not wealth redistribution... (here is where I back up my statements with facts or majority opinions)

From: Black's Law Dictionary is the most widely used law dictionary in the United States. It was founded by Henry Campbell Black. It is the reference of choice for definitions in legal briefs and court opinions and has been cited as a secondary legal authority in many U.S. Supreme Court cases.

A tax is a "pecuniary burden laid upon individuals or property owners to support the government [...] a payment exacted by legislative authority."[1] A tax "is not a voluntary payment or donation, but an enforced contribution, exacted pursuant to legislative authority" and is "any contribution imposed by government [...] whether under the name of toll, tribute, tallage, gabel, impost, duty, custom, excise, subsidy, aid, supply, or other name."[1]

[Parkbandit]

4-5 generations? America isn't even that old.

One generation is approximately 25 years old.

America is far older than 125 years old.

[Liagala]

How are taxes not a form of wealth redistribution? They take more from the rich, less from the poor, and give equal benefit to all.

[Parkbandit]

How are taxes not a form of wealth redistribution? They take more from the rich, less from the poor, and give equal benefit to all.

Not necessarily.

Example: I have a business and make one million dollars a year. I have a government contract that pays me 10 million dollars a year with tax payer money.

[Tgo01]

Example: I have a business and make one million dollars a year.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xFPzVp3MvFg

[zzentar]

Getting a tax refund when you paid zero taxes or getting a tax refund greater than taxes paid is wealth redistribution. In my opinion, that is that is Socialism in action.

Taxes have always been tiered to different economic levels, so no one is arguing that the rich shouldn't pay more in taxes than the poor. My point is still the same, and now I am just saying the same thing over and over. Taxes are for paying for gov't services and not for giving to other people that you are hooking into a cradle to grave subsistence for the purpose of a lifetime vote.

[ClydeR]

While reading this, consider that we have 4th, 5th and 6th generation cradle to grave welfare recipients who have never generated a single coin of tax input since they are only recirculating previous tax revenue (or growing debt) and are able bodied.

When you throw something like that in a post, the whole thread becomes about it, instead of about what you wanted to discuss.

[Parkbandit]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xFPzVp3MvFg

Yea.. fucking rich people profiting off the back of other rich people! Wealth re-redistribution! Suck on that poor people!

[Warriorbird]

When you throw something like that in a post, the whole thread becomes about it, instead of about what you wanted to discuss.

You're a lot funnier than purposeful misrepresentation.

[Atlanteax]

Taxes have always been tiered to different economic levels, so no one is arguing that the rich shouldn't pay more in taxes than the poor. My point is still the same, and now I am just saying the same thing over and over. Taxes are for paying for gov't services and not for giving to other people that you are hooking into a cradle to grave subsistence for the purpose of a lifetime vote.

You are only looking at the first half of the equation ... government revenues ... predominantly provided by the rich.

You need to take the second half into perspective ... government expenditures ... which predominantly benefits the poor.

Now it is generally in pursuit of personal self-interests (which is normal human behavior), the rich rather see less taxes & less spending ... while the poor rather see more taxes (they pay a far small proportion of any tax increase) and more spending (which benefits them the most).

[TheEschaton]

Can we finally draw a line between "greed" and "personal self-interest (which is normal human behavior")? The rich in this country paid income tax near 90% til the 80s, and no one thought the rich were so unbearably unable to live...except for Reagan. "Personal self-interest" 1) should never (in a moral person) hurt others except in defense of its own life, on the micro level, and 2) should rarely (in a moral government) curtail the interests of society without compelling reason, on the macro level. We can argue about "compelling reasons" all we want, but I feel like the rich left compelling reasons behind about 30 years ago.

Again, Reagan was the worst President ever. Just have to say it.

[zzentar]

Can we finally draw a line between "greed" and "personal self-interest (which is normal human behavior")? The rich in this country paid income tax near 90% til the 80s, and no one thought the rich were so unbearably unable to live...except for Reagan. "Personal self-interest" 1) should never (in a moral person) hurt others except in defense of its own life, on the micro level, and 2) should rarely (in a moral government) curtail the interests of society without compelling reason, on the macro level. We can argue about "compelling reasons" all we want, but I feel like the rich left compelling reasons behind about 30 years ago.

Again, Reagan was the worst President ever. Just have to say it.

Just asking to get a baseline on your attitude towards capitalism here; Are you really saying that you think 90% taxation is fair and just on any conceivable economic tier? Followup, what do you think of the 50% plus tax on estates? They did pay taxes on that once, isn't that double taxation?

[Parkbandit]

Can we finally draw a line between "greed" and "personal self-interest (which is normal human behavior")? The rich in this country paid income tax near 90% til the 80s, and no one thought the rich were so unbearably unable to live...except for Reagan. "Personal self-interest" 1) should never (in a moral person) hurt others except in defense of its own life, on the micro level, and 2) should rarely (in a moral government) curtail the interests of society without compelling reason, on the macro level. We can argue about "compelling reasons" all we want, but I feel like the rich left compelling reasons behind about 30 years ago.

Again, Reagan was the worst President ever. Just have to say it.

So it is your belief that I should work until November 24th for the Government and then I can work one month and 6 days for myself and my family?

I always wondered if there could ever be a more unrealistic and more naive post on this forum than the one where you said you would talk a burglar out of robbing you... I think I just found it.

Let me guess.. you grew up with a silver spoon in your mouth and everything was handed to you....

[Jarvan]

Can we finally draw a line between "greed" and "personal self-interest (which is normal human behavior")? The rich in this country paid income tax near 90% til the 80s, and no one thought the rich were so unbearably unable to live...except for Reagan. "Personal self-interest" 1) should never (in a moral person) hurt others except in defense of its own life, on the micro level, and 2) should rarely (in a moral government) curtail the interests of society without compelling reason, on the macro level. We can argue about "compelling reasons" all we want, but I feel like the rich left compelling reasons behind about 30 years ago.

Again, Reagan was the worst President ever. Just have to say it.

Sorry, but if your trying to say that all rich people are greedy for not willingly wanting to pay up to 90% of their income in taxes due to what you consider is a moral imperative.. your insane.

On another note, all progressive tax schemes are insane really. Liberals love to call for fair taxes, and paying fair share. If progressive taxes are so great, why is there not progressive sales taxes for one? But more importantly, if you think one person paying even just say 50% of their personal income to the government and another person paying 15% is "fair" simply because one person has a better job/business then the other. Also, if you think even with a rate that high you will get a serious % of that from those people your also insane. The real rich know how and where to hide their money.

See.. here is your main problem. You think that the Government exists to take care of it's people pretty much in every facet of their life.

I think the Government exists solely to protect one's life, liberty and pursuit of happiness.

I don't exactly see in that statement free food, housing, healthcare, cellphone, internet, tv, car etc etc..

On a side note, since you feel it's a moral issue, I take it you write a check to the IRS for 70% of your income.. since you love the Pre-Regean rates so much.

[Warriorbird]

Sorry, but if your trying to say that all rich people are greedy for not willingly wanting to pay up to 90% of their income in taxes due to what you consider is a moral imperative.. your insane.

On another note, all progressive tax schemes are insane really. Liberals love to call for fair taxes, and paying fair share. If progressive taxes are so great, why is there not progressive sales taxes for one? But more importantly, if you think one person paying even just say 50% of their personal income to the government and another person paying 15% is "fair" simply because one person has a better job/business then the other. Also, if you think even with a rate that high you will get a serious % of that from those people your also insane. The real rich know how and where to hide their money.

See.. here is your main problem. You think that the Government exists to take care of it's people pretty much in every facet of their life.

I think the Government exists solely to protect one's life, liberty and pursuit of happiness.

I don't exactly see in that statement free food, housing, healthcare, cellphone, internet, tv, car etc etc..

On a side note, since you feel it's a moral issue, I take it you write a check to the IRS for 70% of your income.. since you love the Pre-Regean rates so much.

The top marginal rate and capital gains rate as they currently stand are but a tiny fraction of all of every conservative's favorite periods in history.

The market does better under Democrats too.

[TheEschaton]

So it is your belief that I should work until November 24th for the Government and then I can work one month and 6 days for myself and my family?

I always wondered if there could ever be a more unrealistic and more naive post on this forum than the one where you said you would talk a burglar out of robbing you... I think I just found it.

Let me guess.. you grew up with a silver spoon in your mouth and everything was handed to you....

I came to this country as a child in a poor immigrant family which progressively worked its way up to affluence. My family hit the top tax bracket when I was in high school, long after most of my growing up had ended.

I don't know that i think 90% income tax is reasonable. I certainly think 50% would be. That being said, I don't think 90% was "unbearably unlivable" which is precisely what i said.

We have one of the largest income gaps in the 1st world, and one of the poorest average QoLs in the 1st world. Most of the world manages with a top bracket of 50%+, and on top of that, flourishes. Our rich are definitely fabulously rich, the most well off in the world, the most comfortable, etc. But our average citizen lags well behind most of our fellow G8 countrymen.

And no, I do not think laissez-faire, completely unfettered capitalism has worked.

Also, Jarvan, I am nowhere near the top tax bracket, or even the 2nd highest tax bracket. I work for a 501(c).

[zzentar]

Wait, I want to hear someone say that they agree with anyone getting a 90% income tax rate. I will settle for any one of us saying they would be happy with a 50% tax rate.

[Jarvan]

I came to this country as a child in a poor immigrant family which progressively worked its way up to affluence. My family hit the top tax bracket when I was in high school, long after most of my growing up had ended.

I don't know that i think 90% income tax is reasonable. I certainly think 50% would be. That being said, I don't think 90% was "unbearably unlivable" which is precisely what i said.

We have one of the largest income gaps in the 1st world, and one of the poorest average QoLs in the 1st world. Most of the world manages with a top bracket of 50%+, and on top of that, flourishes. Our rich are definitely fabulously rich, the most well off in the world, the most comfortable, etc. But our average citizen lags well behind most of our fellow G8 countrymen.

And no, I do not think laissez-faire, completely unfettered capitalism has worked.

Also, Jarvan, I am nowhere near the top tax bracket, or even the 2nd highest tax bracket. I work for a 501(c).

That really shouldn't matter E. Do you make more money then the average American? I am sure you do. Remember, the definition of rich is subjective. Once you realize that taxing the "rich" by 50%+ doesn't give your government enough money to do all the wonderful things you feel must be done.. you will look for other people that are "rich".

Like I said, unless you willingly pay 50%+ of your yearly salary to the Fed Government you can't claim any moral high ground.

Maybe I should put it like this... if you Make 100k a year.. great for you.. but people live off 30k. So you don't need 70k of that. Give it up. Wouldn't that be the Moral thing to do?

[Warriorbird]

That really shouldn't matter E. Do you make more money then the average American? I am sure you do. Remember, the definition of rich is subjective. Once you realize that taxing the "rich" by 50%+ doesn't give your government enough money to do all the wonderful things you feel must be done.. you will look for other people that are "rich".

Like I said, unless you willingly pay 50%+ of your yearly salary to the Fed Government you can't claim any moral high ground.

Maybe I should put it like this... if you Make 100k a year.. great for you.. but people live off 30k. So you don't need 70k of that. Give it up. Wouldn't that be the Moral thing to do?

This is a hilarious argument to make as a supporter of a Vice Presidential candidate who wanted Mitt Romney to pay 1% in taxes.

[zzentar]

Personal opinion only, but if I was a (insert big company here) owner or a large stock holder in some company and I was told that 70 to 90% of my income was gonna go to taxes, I'd immediately liquidate and put in long term stocks and relax the rest of my life. Why would anyone just work for the fun of it?

[Tgo01]

Personal opinion only, but if I was a (insert big company here) owner or a large stock holder in some company and I was told that 70 to 90% of my income was gonna go to taxes, I'd immediately liquidate and put in long term stocks and relax the rest of my life. Why would anyone just work for the fun of it?

Don't a lot of people work for the fun of it? Warren Buffet is worth billions yet he still works. Does Bill Gates still work? I don't know. Steve Jobs is dead and he still works, that man is committed.

A lot of people have enough money to never have to work another day in their life yet they keep working.

[Warriorbird]

Personal opinion only, but if I was a (insert big company here) owner or a large stock holder in some company and I was told that 70 to 90% of my income was gonna go to taxes, I'd immediately liquidate and put in long term stocks and relax the rest of my life. Why would anyone just work for the fun of it?

Then how exactly did we make it through the 20th century so well? A critical thinking question for you there.

[TheEschaton]

I don't make 100k, Jarvan. I don't know what your point is. Also, you remind me of the idiots who say Warren Buffet should cut a check to the IRS if he wants to pay taxes - nevermind that he legally cannot pay more taxes than he owes, it would just be held in lieu of future tax burden, or returned. And yes, I do make more money than the average family of 4 in this country, I also live in NYC, though.

[Jarvan]

This is a hilarious argument to make as a supporter of a Vice Presidential candidate who wanted Mitt Romney to pay 1% in taxes.

Wait.. I supported Ryan? Can you find a single post or statement where I ever said I support Ryan?

And where exactly did he say he wanted Mitt to pay 1%?

Or are you like usual, just making things up?

[Back]

Personal opinion only, but if I was a (insert big company here) owner or a large stock holder in some company and I was told that 70 to 90% of my income was gonna go to taxes, I'd immediately liquidate and put in long term stocks and relax the rest of my life. Why would anyone just work for the fun of it?

Where are you getting the figure 70-90%? The top earners pay less than the middle class. Middle class pays 35% of their income while upper pays closer to 19% of their income.

[Parkbandit]

I came to this country as a child in a poor immigrant family which progressively worked its way up to affluence. My family hit the top tax bracket when I was in high school, long after most of my growing up had ended.

I don't know that i think 90% income tax is reasonable. I certainly think 50% would be. That being said, I don't think 90% was "unbearably unlivable" which is precisely what i said.

We have one of the largest income gaps in the 1st world, and one of the poorest average QoLs in the 1st world. Most of the world manages with a top bracket of 50%+, and on top of that, flourishes. Our rich are definitely fabulously rich, the most well off in the world, the most comfortable, etc. But our average citizen lags well behind most of our fellow G8 countrymen.

And no, I do not think laissez-faire, completely unfettered capitalism has worked.

Also, Jarvan, I am nowhere near the top tax bracket, or even the 2nd highest tax bracket. I work for a 501(c).

Bolded for hyperbole?

Can you give me one example of where capitalism is unfettered in this country? And by this country, I mean the United States in the reality that the rest of us reside in.

[Warriorbird]

Wait.. I supported Ryan? Can you find a single post or statement where I ever said I support Ryan?

And where exactly did he say he wanted Mitt to pay 1%?

Or are you like usual, just making things up?

The Ryan Budget plan that you lot love reduced capital gains to 1%.

I'll deliver a Seth Myers "Really?" to the idea of you not supporting the Republican Party.

[Jarvan]

I don't make 100k, Jarvan. I don't know what your point is. Also, you remind me of the idiots who say Warren Buffet should cut a check to the IRS if he wants to pay taxes - nevermind that he legally cannot pay more taxes than he owes, it would just be held in lieu of future tax burden, or returned. And yes, I do make more money than the average family of 4 in this country, I also live in NYC, though.

http://www.fms.treas.gov/faq/moretopics_gifts.html

How did you get to be a lawyer and not know how to even research things?

Yes he can cut a check if he wants, and it goes right to general funds. As for you making more money. There you go, pay more then. You live in NYC? That shouldn't be an excuse. What does that have to do with anything? -sarcasm- Unless.. wait are you saying that the amount of money one makes is not the only factor we should take into account when we determine how much they pay????

[zzentar]

Don't a lot of people work for the fun of it? Warren Buffet is worth billions yet he still works. Does Bill Gates still work? I don't know. Steve Jobs is dead and he still works, that man is committed.

A lot of people have enough money to never have to work another day in their life yet they keep working.

I agree, there are a few of that 1% that do that now, people with a ton of personal goals and such, how many of those do you think would stop at a 90% income tax? I am not really political, I think Libertarian is closest to my values. I think a flat tax is the fairest taxation but that will never happen.

[Warriorbird]

I agree, there are a few of that 1% that do that now, people with a ton of personal goals and such, how many of those do you think would stop at a 90% income tax? I am not really political, I think Libertarian is closest to my values. I think a flat tax is the fairest taxation but that will never happen.

Curiously enough, most of the people who we think of as "Rich people" paid that much and did just fine. The Rockefellers, Jay P Morgan, Andrew Carnegie, Henry Ford and so on.

[zzentar]

I don't make 100k, Jarvan. I don't know what your point is. Also, you remind me of the idiots who say Warren Buffet should cut a check to the IRS if he wants to pay taxes - nevermind that he legally cannot pay more taxes than he owes, it would just be held in lieu of future tax burden, or returned. And yes, I do make more money than the average family of 4 in this country, I also live in NYC, though.

they give instructions on how to donate to the government!!

[Jarvan]

Where are you getting the figure 70-90%? The top earners pay less than the middle class. Middle class pays 35% of their income while upper pays closer to 19% of their income.

Wait.. are you seriously that fucking stupid? Show me where that is in the tax code, would love to see it.

[Jarvan]

The Ryan Budget plan that you lot love reduced capital gains to 1%.

I'll deliver a Seth Myers "Really?" to the idea of you not supporting the Republican Party.

So.. by you lot you are saying me specifically? Since you said.. "as a supporter" that does not mean in general, that is specific.

I don't support them, I don't like the Dem platform, and frankly the Repub one isn't much better right now. Generally, their idea of fiscal conservatism is only growing the government by 5% per year instead of 10-20.

[Parkbandit]

Where are you getting the figure 70-90%? The top earners pay less than the middle class. Middle class pays 35% of their income while upper pays closer to 19% of their income.

And yet, the top 10% pay half of all income taxes.

And I paid 7% tax today on a new drill... and I just got a bill in the mail for 1.75% property tax!

OUTRAGE OUTRAGE OUTRAGE!

[Warriorbird]

So.. by you lot you are saying me specifically? Since you said.. "as a supporter" that does not mean in general, that is specific.

I don't support them, I don't like the Dem platform, and frankly the Repub one isn't much better right now. Generally, their idea of fiscal conservatism is only growing the government by 5% per year instead of 10-20.

Yet you curiously spend time hating Obama and not the Republicans. It might be because the figures are transposed in your head and you don't know where Obama got his first budget from.

Obama, smallest government spender since Eisenhower.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2012/05/24/who-is-the-smallest-government-spender-since-eisenhower-would-you-believe-its-barack-obama/

Eisenhower's granddaughter endorsed him too.

http://susaneisenhower.com/2012/10/29/why-i-am-endorsing-president-barack-obama/

[zzentar]

Where are you getting the figure 70-90%? The top earners pay less than the middle class. Middle class pays 35% of their income while upper pays closer to 19% of their income.

Are you just picking certain things to read?


I came to this country as a child in a poor immigrant family which progressively worked its way up to affluence. My family hit the top tax bracket when I was in high school, long after most of my growing up had ended.

I don't know that i think 90% income tax is reasonable. I certainly think 50% would be. That being said, I don't think 90% was "unbearably unlivable" which is precisely what i said.

We have one of the largest income gaps in the 1st world, and one of the poorest average QoLs in the 1st world. Most of the world manages with a top bracket of 50%+, and on top of that, flourishes. Our rich are definitely fabulously rich, the most well off in the world, the most comfortable, etc. But our average citizen lags well behind most of our fellow G8 countrymen.

And no, I do not think laissez-faire, completely unfettered capitalism has worked.



I hope that helped you find the 70 to 90%.

[msconstrew]

Wait.. are you seriously that fucking stupid? Show me where that is in the tax code, would love to see it.

I doubt that this is in the tax code; he appears to be discussing effective tax rates, which would not be codified in any event.

[Jarvan]

Yet you curiously spend time hating Obama and not the Republicans. It might be because the figures are transposed in your head and you don't know where Obama got his first budget from.

Obama, smallest government spender since Eisenhower.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2012/05/24/who-is-the-smallest-government-spender-since-eisenhower-would-you-believe-its-barack-obama/

Eisenhower's granddaughter endorsed him too.

http://susaneisenhower.com/2012/10/29/why-i-am-endorsing-president-barack-obama/

You know.. when you find an article that you think supports your view... you should try to read everything..



Rick Ungar, Contributor

Writing from the left on politics and policy.

I wonder what that statement next to his picture means... hmmmmm

[Back]

Wait.. are you seriously that fucking stupid? Show me where that is in the tax code, would love to see it.

When you get through with deductions and loopholes its probably even more disparate. While it is true that the total amount paid by the upper income bracket is more than the total paid by the lower income bracket the percentages after tax loopholes isn't the same.

The math isn't hard. Look at your paycheck. Add up all your taxes. Figure out what percentage you pay of your income in taxes. Is it 14% or less? You are doing as well as millionaire Mitt Romney. If it is higher than 14% you are paying more of your income towards taxes than he is.

[Jarvan]

I doubt that this is in the tax code; he appears to be discussing effective tax rates, which would not be codified in any event.

You also I am sure know that the middle class do not pay an effective tax rate of 35%. Please don't try to defend his stupidity.

[msconstrew]

You also I am sure know that the middle class do not pay an effective tax rate of 35%. Please don't try to defend his stupidity.

I wasn't defending anyone or anything. You asked for tax code "proving" what he said, and I merely said that you're not going to find any single piece of tax code proving it because it's an effective rate.

[Warriorbird]

You know.. when you find an article that you think supports your view... you should try to read everything..



Rick Ungar, Contributor

Writing from the left on politics and policy.

I wonder what that statement next to his picture means... hmmmmm

Maybe you could read the numbers. I hear that from Republicans constantly. I also am not so sure that Forbes is a bastion of the radical left.

[Jarvan]

When you get through with deductions and loopholes its probably even more disparate. While it is true that the total amount paid by the upper income bracket is more than the total paid by the lower income bracket the percentages after tax loopholes isn't the same.

The math isn't hard. Look at your paycheck. Add up all your taxes. Figure out what percentage you pay of your income in taxes. Is it 14% or less? You are doing as well as millionaire Mitt Romney. If it is higher than 14% you are paying more of your income towards taxes than he is.


Well.. you do know that Mitt doesn't have Income in the same sense that you or I do, right? You are aware of this, correct?

Also.. Once again, define middle class for me. I am sure you will use a broad stroke brush to do so, but for me, middle class is around 30-50K a year. You find one of those that pays 35% effective rate, and i'll actually vote for Obama.

Also, your math isn't hard part.. if you do that, you will find that millionaires pay a lot more % then you do. You are once again, or maybe like always, confusing different types of earnings. It's ok, I understand how you are easily confused. Go get a cookie and some milk and take a nap before you burst a blood vessel.

[Jarvan]

I wasn't defending anyone or anything. You asked for tax code "proving" what he said, and I merely said that you're not going to find any single piece of tax code proving it because it's an effective rate.

Like I said, a middle class person paying an effective tax rate of 35%... you my dear, are an idiot.

[Tgo01]

Also.. Once again, define middle class for me. I am sure you will use a broad stroke brush to do so, but for me, middle class is around 30-50K a year.

Obama and Democrats define it has someone who makes 200k a year or less.

[Wrathbringer]

http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=50134033n&tag=showDoorFlexGridLeft;flexGridModule

This is a video from CBS Sunday Morning where you're average fiscally ignorant and irresponsible liberal paints the typical Utopian "daddy government" picture as she tells why she's liberal, and then Ben Stein tells why he's conservative. I disagree with Stein's views on balancing the budget, but the reason he's conservative is a good one that cannot be discounted by reasonable people.

[msconstrew]

Like I said, a middle class person paying an effective tax rate of 35%... you my dear, are an idiot.

I don't get it. Why am I an idiot for pointing out that the thing you're asking for simply doesn't exist? Also, don't condescend to me by calling me your "dear". I guarantee I pay a higher effective tax rate than you do, and I am not sitting here bitching about it.

[TheEschaton]

http://www.fms.treas.gov/faq/moretopics_gifts.html

How did you get to be a lawyer and not know how to even research things?

Yes he can cut a check if he wants, and it goes right to general funds. As for you making more money. There you go, pay more then. You live in NYC? That shouldn't be an excuse. What does that have to do with anything? -sarcasm- Unless.. wait are you saying that the amount of money one makes is not the only factor we should take into account when we determine how much they pay????

I am required to live in NYC to hold the particular job I hold. It's not uncommon that you be required to reside in the place you practice, especially in the public sector.

Also, do you know how "gift" status works in the U.S. tax code? I'm not a tax lawyer, but last I checked, they're generally tax exempt. IE, it lowers your tax burden. IE, it's not "paying a higher amount to the government" as your taxable income is offset by the gift. I don't know if this specifically applies to gifts to the government, but a "gift" in U.S. tax circles is different than say, a gift from Santa, who you must still believe comes down the chimney if you can believe the drivel you spout.

[Back]

Well.. you do know that Mitt doesn't have Income in the same sense that you or I do, right? You are aware of this, correct?

Also.. Once again, define middle class for me. I am sure you will use a broad stroke brush to do so, but for me, middle class is around 30-50K a year. You find one of those that pays 35% effective rate, and i'll actually vote for Obama.

Also, your math isn't hard part.. if you do that, you will find that millionaires pay a lot more % then you do. You are once again, or maybe like always, confusing different types of earnings. It's ok, I understand how you are easily confused. Go get a cookie and some milk and take a nap before you burst a blood vessel.

Well truthfully, you would have to look at your adjusted gross income vs. your federal tax paid to see your percentage. But different types of income? C'mon man. Lets stop dicking around and make everyone pay the same percentage on all income.

This thread is about "leeches". If we are going to go apeshit over social programs so a brother can some help when he is down lets also talk about subsidies, tax loopholes, evening out the percentages, and corporate welfare too.

[Jarvan]

Obama and Democrats define it has someone who makes 200k a year or less.

I know what they define it as, and they do so for purely political reasons.

[Parkbandit]

When you get through with deductions and loopholes its probably even more disparate. While it is true that the total amount paid by the upper income bracket is more than the total paid by the lower income bracket the percentages after tax loopholes isn't the same.

The math isn't hard. Look at your paycheck. Add up all your taxes. Figure out what percentage you pay of your income in taxes. Is it 14% or less? You are doing as well as millionaire Mitt Romney. If it is higher than 14% you are paying more of your income towards taxes than he is.

I looked at my Publix tax bill today... I purchased $1000.00 worth of gift certificates and I paid ZERO TAXES which is LESS than Romney!

[Parkbandit]

I don't get it. Why am I an idiot for pointing out that the thing you're asking for simply doesn't exist? Also, don't condescend to me by calling me your "dear". I guarantee I pay a higher effective tax rate than you do, and I am not sitting here bitching about it.

My dear, I'm paying a higher effective tax rate than you are and I am most certainly bitching about it.

But, according to TheE, I must be greedy.

[zzentar]

This has been a very open and fact driven debate over ideas and beliefs, what has happened in the last two hours that we are calling each other names now?

[Jarvan]

Well truthfully, you would have to look at your adjusted gross income vs. your federal tax paid to see your percentage. But different types of income? C'mon man. Lets stop dicking around and make everyone pay the same percentage on all income.

This thread is about "leeches". If we are going to go apeshit over social programs so a brother can some help when he is down lets also talk about subsidies, tax loopholes, evening out the percentages, and corporate welfare too.

Flat tax, sounds good to me.

[TheEschaton]

You are paying the second lowest tax rate for the highest bracket in the history of our country, only beat by the tax rate of the last President, a scant 4 years ago, by, what, 3%? Not only that, it's one of the lowest tax rates for the upper brackets in the 1st world, and the effective tax rate with even half a brain is lower still.

[Jarvan]

I don't get it. Why am I an idiot for pointing out that the thing you're asking for simply doesn't exist? Also, don't condescend to me by calling me your "dear". I guarantee I pay a higher effective tax rate than you do, and I am not sitting here bitching about it.

Well. I pointed out that there is no middle income family in this country paying an effective 35% tax rate. You basically said there was. Hence, your an idiot.

[Tgo01]

Also, do you know how "gift" status works in the U.S. tax code? I'm not a tax lawyer, but last I checked, they're generally tax exempt. IE, it lowers your tax burden. IE, it's not "paying a higher amount to the government" as your taxable income is offset by the gift. I don't know if this specifically applies to gifts to the government, but a "gift" in U.S. tax circles is different than say, a gift from Santa, who you must still believe comes down the chimney if you can believe the drivel you spout.

I've never heard of such a thing but assuming you're right would it offset someone's tax burden to the point where they receive a refund for the government? For example if someone owed 10 million dollars in taxes but wanted to be a true patriot and pay more twice as much in taxes as he's required couldn't he just give them 20 million dollars, his tax would be reduced to zero (which I can't even believe you can offset your taxes by that much via gifting)?

[Tgo01]

This has been a very open and fact driven debate over ideas and beliefs, what has happened in the last two hours that we are calling each other names now?

You're new to the political folder here on the PC aren't you?

[Jarvan]

I am required to live in NYC to hold the particular job I hold. It's not uncommon that you be required to reside in the place you practice, especially in the public sector.

Also, do you know how "gift" status works in the U.S. tax code? I'm not a tax lawyer, but last I checked, they're generally tax exempt. IE, it lowers your tax burden. IE, it's not "paying a higher amount to the government" as your taxable income is offset by the gift. I don't know if this specifically applies to gifts to the government, but a "gift" in U.S. tax circles is different than say, a gift from Santa, who you must still believe comes down the chimney if you can believe the drivel you spout.

So you are saying that Buffet could not send a check to the Government for 1 billion?

[msconstrew]

Well. I pointed out that there is no middle income family in this country paying an effective 35% tax rate. You basically said there was. Hence, your an idiot.

You cited YOUR opinion (based on no evidence, I might add) - an opinion with which I neither agreed nor disagreed. If I had offered an opinion on how the middle class is taxed - which I did not - you might have had a valid basis to call me an idiot. Here, you're just being obstinate and calling me names because you don't like me.

[Warriorbird]

http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=50134033n&tag=showDoorFlexGridLeft;flexGridModule

This is a video from CBS Sunday Morning where you're average fiscally ignorant and irresponsible liberal paints the typical Utopian "daddy government" picture as she tells why she's liberal, and then Ben Stein tells why he's conservative. I disagree with Stein's views on balancing the budget, but the reason he's conservative is a good one that cannot be discounted by reasonable people.

To make money from conservatives on DVD sales? Or for the lulz? The second is indeed an acceptable reason.

[msconstrew]

I've never heard of such a thing but assuming you're right would it offset someone's tax burden to the point where they receive a refund for the government? For example if someone owed 10 million dollars in taxes but wanted to be a true patriot and pay more twice as much in taxes as he's required couldn't he just give them 20 million dollars, his tax would be reduced to zero (which I can't even believe you can offset your taxes by that much via gifting)?

Check out IRS Publication 526 for the answer to this question.

http://www.irs.gov/publications/p526/ar02.html#en_US_2011_publink1000229802

There is a limit on the amount you can deduct based on your AGI. So, no, you could not eliminate your tax burden completely.

[TheEschaton]

I've never heard of such a thing but assuming you're right would it offset someone's tax burden to the point where they receive a refund for the government? For example if someone owed 10 million dollars in taxes but wanted to be a true patriot and pay more twice as much in taxes as he's required couldn't he just give them 20 million dollars, his tax would be reduced to zero (which I can't even believe you can offset your taxes by that much via gifting)?

Again, I'm not a tax lawyer, and you don't generally get people giving 200% of what they owed, but in terms of gifts (as opposed to overpaying SSI or whatever, where you get refunds) I think it would probably be considered a tax credit which could be applied to future years. Same for Jarvan's 1bn check from Warren Buffet. I don't think there's a way for IRS to just accept the extra 10 million and not have it confer some benefit to the giver - if it's not codified as a way to literally be a gift in the non-legal sense, they have no other way to address it except as a credit, I imagine. I'm pretty sure their heads would explode.

[Jarvan]

You cited YOUR opinion (based on no evidence, I might add) - an opinion with which I neither agreed nor disagreed. If I had offered an opinion on how the middle class is taxed - which I did not - you might have had a valid basis to call me an idiot. Here, you're just being obstinate and calling me names because you don't like me.

No, I stated it is not possible for a middle tax family to have an effective tax rate of 35%. It is purely not possible. Period. End of story. It's not an opinion.

33% on taxable income over $212,300 to $379,150, filled jointly..

33% on taxable income over $174,400 to $379,150, filled single..

Now, the base tax rate starts at 33% at the highest for the so called middle class.. how is it going to effectively going to go up?

So.. once again.. how exactly is it MY OPINION that there is no middle income family paying a 35% effective tax rate and I wanted him to find proof of one?

[Jarvan]

Again, I'm not a tax lawyer, and you don't generally get people giving 200% of what they owed, but in terms of gifts (as opposed to overpaying SSI or whatever, where you get refunds) I think it would probably be considered a tax credit which could be applied to future years. Same for Jarvan's 1bn check from Warren Buffet. I don't think there's a way for IRS to just accept the extra 10 million and not have it confer some benefit to the giver - if it's not codified as a way to literally be a gift in the non-legal sense, they have no other way to address it except as a credit, I imagine. I'm pretty sure their heads would explode.

Well, it's been in place since 1863.. I am sure if one of us researched it we would see that it is in fact possible to "gift" monies to the Government above and beyond a person's tax burden.

[zzentar]

Let me help, here is directions to donate to debt:

http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/gift/gift.htm

I am truly interested, tell me how much you all have donated. This deserves a new thread.

[Valthissa]

Well, it's been in place since 1863.. I am sure if one of us researched it we would see that it is in fact possible to "gift" monies to the Government above and beyond a person's tax burden.

I agree with both you and TheE.

One can donate to the US Treasury and the gift does confer a benefit - it is tax deductable (if you itemize)

C

[Jarvan]

I agree with both you and TheE.

One can donate to the US Treasury and the gift does confer a benefit - it is tax deductable (if you itemize)

C

Being tax deductible doesn't mean tho that it applies to future obligations as E infers. If you owe 10 million in taxes, and gift 1 billion, even if it were possible to wipe out the 10 million, does it matter.. you gave 1 billion.

[msconstrew]

Being tax deductible doesn't mean tho that it applies to future obligations as E infers. If you owe 10 million in taxes, and gift 1 billion, even if it were possible to wipe out the 10 million, does it matter.. you gave 1 billion.

Actually the ability to carry forward tax deductions is one of the better-known devices for ensuring you have deductions available to you in "fat" years where you make a lot of profit but do not have sufficient deductions. It is commonly referred to as a Net Operating Loss Carry Forward, and there is also a Net Operating Loss Carry Back, which can be applied to previous tax years.

I believe, however, that these can only be used in a business context and not personal, but I'm not 100% sure about it.

[Warriorbird]

Let me help, here is directions to donate to debt:

http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/gift/gift.htm

I am truly interested, tell me how much you all have donated. This deserves a new thread.

Technically we all have.

[Jarvan]

Actually the ability to carry forward tax deductions is one of the better-known devices for ensuring you have deductions available to you in "fat" years where you make a lot of profit but do not have sufficient deductions. It is commonly referred to as a Net Operating Loss Carry Forward, and there is also a Net Operating Loss Carry Back, which can be applied to previous tax years.

I believe, however, that these can only be used in a business context and not personal, but I'm not 100% sure about it.

Well, you can apply any returns from your current year towards your next year. But that's not what the Gift is. I seriously doubt, tho if I have to I will look into it, that if Buffet gave 1 billion as a gift, he would wipe out say.. 100 years of future taxes.

Know what I find the funniest.. Buffet who just loves to pay more in taxes.. has taken many steps to ensure that when he finally dies, the Government gets as little of his money as possible.

I wonder why that is.

[zzentar]

Technically we all have.

ok that made me chuckle

[msconstrew]

Well, you can apply any returns from your current year towards your next year. But that's not what the Gift is. I seriously doubt, tho if I have to I will look into it, that if Buffet gave 1 billion as a gift, he would wipe out say.. 100 years of future taxes.

Know what I find the funniest.. Buffet who just loves to pay more in taxes.. has taken many steps to ensure that when he finally dies, the Government gets as little of his money as possible.

I wonder why that is.

I answered this question above, actually. You cannot completely eliminate your tax burden no matter how much you give to the government. The most you can eliminate is 50%, and that's dependent on your AGI.

I don't know why taking advantage of tax laws, which is Buffett's right, is inconsistent with his position that he thinks "the rich" (whatever that means) should have more of a tax burden than the middle class. I understand the point you're trying to make; I just don't think it's logical.

It's totally reasonable for Buffett to take advantage of existing tax code and loopholes to minimize his tax burden. Not doing so would be stupid. I think "the rich" should be taxed more, but I still take advantage of the tax benefits available to me because I do want to minimize my burden. I think Buffett's point is that those loopholes shouldn't exist in the first place and that he should have to pay his "fair share", whatever that means.

[Jarvan]

I answered this question above, actually. You cannot completely eliminate your tax burden no matter how much you give to the government. The most you can eliminate is 50%, and that's dependent on your AGI.

I don't know why taking advantage of tax laws, which is Buffett's right, is inconsistent with his position that he thinks "the rich" (whatever that means) should have more of a tax burden than the middle class. I understand the point you're trying to make; I just don't think it's logical.

It's totally reasonable for Buffett to take advantage of existing tax code and loopholes to minimize his tax burden. Not doing so would be stupid. I think "the rich" should be taxed more, but I still take advantage of the tax benefits available to me because I do want to minimize my burden. I think Buffett's point is that those loopholes shouldn't exist in the first place and that he should have to pay his "fair share", whatever that means.

Except, according to TheE, which started this part of the debate.. is that it is Morally wrong to do so. That we should be willing to pay more in taxes. Buffet by not being willing to pay more in taxes is showing how immoral he is. Along with pretty much every other person in this country, including everyone in this thread really.

Basically Constrew.. if you do not pay what TheE thinks is right, you are immoral and greedy. Buffet is not paying it, he is immoral and greedy. You I am sure are not paying it, hence, you are also immoral and greedy. TheE doesn't pay it either, go figure.

[msconstrew]

Except, according to TheE, which started this part of the debate.. is that it is Morally wrong to do so. That we should be willing to pay more in taxes. Buffet by not being willing to pay more in taxes is showing how immoral he is. Along with pretty much every other person in this country, including everyone in this thread really.

Basically Constrew.. if you do not pay what TheE thinks is right, you are immoral and greedy. Buffet is not paying it, he is immoral and greedy. You I am sure are not paying it, hence, you are also immoral and greedy. TheE doesn't pay it either, go figure.

No question: I am immoral and greedy, but that has nothing to do with my willingness or unwillingness to take advantage of the tax code.

[TheEschaton]

No one is saying that you can't make gifts to the government. What *I* am saying is that a gift, as per defined in tax code, is different from like, a birthday gift.

[Methais]

(3) Although there are lots of people who don't pay federal income tax, they still contribute monetarily to the government via state income tax, sales tax, excise taxes.

Someone paying sales tax on something they buy with their welfare money doesn't count.

[Warriorbird]

Someone paying sales tax on something they buy with their welfare money doesn't count.

A section he neglected was payroll tax. You and Rocktar and lovers of the Reagan 1980's "welfare queen" meme love to play this like the 47% is made up of people indiscriminately spending welfare checks. It isn't.

It makes you feel good when you feel like you can blame your own difficulties on someone else.

[Jarvan]

A section he neglected was payroll tax. You and Rocktar and lovers of the Reagan 1980's "welfare queen" meme love to play this like the 47% is made up of people indiscriminately spending welfare checks. It isn't.

It makes you feel good when you feel like you can blame your own difficulties on someone else.

Well, I haven't talked about payroll taxes at all in this thread really. But sure, lets talk about them.

What did Obama do in 2010.. decrease SS payroll taxes.

of course he didn't reduce how much SS pays.. so.. it will just go bankrupt sooner. But it was only for a year right? To help the economy? Yes.. then he decided to extend it, and called republicans evil for not wanting to. Claiming they wanted to raise taxes on the middle class.

So they ended it in 2011 right? Nope.. sorry. Still going on. What has he been claiming now? Oh, that we can't end it NOW.. otherwise we will be raising taxes on the middle class.

Basically, he want's a perm 2% reduction in SS taxes. Costing SS over 105 billion a year. making it insolvent even faster. Since it is already Paying out More then it takes in.

SS, unless you die young, is basically government welfare. Yes you pay in, but you get out way more then you pay in on average. Now Obama and the dems don't even want you to pay in as much. Go figure.

[Warriorbird]

Well, I haven't talked about payroll taxes at all in this thread really. But sure, lets talk about them.

What did Obama do in 2010.. decrease SS payroll taxes.

of course he didn't reduce how much SS pays.. so.. it will just go bankrupt sooner. But it was only for a year right? To help the economy? Yes.. then he decided to extend it, and called republicans evil for not wanting to. Claiming they wanted to raise taxes on the middle class.

So they ended it in 2011 right? Nope.. sorry. Still going on. What has he been claiming now? Oh, that we can't end it NOW.. otherwise we will be raising taxes on the middle class.

Basically, he want's a perm 2% reduction in SS taxes. Costing SS over 105 billion a year. making it insolvent even faster. Since it is already Paying out More then it takes in.

SS, unless you die young, is basically government welfare. Yes you pay in, but you get out way more then you pay in on average. Now Obama and the dems don't even want you to pay in as much. Go figure.

The sheer amount of wrong in this is staggering.

[Jarvan]

The sheer amount of wrong in this is staggering.

Which part is wrong? the fact that he put into place a temporary payroll tax cut, that he now want's to make perm, without reducing benefits? or the fact that if you pay in say 100k, and receive 200k you are in fact receiving something for nothing? Actually, I think we should be taxes on the income we make off of SS, if we wanted to be fair. Tax it like investment income.

[4a6c1]

I think people that don't pay taxes should only be considered 2/3rds of a person. Just to be safe we should put this in the Constitution. Liberty and Justice for all (that can afford it)!!!

[Warriorbird]

I think people that don't pay taxes should only be considered 2/3rds of a person. Just to be safe we should put this in the Constitution. Liberty and Justice for all (that can afford it)!!!

Why not take it to the level they really want and make them 3/5ths of a person? It's already in there.


Which part is wrong? the fact that he put into place a temporary payroll tax cut, that he now want's to make perm, without reducing benefits? or the fact that if you pay in say 100k, and receive 200k you are in fact receiving something for nothing? Actually, I think we should be taxes on the income we make off of SS, if we wanted to be fair. Tax it like investment income.

If you don't see it.

[Valthissa]

Why not take it to the level they really want and make them 3/5ths of a person? It's already in there.

Based on what you think you are saying, you don't understand the great compromise.

C

(the great compromise (or Connecticut as you say below) led directly to the 3/5th compromise which I remembered after I went to bed...but the 3/5th compromise did, in fact, dilute the political power of slave states. I just don't like when some modernists confuse the '3/5ths of a person' as if that was something put in by the slave states)

[Jarvan]

Why not take it to the level they really want and make them 3/5ths of a person? It's already in there.



If you don't see it.

So far, I have only seen one person in this entire thread that claimed they agreed with this threads original statement.

So who are these "They" you are referring to?

[Jarvan]

Based on what you think you are saying, you don't understand the great compromise.

C

Val, there are lots of things WB don't understand.

[Warriorbird]

Based on what you think you are saying, you don't understand the great compromise.

C

Based on what you're saying (and given your generation, you guys usually know your history and government (apart from PB)) you don't understand it either (hint - bicameral legislature) and you don't understand what I'm saying.

[Parkbandit]

Based on what you're saying (and given your generation, you guys usually know your history and government (apart from PB)) you don't understand it either (hint - bicameral legislature) and you don't understand what I'm saying.

You're as clueless as they come, kid.

I don't blame you for your ignorance though.. I blame GW Bush.. and his "No Child Left Behind" rhetoric. You clearly were left far behind.

[Warriorbird]

You're as clueless as they come, child.

I know the difference between the Connecticut Plan which joined the Virginia and New Jersey Plans and became the Great Compromise and the 3/5ths Compromise. Rocktar's suggestion of the removal of citizenship from people who receive any government benefits certainly edges closer to slavery. I wouldn't expect you to have put any of that together.

[Showal]

When I am not high on painkillers, I will certainly revisit this thread to enjoy Jarvan's insight.

[msconstrew]

When I am not high on painkillers, I will certainly revisit this thread to enjoy Jarvan's insight.

You're gonna learn so, so much.

[Warriorbird]

When I am not high on painkillers, I will certainly revisit this thread to enjoy Jarvan's insight.

It might help. George Bush Sr. took his Halcyon with Scotch.

[Warriorbird]

I don't blame you for your ignorance though.. I blame GW Bush.. and his "No Child Left Behind" rhetoric. You clearly were left far behind.

Says the person who didn't quite understand what party made the Civil Rights Acts.

[Showal]

It might help. George Bush Sr. took his Halcyon with Scotch.

OMG bush liked birds too?

[Parkbandit]

I know the difference between the Connecticut Plan which joined the Virginia and New Jersey Plans and became the Great Compromise and the 3/5ths Compromise. Rocktar's suggestion of the removal of citizenship from people who receive any government benefits certainly edges closer to slavery. I wouldn't expect you to have put any of that together.

Sure kid. You just Googled it up after being called out for your typical stupidity and then claim "I knew it all along.. it's Rocktar's fault I used it in a retarded manner.. blame him!"

[Parkbandit]

Says the person who didn't quite understand what party made the Civil Rights Acts.

You are the one that is working off revisionist history, kid.

[Showal]

Sure kid. You just Googled it up after being called out for your typical stupidity and then claim "I knew it all along.. it's Rocktar's fault I used it in a retarded manner.. blame him!"

Boys ... Say you're sorry.

[Parkbandit]

Boys ... Say you're sorry.

I'm sorry Warriorbird is a fucking retard

[4a6c1]

http://macromeme.com/cat/oh-he-mad.jpg

[Warriorbird]

You are the one that is working off revisionist history, kid.

You're an idiot.

The Great Compromise created the House and the Senate. (Valthissa got it mixed up with the 3/5 compromise, which was used to determine House representation for slaves)
The Democratic Party created the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Voting Rights Act, and the Civil Rights Act of 1968.

But, then again, given some of the things that Mitt Romney has argued this election cycle I guess it doesn't surprise me that you want to claim this is "revisionist history." The sad bit is you were alive for the second part.

I'm sorry he's an idiot, Showal. To their credit, like I said before, you usually can assume old people know some history.

[Jarvan]

You're an idiot.

The Great Compromise created the House and the Senate. (Valthissa got it mixed up with the 3/5 compromise, which was used to determine House representation for slaves)
The Democratic Party created the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Voting Rights Act, and the Civil Rights Act of 1968.

But, then again, given some of the things that Mitt Romney has argued this election cycle I guess it doesn't surprise me that you want to claim this is "revisionist history." The sad bit is you were alive for the second part.

I'm sorry he's an idiot, Showal. To their credit, like I said before, you usually can assume old people know some history.

Kinda like how the Dems also basically killed the Civil rights act of 1957... so the same person that basically killed it could then be hailed as the man to pass it 7 years later when he was president?

Sad how you look at specific pieces of history only.

[TheEschaton]

Ummm, killed the Civil Rights Act of 1957? Last I checked, it passed., much to Strom Thurmond's dismay (who was then a Democrat).

Of course, if you're referring to Southern Democrats gutting the bill in committee, well then, I suppose you might have to wonder what happened between 1957 and 1964. Oh yeah, those same Southern Democrats started defecting and joining the Republican party. LBJ gutted it to appease the Southern Democrats and not tear up the Democratic Party....he failed on both counts, but you know? We're better off for it. It allowed his new Democratic Party to pass the bill 7 years later.

[Jarvan]

Ummm, killed the Civil Rights Act of 1957? Last I checked, it passed., much to Strom Thurmond's dismay (who was then a Democrat).

Of course, if you're referring to Southern Democrats gutting the bill in committee, well then, I suppose you might have to wonder what happened between 1957 and 1964. Oh yeah, those same Southern Democrats started defecting and joining the Republican party. LBJ gutted it to appease the Southern Democrats and not tear up the Democratic Party....he failed on both counts, but you know? We're better off for it. It allowed his new Democratic Party to pass the bill 7 years later.

So basically what your saying is yes LBJ gutted the bill. Good to know you will admit to something.

[Jarvan]

Curiously enough, most of the people who we think of as "Rich people" paid that much and did just fine. The Rockefellers, Jay P Morgan, Andrew Carnegie, Henry Ford and so on.

Btw.. I love how you used people that pretty much all attained their wealth well before the top tax rate ever came close to 70%. 1917 the top tax rate was 67%, and that was for income of 35 million a year. Prior to that it was 15%, when the current tax code was introduced in 1913 it was 7%. Prior to THAT it was 2% over 400$ in 1894. Before that (1862) rate was 5% over 10k and 3% over 600.

So, how exactly did these people pay 70% tax rate and do just fine?

It's good you have been watching the History channel's "The Men who Built America".

To bad you didn't look into how much taxes where during those time periods though.

[Stanley Burrell]

It would be kind of cool if the ghost of Plunkitt just stopped by this thread and went, like, "Nyah, see?" Then motherfucking old hickory would rise up from the grave and be all like, "Let them enforce it."

I know I'm fairly liberal but that would be some dope shit in my opinion. Sorry for the diarrhea.

[Showal]

It would be kind of cool if the ghost of Plunkitt just stopped by this thread and went, like, "Nyah, see?" Then motherfucking old hickory would rise up from the grave and be all like, "Let them enforce it."

I know I'm fairly liberal but that would be some dope shit in my opinion. Sorry for the diarrhea.

You are the one that is working off revisionist history, kid.

[Showal]

Btw.. I love how you used people that pretty much all attained their wealth well before the top tax rate ever came close to 70%. 1917 the top tax rate was 67%, and that was for income of 35 million a year. Prior to that it was 15%, when the current tax code was introduced in 1913 it was 7%. Prior to THAT it was 2% over 400$ in 1894. Before that (1862) rate was 5% over 10k and 3% over 600.

So, how exactly did these people pay 70% tax rate and do just fine?

It's good you have been watching the History channel's "The Men who Built America".

To bad you didn't look into how much taxes where during those time periods though.

You actually made a somewhat decent point! It makes me wonder if I should re read some of your other posts, but then I realize you will go all Donnie/FK and get way ahead of yourself. And I have reread a lot of your post and they are just incoherent nonsense.

[Warriorbird]

Btw.. I love how you used people that pretty much all attained their wealth well before the top tax rate ever came close to 70%. 1917 the top tax rate was 67%, and that was for income of 35 million a year. Prior to that it was 15%, when the current tax code was introduced in 1913 it was 7%. Prior to THAT it was 2% over 400$ in 1894. Before that (1862) rate was 5% over 10k and 3% over 600.

So, how exactly did these people pay 70% tax rate and do just fine?

It's good you have been watching the History channel's "The Men who Built America".

To bad you didn't look into how much taxes where during those time periods though.

You're sadly missing a couple of things that you also know and a couple that you don't. It's fascinating.

[Jarvan]

You're sadly missing a couple of things that you also know and a couple that you don't. It's fascinating.

As for things I don't know, there are a lot of those, and as for things I do. There are tons of those as well. Since you didn't point them out though, I will take that as you have none.
Or I wrong that taxes were so low during this period that they practically didn't exist?

Or are you just covering the fact that you used very bad examples of people that amassed vast wealth during a period where 70%+ tax rate was in effect? Since the obviously didn't.

[Jarvan]

You actually made a somewhat decent point! It makes me wonder if I should re read some of your other posts, but then I realize you will go all Donnie/FK and get way ahead of yourself. And I have reread a lot of your post and they are just incoherent nonsense.

That's ok Showal.

Even I can be right once, even on Purpose!

[Showal]

That's ok Showal.

Even I can be right once, even on Purpose!

Rarely with capital letters though.

[Methais]

A section he neglected was payroll tax. You and Rocktar and lovers of the Reagan 1980's "welfare queen" meme love to play this like the 47% is made up of people indiscriminately spending welfare checks. It isn't.

It makes you feel good when you feel like you can blame your own difficulties on someone else.

What difficulties of mine am I blaming on someone else? I see welfare queens every single day abusing the system. Just because you like to pretend it doesn't exist doesn't make it so.

Also please point out where anyone stated that the 47% is made up of people indiscriminately spending welfare checks.

I know you're upset that Obama is about to get tubgirled in his goatsehole next week and his lemonparty will be over, but it still doesn't justify the hyperbole that 85% of 99% of your posts are made of, as much as you may wish that it does.

[msconstrew]

I see welfare queens every single day abusing the system.

Where?

[Jarvan]

Where?

Well, I certainly see one.

My neighbor is a single mother at 27 with 5 kids. All different fathers. She has never worked a day in her life, and says why should she bother, since she gets paid by the government and the baby daddies to stay and home and try to have more.

[Showal]

Well, I certainly see one.

My neighbor is a single mother at 27 with 5 kids. All different fathers. She has never worked a day in her life, and says why should she bother, since she gets paid by the government and the baby daddies to stay and home and try to have more.

I dont think she has ever said that to you.

[Back]

I know you're upset that Obama is about to get tubgirled in his goatsehole next week and his lemonparty will be over, but it still doesn't justify the hyperbole that 85% of 99% of your posts are made of, as much as you may wish that it does.

Repped for awesome use of sexually deviant internet meme references. Stay classy, Meth, stay classy.

[Methais]

Where?

You're asking this as if it doesn't happen, and I'm just making it up, correct?

You can start with Walmart, and that's before you factor in food stamps. Or the people who sell their food stamps and buy booze, smokes, TVs, lap dances, etc. with the money that they load up into their expensive SUV with a tricked out stereo system and expensive rims. That's not just shit you read about in some random post on the Internet. I've seen it with my own eyes, far too many times.

In case you're going to ask for video evidence next, I shall decline.

I will admit that I don't see it every single day though. But that's mostly because I don't go to places like Walmart every single day.

[Methais]

Repped for awesome use of sexually deviant internet meme references. Stay classy, Meth, stay classy.

It's a requirement for the Internet.

[Warriorbird]

What difficulties of mine am I blaming on someone else? I see welfare queens every single day abusing the system. Just because you like to pretend it doesn't exist doesn't make it so.

Also please point out where anyone stated that the 47% is made up of people indiscriminately spending welfare checks.

I know you're upset that Obama is about to get tubgirled in his goatsehole next week and his lemonparty will be over, but it still doesn't justify the hyperbole that 85% of 99% of your posts are made of, as much as you may wish that it does.

I love how you personally can judge who's a "welfare queen" and who isn't.

As to your second point, please refer to the actual thread into from Rocktar.

And a question: If Obama is this ultimate evil you claim him to be (rather than a sort of stodgy centrist Democrat) why is Romney not winning more convincingly?

[msconstrew]

You're asking this as if it doesn't happen, and I'm just making it up, correct?

You can start with Walmart, and that's before you factor in food stamps. Or the people who sell their food stamps and buy booze, smokes, TVs, lap dances, etc. with the money that they load up into their expensive SUV with a tricked out stereo system and expensive rims. That's not just shit you read about in some random post on the Internet. I've seen it with my own eyes, far too many times.

In case you're going to ask for video evidence next, I shall decline.

I will admit that I don't see it every single day though. But that's mostly because I don't go to places like Walmart every single day.

No, I am asking you because the way you stated it made it sound like you worked for SSDI and saw people who are using welfare benefits or SSDI benefits every day.

Also, "start[ing] with Walmart" is not evidence that supports your point.

So, you said you've "seen it with your own eyes, far too many times." Where? When? How do you know they were on welfare? What evidence do you have that the people you saw received social welfare benefits?

[Warriorbird]

Well, I certainly see one.

My neighbor is a single mother at 27 with 5 kids. All different fathers. She has never worked a day in her life, and says why should she bother, since she gets paid by the government and the baby daddies to stay and home and try to have more.

This sounds really convenient.

[Warriorbird]

No, I am asking you because the way you stated it made it sound like you worked for SSDI and saw people who are using welfare benefits or SSDI benefits every day.

Also, "start[ing] with Walmart" is not evidence that supports your point.

So, you said you've "seen it with your own eyes, far too many times." Where? When? How do you know they were on welfare? What evidence do you have that the people you saw received social welfare benefits?

Zero. It might mean his post is, wait for it, hyperbole?

[msconstrew]

Zero. It might mean his post is, wait for it, hyperbole?

You know me well enough to know that I am familiar with the concept of dramatics and hyperbole; I just don't think they are effective vehicles for a political discussion ... though they certainly DO have the effect of preventing anyone from dealing with pesky things like facts or evidence.

[Jarvan]

I dont think she has ever said that to you.

LOL, actually, she has. She is a very loud drunk.

[Warriorbird]

LOL, actually, she has. She is a very loud drunk.

Penthouse Letters: The Republican Wish Fulfillment Edition

[Methais]

Also, "start[ing] with Walmart" is not evidence that supports your point.

Really? So seeing someone pay for $300 worth of groceries with food stamps, and in the next cart they have a new 50" TV that they're paying cash for and transporting it all home in a nice shiny expensive vehicle doesn't count? Shit like that is what I see more than anything. But I guess since you didn't also see it, it must not have happened and I'm just making it up.

I'd also point out that sometimes, though fairly rare, all you have to do is just stand in line and listen to some of these peoples' conversations where they pretty much brag about their food stamps in a similar fashion, though nowhere near the level obnoxiousness, of Obamaphone lady, but then I suppose you'd require me to bug the place and report back to you with audio evidence.


Zero. It might mean his post is, wait for it, hyperbole?

Incorrect.

Do I think the majority of people on welfare are like that? No. Are there still a fuckload of people on welfare that are like that? Yes.

HYPERBOLE!!!!!!


Penthouse Letters: The Republican Wish Fulfillment Edition

If you dismiss something enough, it will one day magically become untrue. Right?

[Warriorbird]

I love how you neglected Rocktar saying that this was all of the 47%. Thanks for the backtracking.


Incorrect.

Do I think the majority of people on welfare are like that? No. Are there still a fuckload of people on welfare that are like that? Yes.

HYPERBOLE!!!!!!

That's actually a logical fallacy.

[Parkbandit]

I love how you personally can judge who's a "welfare queen" and who isn't.

As to your second point, please refer to the actual thread into from Rocktar.

And a question: If Obama is this ultimate evil you claim him to be (rather than a sort of stodgy centrist Democrat) why is Romney not winning more convincingly?

Where did he claim Obama is the ultimate evil?

And I also didn't realize the election is over. Good to know you already have come to gripes with Romney winning.. albeit not "convincingly" enough for you to legitimize it.

[Jarvan]

This sounds really convenient.

Really doesn't matter what you think. I could post a link to a signed affidavit and a youtube video of her claiming it and you would still call it a lie. Believe what you want.

[Jarvan]

Where did he claim Obama is the ultimate evil?

And I also didn't realize the election is over. Good to know you already have come to gripes with Romney winning.. albeit not "convincingly" enough for you to legitimize it.

Don't forget the whole stodgy centrist Democrat. Obama is about as close to a centrist as Romney is to being a right wing fanatic.

[Warriorbird]

Really doesn't matter what you think. I could post a link to a signed affidavit and a youtube video of her claiming it and you would still call it a lie. Believe what you want.

Funny, that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashley_Todd_mugging_hoax

http://dailycaller.com/2012/10/30/gay-republican-volunteer-invented-bias-attack/

[Warriorbird]

Where did he claim Obama is the ultimate evil?

And I also didn't realize the election is over. Good to know you already have come to gripes with Romney winning.. albeit not "convincingly" enough for you to legitimize it.

I didn't say the election was over at all. I merely referred to current Real Clear Politics polling. I figured you'd accept it from a Republican biased source.

[Warriorbird]

Don't forget the whole stodgy centrist Democrat. Obama is about as close to a centrist as Romney is to being a right wing fanatic.

If only it were true.


The Democratic incumbent has surrounded himself with conservative advisors and key figures — many from previous administrations, and an unprecedented number from the Trilateral Commission. He also appointed a former Monsanto executive as Senior Advisor to the FDA. He has extended Bush tax cuts for the wealthy, presided over a spiralling rich-poor gap and sacrificed further American jobs with recent free trade deals. Trade union rights have also eroded under his watch. He has expanded Bush defence spending, droned civilians, failed to close Guantanamo, supported the NDAA which effectively legalises martial law, allowed drilling and adopted a soft-touch position towards the banks that is to the right of European Conservative leaders. Taking office during the financial meltdown, Obama appointed its principle architects to top economic positions. We list these because many of Obama's detractors absurdly portray him as either a radical liberal or a socialist, while his apologists, equally absurdly, continue to view him as a well-intentioned progressive, tragically thwarted by overwhelming pressures. 2008's yes-we-can chanters, dazzled by pigment rather than policy detail, forgot to ask can what? Between 1998 and the last election, Obama amassed $37.6million from the financial services industry, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. While 2008 presidential candidate Obama appeared to champion universal health care, his first choice for Secretary of Health was a man who had spent years lobbying on behalf of the pharmaceutical industry against that very concept. Hey! You don't promise a successful pub, and then appoint the Salvation Army to run it. This time around, the honey-tongued President makes populist references to economic justice, while simultaneously appointing as his new Chief of Staff a former Citigroup executive concerned with hedge funds that bet on the housing market to collapse.

[Jarvan]

Funny, that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashley_Todd_mugging_hoax

http://dailycaller.com/2012/10/30/gay-republican-volunteer-invented-bias-attack/

This has what to do with anything?

Also, is this kinda like that Liberal that shot up Obama's Chicago campaign office? So the Media would blame it on a conservative?

[Jarvan]

If only it were true.

So what your saying is Obama is more centrist then Clinton after the midterms during his first term?

Are you seriously saying Obama is a centrist? You know, you could possible have a career as a comedian.. but you're not that funny.

[crb]

Obama is a funny fellow. He isn't a centrist, but he isn't fully left wing either. He is to the right of Ron Paul on foreign policy.

He is actually very similar to a Bush 2.0, ironically.

Where he is far left wing though is on economic issues, and that is where it matters. He is an arrogant statist. He believes the smarts of a few plutocrats outweighs the intelligence of an organic marketplace. He sees a top down command and control economy. And of course he doesn't understand how the economy works, which is why he doesn't get that all the regulatory uncertainty he creates is why the recovery is so morose.

But most of all, Obama is the worst kind of politician. Though he has tried an odd strategy of getting there, by claiming he is the exact opposite of what he is. He has no leadership skill, no ability to negotiate, or to work really, he hasn't worked in the private sector and it shows. He phones it in and tries to coast, buoyed by the arrogance that he is right, but also benevolent, and others should be happy to merely be pandered too by his greatness. We should be so lucky to have him. He wrote two autobiographies before he was 40, ultimately he believes he has the midas touch and has no backup plan when the seas don't part, er recede, with a wave of his hands. Meanwhile, he lies with a smile, schmoozes, rewards favors to the politically connected, and uses the power of his office to enrich his allies and friends. He does this all while, since he is incapable of working legislatively, vastly increasing the power of the Federal Government in ways GWB never dreamed, while also simultaneously undermining the rule of law. Whether it be rewriting bankruptcy law or using appropriated for one reason for another, ignoring law by executive order, refusing to prosecute or investigate the crimes of supporters, or stone walling the press when they seek information from the "most transparent administration ever." That transparency died somewhere with cutting the deficit in half and doing immigration reform.

True liberals have plenty of reason to hate Obama, he is like GWB is many of the worst ways. Partisans will always adore him, but more principled (but of course still wrong) lefties do have legitimate gripes with him.

But don't confuse talking points with facts. Obama is NOT on the right on energy policy. He may have failed to get cap and trade through, because again he couldn't lead you out of a hallway, but he is not on the right on energy policy. Despite his rhetoric he has cut oil and gas leases, he defied a federal judge with his drilling moratorium, he has made no meaningful steps to open up any new areas. He punted on keystone. His DEA has been trying to destroy coal, and he has them sniffing around fracking now as well. Obama has not been able to push the green agenda legislatively, because he has the leadership ability of a lemming, but he has done a lot executively.

[Warriorbird]

So what your saying is Obama is more centrist then Clinton after the midterms during his first term?

Are you seriously saying Obama is a centrist? You know, you could possible have a career as a comedian.. but you're not that funny.

I wasn't suggesting it, a number of respected political scientists were.

RE: the financial industry he's far to the right of Clinton.

[Methais]

I love how you neglected Rocktar saying that this was all of the 47%. Thanks for the backtracking.



That's actually a logical fallacy.

I love how you neglected my entire post, and instead decided to focus on that.

I'll address it anyway:
http://forum.gsplayers.com/showthread.php?75190-U-S-ambassador-to-Libya-killed-in-Benghazi-attack&p=1468050#post1468050


Where did he claim Obama is the ultimate evil?

Obama is the ultimate evil.

Do we still do italics here?

[Parkbandit]

I didn't say the election was over at all. I merely referred to current Real Clear Politics polling. I figured you'd accept it from a Republican biased source.

You understand what the Real Clear Politics polling average is, right?

Key word.. average.

Keep on herpin and derpin...

[Warriorbird]

You understand what the Real Clear Politics polling average is, right?

Key word.. average.

Keep on herpin and derpin...

The single most accurate poll of the last election, yes.

[Parkbandit]

The single most accurate poll of the last election, yes.

Incorrect.

2 for a dollar?

Clue: I gave you the answer... it's after the words "key word"..

Come on.. you can do it...

[Showal]

You understand what the Real Clear Politics polling average is, right?

Key word.. average.

Keep on herpin and derpin...

Ermagherd! Average!

[Jarvan]

Incorrect.

2 for a dollar?

Clue: I gave you the answer... it's after the words "key word"..

Come on.. you can do it...

If you're waiting for WB to admit you are right, or that he is wrong, you are more likely to see the heat death of the universe.

[Showal]

Lol i get it because we're not likely to see heat death lolol

[~Rocktar~]

I love how you neglected Rocktar saying that this was all of the 47%.

Care to show where I said all of the 47% are complete leeches and have never contributed to society in any way? Care to show where the author of the piece I linked did?

I didn't think so, so please, shut the fuck up with your exaggeration of what I said to suit your distraction purposes. It continues to amaze me how skillfully you mange not to say anything of value, post almost nothing but distractions and false statements and yet still manage to get the level of genuine replies you do. Smoke and mirrors only goes so far and no matter how much you wish it were not true, the Socialist financial house of cards is falling and I hope you survive it to understand just how wrong and harmful it has been.

[Warriorbird]

Care to show where I said all of the 47% are complete leeches and have never contributed to society in any way? Care to show where the author of the piece I linked did?

I didn't think so, so please, shut the fuck up with your exaggeration of what I said to suit your distraction purposes. It continues to amaze me how skillfully you mange not to say anything of value, post almost nothing but distractions and false statements and yet still manage to get the level of genuine replies you do. Smoke and mirrors only goes so far and no matter how much you wish it were not true, the Socialist financial house of cards is falling and I hope you survive it to understand just how wrong and harmful it has been.

Maybe it has something to do with how I don't suggest that "Maybe 25%" of American citizens lose the right to vote. If we're even to take your numbers as just that, that's 77 million people.

[~Rocktar~]

Maybe it has something to do with how I don't suggest that "Maybe 25%" of American citizens lose the right to vote. If we're even to take your numbers as just that, that's 77 million people.

Nope, it has nothing to do with that. You manage distraction and no content of value pretty much across the board.

[Warriorbird]

Nope, it has nothing to do with that. You manage distraction and no content of value pretty much across the board.

When most of us become adults we come to the conclusion that there are people who might disagree with us on nearly all things yet not be terrible people. You've consistently attacked people for years (from the very moment you started posting here, even) and you're puzzled why you're not more loved. You probably gloss over it, but there's a steady diet of me being nice to people in there and not incessantly raging at people or suggesting their rights be denied. I've actually admitted I was wrong and apologized for things before. My mind's open to being changed. It isn't necessarily likely, but it can happen. You never give the impression that yours is.

I also don't typically make declarations like "You post no content of value." I generally bash wantonly biased blog posts or news articles, but that doesn't mean I declare the person couldn't contribute. Most people, like you, conservative or liberal, are posting that kind of thing to troll anyways. Those who are posting it for a kindly cheerleading section have come to the wrong place.

[~Rocktar~]

When most of us become adults we come to the conclusion that there are people who might disagree with us on nearly all things yet not be terrible people. You've consistently attacked people for years (from the very moment you started posting here, even) and you're puzzled why you're not more loved. You probably gloss over it, but there's a steady diet of me being nice to people in there and not incessantly raging at people or suggesting their rights be denied. I've actually admitted I was wrong and apologized for things before. My mind's open to being changed. It isn't necessarily likely, but it can happen. You never give the impression that yours is.

I also don't typically make declarations like "You post no content of value." I generally bash wantonly biased blog posts or news articles, but that doesn't mean I declare the person couldn't contribute. Most people, like you, conservative or liberal, are posting that kind of thing to troll anyways. Those who are posting it for a kindly cheerleading section have come to the wrong place.

What, in the entire world, ever gave you the idea that I was concerned about being liked? This is yet another of your distractions. You are not nice, you are underhanded, vile, snide, petty and mean spirited and you show it all the time. You are like the schoolyard jackass who plays dirty in a game and then wants to quip "don't hate the player, hate the game." You fail to engage in any meaningful debate and very nanosecond that any information that might have a hint of proving the complete idiocy of something you posted shows up, you engage in a distraction campaign and completely ignore the fact you are blatantly wrong. You are a foul and unpleasant person, you wantonly troll everywhere with no substantial value and lack any particular skill or understanding of reality other than the ability to obfuscate and throw up a distraction. I feel sorry for you in many ways as I am quite sure that you have spent your life getting by on your quick distraction and double edged wit and sooner or later, it comes to a sad end.

You only "bash wantonly" that which is conservative in nature so please don't even play like you ever consider anything with liberal bias as a target. And my mind is very open to change given rational and logical debate. It is unfortunate that you and others apparently cannot produce any. In addition, unlike so many, I believe that there are indeed certain things that are absolute and in those things, men of character cannot and will not compromise. And while you may not like, may question and may revile my character, I can assure you I am comfortable with that and on absolutes, I will not compromise.

[Warriorbird]

What, in the entire world, ever gave you the idea that I was concerned about being liked? This is yet another of your distractions. You are not nice, you are underhanded, vile, snide, petty and mean spirited and you show it all the time. You are like the schoolyard jackass who plays dirty in a game and then wants to quip "don't hate the player, hate the game." You fail to engage in any meaningful debate and very nanosecond that any information that might have a hint of proving the complete idiocy of something you posted shows up, you engage in a distraction campaign and completely ignore the fact you are blatantly wrong. You are a foul and unpleasant person, you wantonly troll everywhere with no substantial value and lack any particular skill or understanding of reality other than the ability to obfuscate and throw up a distraction. I feel sorry for you in many ways as I am quite sure that you have spent your life getting by on your quick distraction and double edged wit and sooner or later, it comes to a sad end.

You only "bash wantonly" that which is conservative in nature so please don't even play like you ever consider anything with liberal bias as a target. And my mind is very open to change given rational and logical debate. It is unfortunate that you and others apparently cannot produce any. In addition, unlike so many, I believe that there are indeed certain things that are absolute and in those things, men of character cannot and will not compromise. And while you may not like, may question and may revile my character, I can assure you I am comfortable with that and on absolutes, I will not compromise.

So when was the last time you stood up for something other then something "conservative"?

It's also funny when your rant degenerates to making you look bad.

[Delias]

I just want to say that I don't think any of you deserve electricity at any cost. Quit sponging off of Edison and Tesla. You guys are current moochers.

[~Rocktar~]

So when was the last time you stood up for something other then something "conservative"?

Do try and pay attention to the forums here, I know it is hard to acknowledge anything that doesn't support your view of things but here goes. These are just a few of the topics where I differ greatly from the far right and that are generally not considered "conservative" positions.

I support same sex marriage.

I do not agree with teaching "intelligent design" and the religious rantings of the far right.

I support homosexuals in the military and women in combat, the human body is just as good at stopping a bullet regardless of sex or sexual preference and patriotism is not limited to straight males.

I support a woman's right to an abortion, it should be between those that made the baby and none other. I do not support the government paying for it as the primary form of birth control that some abuse it for.

So, there you have it, just a few of my views that are decidedly not conservative or right wing. You would know this if you had paid any attention. You on the other hand, have not yet, to the best of my knowledge, ever expressed a non-liberal/socialist view of anything

[Methais]

I support homosexuals in the military and women in combat, the human body is just as good at stopping a bullet regardless of sex or sexual preference and patriotism is not limited to straight males.

ROCKTAR WANTS TO USE HOMOS FOR MEAT(SPIN) SHIELDS!!!!!1

[Warriorbird]

Do try and pay attention to the forums here, I know it is hard to acknowledge anything that doesn't support your view of things but here goes. These are just a few of the topics where I differ greatly from the far right and that are generally not considered "conservative" positions.

I support same sex marriage.

I do not agree with teaching "intelligent design" and the religious rantings of the far right.

I support homosexuals in the military and women in combat, the human body is just as good at stopping a bullet regardless of sex or sexual preference and patriotism is not limited to straight males.

I support a woman's right to an abortion, it should be between those that made the baby and none other. I do not support the government paying for it as the primary form of birth control that some abuse it for.

So, there you have it, just a few of my views that are decidedly not conservative or right wing. You would know this if you had paid any attention. You on the other hand, have not yet, to the best of my knowledge, ever expressed a non-liberal/socialist view of anything

If you've taken notice I do actually support reduced government spending. In my lifetime this has occurred under Democratic Presidents more than Republican ones.
I support gun rights. I think the left wing desire to take away guns is profoundly anti American.
I support the military, though surgically (I think countries should ultimately choose their government types and not have us force democracy on them). I support the Obama Administration's drone policy, how the Bush and Obama administration have had Force Recon in Iran, actions like Stuxnet, and a robust covert operations community (Notably, I don't support the intrusion into the privacy of American citizens or torture.)
I think enforced mpg requirements are insulting.
I think that we need to encourage small business but also think that we need to actually have anti trust policies so that the market can be free on multiple levels.
I support reform to America's affirmative action systems (particularly that based on socio economic status of the student.)
I think we need to reform Social Security and Medicare.
I support Teddy Roosevelt's National Parks and Nixon's EPA.
Like Reagan and McCain I support cap and trade.
I support nuclear development.
Like George Bush Jr. and Marco Rubio, I think illegal immigrants need a path to citizenship. My preferred path would involve the immigrant paying extra taxes.

[crb]

If you've taken notice I do actually support reduced government spending. In my lifetime this has occurred under Democratic Presidents more than Republican ones.

Which president decreased spending? Spending may have dropped by a percentage of GDP during the Clinton years (edit, and it looks like GWB) for a little bit because of the secular growth of the IT industry, but in actual terms, when has it ever decreased?

Even evil Paul Ryan proposes we increase spending every year, the "draconian" throw grandma off the cliff cuts he proposes are exactly $0. Obama increases spending massively his first year then postured about a spending freeze. The responsible thing would be to go back to say 2006 levels, but that'd be an actual cut.

You know what politicians do is say "I want to increase spending 10%, but I'll only increase spending 5%, so that is a spending cut of 5%." That is the definition of a Washington DC spending cut. You know what'd be really "draconian?" A 1% actual cut across the board. When people like Rand Paul talk about that he is called radical.

But you're right, both parties spend, and you put it first on your list, but apparently it isn't important to you, because while both parties do spend. Obama spends like it is going out of style, and not only that, he demagogues the issue to stop any real reform. As long as the left tells the public that Paul Ryan will end the world as we know it by only increasing federal spending slightly less than they want to, how can you take them seriously, and support them? If you care.

Sure, you could ask, why doesn't Paul Ryan propose an actual cut then? Well, maybe he is trying to get something that has a chance of passing, slim as that may be, and when you see the response of the left to this minor reduction in the growth rate of future spending... it poisons the well.

[crb]

Here is a nice chart:

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=200

I can't see in my glance any year where spending actually declined, except 2009, which in which spending decreased by a tiny amount 2009-2010 after skyrocketing like 20% from 2008-2009. Your two year average increase is 10% a year, a cut I would not call that.

I would like to draw attention to 2003. This is when we had the Bush Tax Cuts For the Wealthy That Added to the Deficit and Caused the Housing Crisis (according to Obama). Notice the trend for revenue from 2003-2008. Taxes were cut, and yet revenue increased... hmm tax rates were cut, but federal government got more money out of it. This is supposed to be impossible math and yet, facts don't lie. What new devilry is this?

Now imagine if we just went back to a 2006 budget. Was 2006 horrible? Were we living in caves and pooping in outhouses in 2006? If we just went back to 2006, we'd almost have a balanced budget.

[Latrinsorm]

So you don't know what an automatic weapon is, check.You don't need an automatic weapon to shoot at a monkey in a tree.
The solution is just to fix the taxation problem. Cancel all refundable tax credits, create a minimum tax bracket of 1%. Everyone pays something.You think there are people who pay no sales tax, no excise tax, and no state income tax?
So it is your belief that I should work until November 24th for the Government and then I can work one month and 6 days for myself and my family?
Personal opinion only, but if I was a (insert big company here) owner or a large stock holder in some company and I was told that 70 to 90% of my income was gonna go to taxes, I'd immediately liquidate and put in long term stocks and relax the rest of my life. Why would anyone just work for the fun of it?If you have to purposefully misinterpret a tax system to criticize it, it's probably a pretty good system. Otherwise, there would be an accurate way to criticize it, and you would presumably have opted for that instead.
Someone paying sales tax on something they buy with their welfare money doesn't count.Someone giving their (non-welfare) money to the government doesn't count as giving their money to the government? And people say I play semantics! (Which... okay, fair enough. But still!)

It's puppetry. Don't let yourself get ginned up, or at least not so easily.

[Jarvan]

You think there are people who pay no sales tax, no excise tax, and no state income tax?

Someone giving their (non-welfare) money to the government doesn't count as giving their money to the government? And people say I play semantics! (Which... okay, fair enough. But still!)

It's puppetry. Don't let yourself get ginned up, or at least not so easily.

Not defending him really, but.. if the government gives you 20,000$ a year they get from taxing me 20,000$ a year and you then buy a new laptop with it and pay 600$ sales tax, are you trying to say that the government created 600$ that wasn't there before by giving you 20k?

The government simply got back 600$. Granted, in this case it's state vrs federal, but in the end it's the same thing.

And yes, there are people that pay no state income tax. These are he people that don't work. I thought you were smarter then that. Or are you saying that someone that holds no job, and gets all their money and needs fulfilled by the government pays state income tax when they don't work?

[Methais]

Someone giving their (non-welfare) money to the government doesn't count as giving their money to the government? And people say I play semantics! (Which... okay, fair enough. But still!

Welfare money comes from the government. Sales tax that goes back to the government from money that already came from the government doesn't count. I don't see how that is playing semantics.

If I give you $100, and 10% of what you spend goes back to me, I'm still out $90 by the time you've spent it all.

[crb]

You think there are people who pay no sales tax, no excise tax, and no state income tax?

You think those taxes fund the federal government? Interesting. Tell me more of these state taxes that pay for the Department of Defense, Department of Education, Department of Commerce, DHS, FEMA, etc etc

[Parkbandit]

If you have to purposefully misinterpret a tax system to criticize it, it's probably a pretty good system. Otherwise, there would be an accurate way to criticize it, and you would presumably have opted for that instead.

My comparison clearly went WAY over your head. I took TheE's 90% tax structure:

I'll help: I took 90% of 365 (that's the number of days in a year, rounded down) and it worked out to the date of November 24th.

[Parkbandit]

You think those taxes fund the federal government? Interesting. Tell me more of these state taxes that pay for the Department of Defense, Department of Education, Department of Commerce, DHS, FEMA, etc etc

Latrinsorm went to the Backlash School of Taxation. It it has the word "tax" in it, you can pretend it's exactly the same thing as payroll income tax.

[Bobmuhthol]

I would like to draw attention to 2003. This is when we had the Bush Tax Cuts For the Wealthy That Added to the Deficit and Caused the Housing Crisis (according to Obama). Notice the trend for revenue from 2003-2008. Taxes were cut, and yet revenue increased... hmm tax rates were cut, but federal government got more money out of it. This is supposed to be impossible math and yet, facts don't lie. What new devilry is this?I want to borrow an old, classic line of yours:

STATIC ACCOUNTING STATIC ACCOUNTING STATIC ACCOUNTING STATIC ACCOUNTING STATIC ACCOUNTING STATIC ACCOUNTING STATIC ACCOUNTING STATIC ACCOUNTING STATIC ACCOUNTING STATIC ACCOUNTING STATIC ACCOUNTING STATIC ACCOUNTING STATIC ACCOUNTING STATIC ACCOUNTING STATIC ACCOUNTING.

[Latrinsorm]

Not defending him really, but.. if the government gives you 20,000$ a year they get from taxing me 20,000$ a year and you then buy a new laptop with it and pay 600$ sales tax, are you trying to say that the government created 600$ that wasn't there before by giving you 20k?No, I'm saying that I paid that $600 out of my pocket rather than yours. That's what the point of the thread is, the suggestion that there are people who pay literally nothing to the government out of their own pocket. I take no position on what this means for the government, the deficit, or anything else.
And yes, there are people that pay no state income tax. These are he people that don't work. I thought you were smarter then that. Or are you saying that someone that holds no job, and gets all their money and needs fulfilled by the government pays state income tax when they don't work?Well of course there are people who pay no state income tax. I used the word "and" because I was looking for someone who satisfied all of the listed criteria. The idea is that you (although not you personally) would start with 47% (or whatever) pay no federal income tax, see the number pared down to 20% (or whatever) that also pay no state income tax, down to 15% for local, down to 1% for sales, down to 0% for excise, reject your (again, not you personally) original hypothesis, and then it's high fives all around.
Welfare money comes from the government. Sales tax that goes back to the government from money that already came from the government doesn't count. I don't see how that is playing semantics.

If I give you $100, and 10% of what you spend goes back to me, I'm still out $90 by the time you've spent it all.Welfare money can't be used on sales tax. That's the point of bringing it up.
You think those taxes fund the federal government? Interesting. Tell me more of these state taxes that pay for the Department of Defense, Department of Education, Department of Commerce, DHS, FEMA, etc etcYour quoted post only made reference to "government", so I included taxes paid to state governments. You are free to clarify your position, of course, so you may merely demonstrate the existence of people who pay no excise taxes.
My comparison clearly went WAY over your head. I took TheE's 90% tax structure:

I'll help: I took 90% of 365 (that's the number of days in a year, rounded down) and it worked out to the date of November 24th.TheE was not inventing a tax structure, he was referring to a specific period in American history. You misinterpreted the 90% tax bracket as a 90% tax rate. Because you're not a dope, this was purposeful.

[Parkbandit]

TheE was not inventing a tax structure, he was referring to a specific period in American history. You misinterpreted the 90% tax bracket as a 90% tax rate. Because you're not a dope, this was purposeful.

You are confused. Again.


Can we finally draw a line between "greed" and "personal self-interest (which is normal human behavior")? The rich in this country paid income tax near 90% til the 80s, and no one thought the rich were so unbearably unable to live...except for Reagan. "Personal self-interest" 1) should never (in a moral person) hurt others except in defense of its own life, on the micro level, and 2) should rarely (in a moral government) curtail the interests of society without compelling reason, on the macro level. We can argue about "compelling reasons" all we want, but I feel like the rich left compelling reasons behind about 30 years ago.


I bolded the important part. TheE was referring to the top income tax rate from 1944 to 1964 that was above 90%. You misinterpreted the 90% tax rate as a 90% tax bracket... because you are a dope.

[Bobmuhthol]

Uh, it's fairly obvious to everyone that TheE was talking about a marginal tax rate and not an average tax rate, so how can you gallivant around pretending that your made up statement is true?

(For those following at home, the "90% tax bracket" refers to people paying a top marginal rate of 90%, and it means nothing else, and it cannot ever mean anything else, so let's prevent any further semantic arguments right now.)

[Latrinsorm]

You are confused. Again.



I bolded the important part. TheE was referring to the top income tax rate from 1944 to 1964 that was above 90%. You misinterpreted the 90% tax rate as a 90% tax bracket... because you are a dope.Oh. You honestly believe that a person could bring home less money by moving to a higher bracket in those days? Which is to say, your understanding of the tax system says that...

Person A made $199,000, paid 89% rate, took home (1-.89)*199000 = $21,890
Person B made $201,000, paid 94% rate, took home (1-.94)*201000 = $12,060

You really think that's how it worked?

[Warriorbird]

Oh. You honestly believe that a person could bring home less money by moving to a higher bracket in those days? Which is to say, your understanding of the tax system says that...

Person A made $199,000, paid 89% rate, took home (1-.89)*199000 = $21,890
Person B made $201,000, paid 94% rate, took home (1-.94)*201000 = $12,060

You really think that's how it worked?

It's one of those fantasyland beliefs.

[Jarvan]

Oh. You honestly believe that a person could bring home less money by moving to a higher bracket in those days? Which is to say, your understanding of the tax system says that...

Person A made $199,000, paid 89% rate, took home (1-.89)*199000 = $21,890
Person B made $201,000, paid 94% rate, took home (1-.94)*201000 = $12,060

You really think that's how it worked?

Where in anything PB or TheE stated, say anything about someone bringing home less money because they moved to a higher bracket? TheE said that people who were in the 90% tax bracket could easily live. This is true the rich are always able to live well, they are rich. The big difference is, no one really had high personal incomes during those times unless they couldn't avoid it. Don't you think movie stars and baseball players restructure their contracts in a heartbeat if there was suddenly a 90% bracket again?

More importantly, basing a choice like that, which would decimate our country, simply cause "they can afford it" is stupid to the extreme. If you really thought about it, the middle class could technically afford to pay about say.. 250 or more a month per family. That could just about wipe out the deficit on it's own. Where do I get that? Cell phone bill, Cable TV bill, Internet bill. They don't "need" these things. They could be luxuries again you know, there was a time they were. Though, I am sure that isn't fair to some. It is funny though, how people always tout fairness when they are talking about taking something from someone else.

[Bobmuhthol]

If you really thought about it, the middle class could technically afford to pay about say.. 250 or more a month per family.No, actually, it's very obvious that they could not. My cell phone bill is $19/mo + tax and I don't have cable (my internet is provided to me by my college, so I can't quantify it). So I should be able to pay more in taxes? Also, it's absolutely insane to say that people don't need a cell phone or an internet connection. Both of those things are very necessary for the jobs that middle class workers tend to have.

[Parkbandit]

Oh. You honestly believe that a person could bring home less money by moving to a higher bracket in those days? Which is to say, your understanding of the tax system says that...

Person A made $199,000, paid 89% rate, took home (1-.89)*199000 = $21,890
Person B made $201,000, paid 94% rate, took home (1-.94)*201000 = $12,060

You really think that's how it worked?

Your entire life is spent confused, isn't it.

Ok, let's do baby steps:

1) What was the top income tax rate in 1950 for the United States?

[Bobmuhthol]

The top marginal rate in 1950 sure sounds irrelevant when you're responding to a person who said "until the 1980s."

Also, dividends were not taxed in 1950. I'm not sure how this directly affects whatever point you thought you were going to make, but in reality it's very significant.

[Warriorbird]

Where in anything PB or TheE stated, say anything about someone bringing home less money because they moved to a higher bracket? TheE said that people who were in the 90% tax bracket could easily live. This is true the rich are always able to live well, they are rich. The big difference is, no one really had high personal incomes during those times unless they couldn't avoid it. Don't you think movie stars and baseball players restructure their contracts in a heartbeat if there was suddenly a 90% bracket again?

More importantly, basing a choice like that, which would decimate our country, simply cause "they can afford it" is stupid to the extreme. If you really thought about it, the middle class could technically afford to pay about say.. 250 or more a month per family. That could just about wipe out the deficit on it's own. Where do I get that? Cell phone bill, Cable TV bill, Internet bill. They don't "need" these things. They could be luxuries again you know, there was a time they were. Though, I am sure that isn't fair to some. It is funny though, how people always tout fairness when they are talking about taking something from someone else.

I love how your solution involves going after the middle class.

[Jarvan]

No, actually, it's very obvious that they could not. My cell phone bill is $19/mo + tax and I don't have cable (my internet is provided to me by my college, so I can't quantify it). So I should be able to pay more in taxes? Also, it's absolutely insane to say that people don't need a cell phone or an internet connection. Both of those things are very necessary for the jobs that middle class workers tend to have.


Wait.. do you even know what the middle class really is? Not your liberal idea or talking point, but actual ones.

More importantly.. your in college, you obviously are not in the middle class yet. Once again.. How did you get into MIT? Sleep with the Dean?

[Jarvan]

I love how your solution involves going after the middle class.

As apposed to your solution that we don't tax the middle class at all, and instead tax the so called rich up to 90%? or hell even 70%?

Look at the Bush tax cuts. The rich saved 70 bill a year, the middle class 270 bill. So.. using those figures, which would it make more sense to put back into place to close the deficit?

[Bobmuhthol]

Wait.. do you even know what the middle class really is? Not your liberal idea or talking point, but actual ones.

More importantly.. your in college, you obviously are not in the middle class yet. Once again.. How did you get into MIT? Sleep with the Dean?So when I graduate in less than a year, I won't be part of the middle class? All my friends who graduated in May and have $50k+ personal incomes are not middle class? Are you out of your mind?

You made the claim that all middle class families can afford to pay $250 per month, or $3,000 per year, in additional taxes because you feel that it is representative of cable, internet, and cell phone bills. Putting the argument that cable, internet, and cell phones are luxuries aside, you still think that everyone pays $250 for them. There are a lot of people like me who pay $0 for cable and well under $50 for a cell phone. Internet is a different story, but unless you're going to argue that it costs $200, you're well off the mark.
As apposed to your solution that we don't tax the middle class at all, and instead tax the so called rich up to 90%? or hell even 70%?

Look at the Bush tax cuts. The rich saved 70 bill a year, the middle class 270 bill. So.. using those figures, which would it make more sense to put back into place to close the deficit?Making arbitrary arguments with arbitrary numbers must be fun.

[Latrinsorm]

Where in anything PB or TheE stated, say anything about someone bringing home less money because they moved to a higher bracket?This is an unavoidable conclusion if you believe, as PB appears to, that people in the highest bracket paid a 90% overall tax rate. Consider his comment about working into November for the government. Like I said in the beginning, I was sure he was misinterpreting the actual historical system for effect, but now I'm not as sure.
TheE said that people who were in the 90% tax bracket could easily live. This is true the rich are always able to live well, they are rich. The big difference is, no one really had high personal incomes during those times unless they couldn't avoid it. Don't you think movie stars and baseball players restructure their contracts in a heartbeat if there was suddenly a 90% bracket again?I think baseball players wouldn't be able to avoid it. The highest tax bracket is $400kish. To get to a $200 mil contract without hitting that bracket you'd have to have a 500+ year contract. Now obviously not everyone is making $200m+ and the bracket would be a lot higher if the rate was that much higher, but the general point stands. In salary cap sports the implications are impossible to forecast, because the CBAs would obviously have to change.
More importantly, basing a choice like that, which would decimate our country, simply cause "they can afford it" is stupid to the extreme. If you really thought about it, the middle class could technically afford to pay about say.. 250 or more a month per family. That could just about wipe out the deficit on it's own. Where do I get that? Cell phone bill, Cable TV bill, Internet bill. They don't "need" these things. They could be luxuries again you know, there was a time they were. Though, I am sure that isn't fair to some. It is funny though, how people always tout fairness when they are talking about taking something from someone else.Personally, I'm for neither a 90% top rate nor a 1% bottom rate. I think the tax system as is is pretty good. Could be better, but doesn't need that dramatic an overhaul.
Your entire life is spent confused, isn't it.

Ok, let's do baby steps:

1) What was the top income tax rate in 1950 for the United States?The top marginal rate was around 90. Do you understand that the contention here is based on the word marginal, not on any given number?

[Parkbandit]

The top marginal rate was around 90. Do you understand that the contention here is based on the word marginal, not on any given number?

I understand your incessant need to make things more difficult than they were ever intended to be... but really, now you are just being stupid to be stupid.

In 1957, someone in the US could have paid 90% of his income in taxes.

That boils down to that person working until November 24th for the government and the rest of the year for himself and his family.

I don't believe that was fair.

THAT IS ALL I WAS POINTING OUT TO THE E. NOTHING MORE.

ETA: Changed the year from 1956 to 1957 so you couldn't come back with "BUT 1956 WAS A LEAP YEAR AND THAT THROWS OFF ALL OF YOUR NUMBERS AND THUS INVALIDATES EVERYTHING!"

[Methais]

(For those following at home, the "90% tax bracket" refers to people paying a top marginal rate of 90%, and it means nothing else, and it cannot ever mean anything else, so let's prevent any further semantic arguments right now.)

I was following from work. Does that still count?

[Bobmuhthol]

In 1957, someone in the US could have paid 90% of his income in taxes."Could have" and "ever did" are very different concepts. Nobody did.
That boils down to that person working until November 24th for the government and the rest of the year for himself and his family.Oh, now I get it, you're proving that you were right the whole time by totally ignoring all the evidence against you now that you made the first comment about theoretical possibilities.

In fact, you're lucky you picked a year where the top marginal rate was 91% for it to even be theoretically possible to pay 90% income tax.
I was following from work. Does that still count?Woah now, don't get all middle class up in here.

[Jarvan]

So when I graduate in less than a year, I won't be part of the middle class? All my friends who graduated in May and have $50k+ personal incomes are not middle class? Are you out of your mind?

You made the claim that all middle class families can afford to pay $250 per month, or $3,000 per year, in additional taxes because you feel that it is representative of cable, internet, and cell phone bills. Putting the argument that cable, internet, and cell phones are luxuries aside, you still think that everyone pays $250 for them. There are a lot of people like me who pay $0 for cable and well under $50 for a cell phone. Internet is a different story, but unless you're going to argue that it costs $200, you're well off the mark.Making arbitrary arguments with arbitrary numbers must be fun.

Oh no!! You go to college and don't have to pay for things. You also don't work, and likely have no income. So frankly What exactly would you be taxed?

And when you leave college and get that job, then you will have to pay for internet and cable, go figure.

Btw.. does mommy and daddy pay your bills for you?

How many people that have jobs, pay 0$ for cable? Or do the companies just give it away now? Where I live, Internet and cable together reaches about 150 a month or more depending on extra services or speeds. 50 for a cell phone bill is pretty cheap, if you got an iphone and are only paying 50 good for you. But sure, lets say 200 then.

As for making the claim that they can afford to, I said if they didn't have those bills, then they could afford to.

You know, I wish the best for you Bob. I hope you get a great job. Get paid tons of money, then start bitching and crying when your leaders want to take 35,40,50,60% of it.

[4a6c1]

Unless Jarvan makes like 5000 dollars an hour and is one of those .001 percent rich dudes I am completely perplexed by all of his world views.

JARVAN HOW DO YOU POST ON THE PC OUT THERE IN YOUR YACHT ON INTERNATIONAL WATER.

[Jarvan]

This is an unavoidable conclusion if you... blah blah

I know how taxes work.

If the top bracket is say 35%, you are only paying 35% on everything earned once you earn that much. Not the entire amount.

That being said. if the top bracket was 90% and at the rich people income of 250,001$ for a family.. and you made say.. 10 million dollars a year playing ball. You are paying fairly close to 90%. Granted, that's if they didn't increase the brackets back to what they were in the past.

As for Baseball players, hell yes they would get around it, so would everyone who did a contract for work like that. I am sure there are tons of ways to get around it if you need to. Incorporate yourself and then hire yourself out to the baseball team and have them pay the corporation comes to mind, and if that isn't legal, but I am sure there are other ways like profit sharing, shares in the club, stock options.. etc etc.

Our system isn't perfect, it's true. It could use some improvement. Frankly, if people want UH, tack 10% onto everyone's taxes, period. A consumption tax would not be a great replacement, even if you think so at first, due to the fact that while the rich consume more, it is not really as much as you would think. It's not like they buy million dollar homes every week. There is only so many items you can purchase really.

Do I think the poor are to poor, yes. But show me a way to make them not poor, without an offset somewhere else. There will always be poor, doesn't make it a good thing, but it's a fact. Just like there will always be crime. We could get rid of a lot of crime if we did insanely draconian things. Just like we could get rid of the poor the same way. For example, minimum wage of 20$ an hour. Poor problem solved right? Nope, now McDonalds charges 17$ for a happy meal cause they pay the burger flipper 20$ an hour.

The real sad thing is the left claiming things are not fair. Never will understand what they mean by fair. Can any single person from the so called poor make it to middle class, or even rich? Yes. Is it likely, middle class yes, rich, no. Is that the same way it's been in our country for a hundred years or more? Yep. Or do they mean fair means that everyone is exactly the same, gets the same wages and such? Or do they just want the rich to be less rich, and that money to go to the government to do with as they please? Taking 1, 2, or 3% more from the rich won't change anything with the poor or middle class. Do you really think the government will take that tiny bit of money and make all those people's lives better? Nope, they won't see a dime of it, or any change at all.

Also, I would argue that very few people really amassed vast amounts of wealth during those huge tax income rate time periods. Some yes, but not nearly as many as now. Is that a bad thing? being able to become rich?

[Jarvan]

Unless Jarvan makes like 5000 dollars an hour and is one of those .001 percent rich dudes I am completely perplexed by all of his world views.

JARVAN HOW DO YOU POST ON THE PC OUT THERE IN YOUR YACHT ON INTERNATIONAL WATER.

I launched a satellite into orbit from my small island compound. I have an uplink out here.


P.S. you need to clean your car.

[Bobmuhthol]

Oh no!! You go to college and don't have to pay for things. You also don't work, and likely have no income. So frankly What exactly would you be taxed?
And when you leave college and get that job, then you will have to pay for internet and cable, go figure.
Btw.. does mommy and daddy pay your bills for you?
How many people that have jobs, pay 0$ for cable? Or do the companies just give it away now? Where I live, Internet and cable together reaches about 150 a month or more depending on extra services or speeds. 50 for a cell phone bill is pretty cheap, if you got an iphone and are only paying 50 good for you. But sure, lets say 200 then.
As for making the claim that they can afford to, I said if they didn't have those bills, then they could afford to.
You know, I wish the best for you Bob. I hope you get a great job. Get paid tons of money, then start bitching and crying when your leaders want to take 35,40,50,60% of it.I'm sorry, what? How does being in college mean I don't pay for things? What the fuck do you think comes free for me? Does my school provide me with free insurance, free rent, free transportation, free food, free clothes, free entertainment, or really anything else? No, on all counts.

You're correct that I am not currently working (I was continuously employed during undergrad and worked a lot). You are incorrect that I have no income. You are definitely incorrect that I do not pay taxes.

I don't have an internet bill. I'm still paying to live in a building with internet access. I don't pay for cable and I don't have cable. The number of people with jobs who do not pay for cable is the number of people with jobs who don't have cable, and that's not an insignificant number at all. Like I said, there are many people like me. Being employed does not mean you have a cable subscription. And I said my cell phone bill is $19. I don't have an iPhone (I have never owned and will never own an Apple device), but what does that have to do with anything?

Yeah, you said that people who pay $250 per month on what you call frivolous things could afford to simply not have those things and pay $250 per month in taxes. My original, and still current, point is that not everyone pays $250 for those things. As an aside, they're also not frivolous. You still haven't addressed how to extract $250 per month from people who don't have cable, pay $19 for cell service, and pay less than $231 for internet.

No one, especially not me, has ever advocated for a 60% average tax rate, so trust that I'll rest easy if my income is high enough to put me in the top bracket.

[Jarvan]

I'm sorry, what? How does being in college mean I don't pay for things? What the fuck do you think comes free for me? Does my school provide me with free insurance, free rent, free transportation, free food, free clothes, free entertainment, or really anything else? No, on all counts.

You're correct that I am not currently working (I was continuously employed during undergrad and worked a lot). You are incorrect that I have no income. You are definitely incorrect that I do not pay taxes.

I don't have an internet bill. I'm still paying to live in a building with internet access. I don't pay for cable and I don't have cable. The number of people with jobs who do not pay for cable is the number of people with jobs who don't have cable, and that's not an insignificant number at all. Like I said, there are many people like me. Being employed does not mean you have a cable subscription. And I said my cell phone bill is $19. I don't have an iPhone (I have never owned and will never own an Apple device), but what does that have to do with anything?

Yeah, you said that people who pay $250 per month on what you call frivolous things could afford to simply not have those things and pay $250 per month in taxes. My original, and still current, point is that not everyone pays $250 for those things. As an aside, they're also not frivolous. You still haven't addressed how to extract $250 per month from people who don't have cable, pay $19 for cell service, and pay less than $231 for internet.

No one, especially not me, has ever advocated for a 60% average tax rate, so trust that I'll rest easy if my income is high enough to put me in the top bracket.

Good for you on the Apple.. evil bastards.

One thing tho, most people have cable, and pay for cable. Sorry to say. I'd love to see your numbers since they are so significant that don't have cable in this day and age. As for your cell phone bill, how many people you know pay 19$.

I think tho you are starting to get to my point. How many people would you call middle class, remember, Middle Class ( I'll capitalize it so you can see it better since you have a tendency to miss things ) that don't have cable, and pay 19$ for a cell phone.

As for your statements you pay taxes, you pay income taxes? Do you have millions stockpiled away in stocks and bonds? I am not talking sales taxes and excise taxes that other on these boards love to go on and on about. Sales tax has nothing to do directly and only slightly indirectly, with the federal government, which is the issue. Since you could then argue that people in Delaware don't pay sales tax, therefore are contributing less to society then those in NJ.

You don't have an internet bill because you are paying for it through your housing. Did I say you didn't pay for things? Where did I say that? Point it out please. I said you don't have a job, hence right now you are not taxed. Is that statement incorrect? What income do you have if you do not work? If it's those evil capital gains, then that is infact NOT ( I know how you all love my capital words ) income paid as taxes. It's capital gains. You don't pay income taxes on that.

[Bobmuhthol]

I have paid state and federal income tax for every year that I have been an adult. This will probably be the first year I won't because I only worked until May and started school in the summer. I'm not really interested in the number of people who pay as little as I do for their cell phone. The option is available to them. Certainly enough people do, anyway, whether I know them or not. I'm also not going to get into an estimation war with you on what proportion of people pay how much and for what, but I still maintain that it's not a small number.
Did I say you didn't pay for things? Where did I say that? Point it out please.
Oh no!! You go to college and don't have to pay for things.

[4a6c1]

P.S. you need to clean your car.

:(

[4a6c1]

I cleaned my car okay fuck you. I had to put some consulate dudes in there and I didn't want them to be like "why does it look and smell like a battalion of soaking wet navy seals in here". I paid 136 dollars and 99 cents to make it not smell like filthy navy barracks. MONEY WELL SPENT.

[Latrinsorm]

I understand your incessant need to make things more difficult than they were ever intended to be... but really, now you are just being stupid to be stupid.

In 1957, someone in the US could have paid 90% of his income in taxes.

That boils down to that person working until November 24th for the government and the rest of the year for himself and his family.

I don't believe that was fair.

THAT IS ALL I WAS POINTING OUT TO THE E. NOTHING MORE.

ETA: Changed the year from 1956 to 1957 so you couldn't come back with "BUT 1956 WAS A LEAP YEAR AND THAT THROWS OFF ALL OF YOUR NUMBERS AND THUS INVALIDATES EVERYTHING!"I'm honestly glad you finally got this, I was really worried there for a bit. I guess I shouldn't have expected anything more than subtle re-wording wearing brazen insistence, though.
I know how taxes work.

If the top bracket is say 35%, you are only paying 35% on everything earned once you earn that much. Not the entire amount.This also makes me happy.
That being said. if the top bracket was 90% and at the rich people income of 250,001$ for a family.. and you made say.. 10 million dollars a year playing ball. You are paying fairly close to 90%. Granted, that's if they didn't increase the brackets back to what they were in the past.The thing is, the brackets in the era of the 90% rates work out to about 2.5m today, not .25m. With that said, we can solve this problem...

First .25m, pay an average rate of x. (The historical sources are very vague on this, but apparently there were lots and lots of brackets back then, so they're just being lazy. Regardless.)
Next 9.75m, pay 90%, so we're at (9.75*.9)/10 = 87.75% even if x=0, which is indeed close to 90%.

First 2.5m, pay an average rate of x.
Next 7.5m, pay 90%, so we start with 67.5% at x=0, and because x has such little leverage it's nontrivial to get to even 80%...
(.9*7.5 + x*2.5 ) / 10 = 80%
x = (8 - .9*7.5)/2.5 = 50%

We can also do it in reverse, a la PB's new example. A person in 1957 (top bracket at $200k+ 91%) makes y dollars. The first 200k is taxed at some average rate x, the next (y-200k) is taxed at 91%. To get to an overall rate of 90%, our equation is therefore...

(y-200000) * .91 + 200000 * x = .9 * y
x = (-.01 * y + .91 * 200000) / 200000
x = .91 - .01 * y / 200000

Suppose a person made 2m (in 1957 dollars, working out to over 20m in present dollars, or about the baseball contracts we're talking about). In that case, x would have to be...

x = .91 - .01 * 2m / .2m
x = .81

Let's do the math (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internal_Revenue_Code_of_1954), bracket by bracket. It turns out you would only have paid $156,820 in taxes on your first $200,000, for an average rate of 78.41%. To reach an effective rate of 90% you would need to make...

.7841 = .91 - .01 * y / 200000
y = (.91 - .7841) * 200000 / .01 = about $2.5m, or about $29m in today's dollars. For reference, this is more than every NBA player, even Kobe.

Ok, good talk! :)

[Parkbandit]

I'm honestly glad you finally got this, I was really worried there for a bit. I guess I shouldn't have expected anything more than subtle re-wording wearing brazen insistence, though.

My point has not changed.. I simply had to break it down to a 4th grade level so you could finally get it.

Glad I could help.