|
On August 17 2011 10:32 hacpee wrote:
I guess I have a Starcraft Analogy too. Increasing taxes on the rich would be like a rule that says you get less prize money the more star leagues you win.
The extent to which you fail logic is mind-boggling.
No, the real analogy for prize winnings would be: We can increase total tournament profits with a prize structure that rewards first place less and gives more money to 2nd-8th.
|
On August 17 2011 06:46 FoeHamr wrote:
don't richest people in this country pay the most taxes already?
In pure money, sure. If I make 10 billion a year and pay 1% and you make 50,000 and pay 20%, I pay more taxes than you. This is what the media reports when they say "the rich pay more taxes". When the media says "the rich pay less taxes", they're referring to 1% being less than 20%.
They're right both times of course, but "the rich pay less taxes" makes more sense because their percent is not nearly as high.
|
On August 17 2011 10:26 Retry17 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2011 10:21 FallDownMarigold wrote:
See that's the ironic part. That's what is so mind-fuckingly stupid about this "but these poor peeps dunt pay tax" bit. It's not nearly as pressing of an issue as the upper 1% tax issue. Don't obfuscate what's important by bringing up a problem that only sounds more important if you word it in a certain way. Don't do that shit. Let Fox News do that shit - but please, do not perpetuate it if you want a brighter outcome.
I don't see how its a pressing issue at all. Further taxing the rich or further taxing the poor doesn't fix anything because the reason for America's debt problems is simply out of control government spending with taxes that they already had, coupled with mind-numbingly stupid decisions regarding domestic policy. Explain to this cool hipster kid how further income to the government through taxes without any other change will help in the slightest?
Sigh, it is already a done deal that there are going to be major spending cuts, what is at issue is if taxes on the wealthiest 1% of Americans should be raised as well. Government is in the process of getting a huge overhaul, but right now it is not being overhauled to the extent that it could and should be, meaning that taxes are staying at their current, broken status quo.
|
On August 17 2011 10:03 Mortality wrote:
Warren should talk... considering the way he has used his influence to make more money he is a part of the problem. Don't think for one second that this man is a saint. I doubt anybody with a billion dollar checkbook would even qualify as "average" on the moral scale.
http://www.zimbio.com/pictures/kwze6btvQoc/Warren Buffett s Home/5BBHaXPy2Ro
Yup that looks like the house of a man swallowed by his wealth and greed. You forget that he has shareholders and thousands of employees to look after. I challenge you to watch some interviews of him, his partner, and some of his employees. It's hard not to come away impressed at how grounded he is.
|
On August 17 2011 10:34 sunprince wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2011 10:32 hacpee wrote:
I guess I have a Starcraft Analogy too. Increasing taxes on the rich would be like a rule that says you get less prize money the more star leagues you win. The extent to which you fail logic is mind-boggling. No, the real analogy for prize winnings would be: We can increase total tournament profits with a prize structure that rewards first place less and gives more money to 2nd-8th.
Nope, its more like you get less prize money the more starleagues you win.That's exactly what we have in this system.
I'll elaborate. These are made up numbers. Make 10k, pay no taxes on it. Make 20k? Pay no taxes on 10k, pay some taxes on 2nd 10k. Make 30k? Pay no taxes on 1st 10k, pay some on 2nd 10k, pay even more on 3rd 10k.
Same thing with my starleague analogy. Win one starleague? Get full prize money. Win two? You get less money on your 2nd. Win three? You get less money on your 3rd. And if progressives have their way, if you win 10 starleagues, you only get to keep 10% of the prize money.
|
On August 17 2011 10:35 rhs408 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2011 10:26 Retry17 wrote:On August 17 2011 10:21 FallDownMarigold wrote:
See that's the ironic part. That's what is so mind-fuckingly stupid about this "but these poor peeps dunt pay tax" bit. It's not nearly as pressing of an issue as the upper 1% tax issue. Don't obfuscate what's important by bringing up a problem that only sounds more important if you word it in a certain way. Don't do that shit. Let Fox News do that shit - but please, do not perpetuate it if you want a brighter outcome.
I don't see how its a pressing issue at all. Further taxing the rich or further taxing the poor doesn't fix anything because the reason for America's debt problems is simply out of control government spending with taxes that they already had, coupled with mind-numbingly stupid decisions regarding domestic policy. Explain to this cool hipster kid how further income to the government through taxes without any other change will help in the slightest? Sigh, it is already a done deal that there are going to be major spending cuts, what is at issue is if taxes on the wealthiest 1% of Americans should be raised as well. Government is in the process of getting a huge overhaul, but right now it is not being overhauled to the extent that it could and should be, meaning that taxes are staying at their current, broken status quo.
Precisely. I admire your patience and niceness.
|
On August 17 2011 10:35 rhs408 wrote:
Sigh, it is already a done deal that there are going to be major spending cuts, what is at issue is if taxes on the wealthiest 1% of Americans should be raised as well. Government is in the process of getting a huge overhaul, but right now it is not being overhauled to the extent that it could and should be, meaning that taxes are staying at their current, broken status quo.
Direct money flow to the government through taxes does not stimulate the economy by itself. I simply don't understand the fascination with raising taxes when it has been show that lowering taxes is actually quit effective.
|
On August 17 2011 10:38 Retry17 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2011 10:35 rhs408 wrote:
Sigh, it is already a done deal that there are going to be major spending cuts, what is at issue is if taxes on the wealthiest 1% of Americans should be raised as well. Government is in the process of getting a huge overhaul, but right now it is not being overhauled to the extent that it could and should be, meaning that taxes are staying at their current, broken status quo. Direct money flow to the government through taxes does not stimulate the economy by itself. I simply don't understand the fascination with raising taxes when it has been show that lowering taxes is actually quit effective.
Quite effective at what?
If you're referring to the Laffer Curve, you're making enormous assumptions.
|
On August 17 2011 07:10 Kaitlin wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2011 07:02 mathemagician1986 wrote:On August 17 2011 07:00 Kaitlin wrote:On August 17 2011 06:53 BuddhaMonk wrote:On August 17 2011 06:48 Kaitlin wrote:On August 17 2011 06:43 xXFireandIceXx wrote:On August 17 2011 06:41 Megatronn wrote:
If he's so concerned why doesn't he just give his money away to some poor families? o.o Oh my god. He's donating his money already. And he's donating 99% of his wealth when he dies. He's talking about what he thinks would benefit the US as a nation. Stop acting like he's some selfish man, cuz he's not. According to his statements that the rich should pay more taxes to the government, the fact that he's donating 99% of his wealth to charity when he dies is hypocritical. By donating to charities that HE favors, he denies the government about 60% of his wealth that would have been paid in estate taxes had he not made that selfish decision himself and left it to the government's better judgment. So your argument is that he's selfish because he's giving away 99% of his wealth? LOL We're talking about what happens when he dies. I don't know what religion you are, but short of re-incarnation, 100% of everyone's wealth is "given away" when they die. He is preventing the government from getting it's cut of 60% even though his comments call for the rich to pay more. He is being quite hypocritical by demonstrating the exact opposite, that he wants to control how his money is spent, instead of the government. whether you find his actions good or not, do you think he has a point that rich people in the US should pay more taxes than they do at the moment? That's what this thread is about... I don't think he has a point that rich people in the US should pay more taxes than they do at the moment. The top 1% currently pays about as much as 95% of the population. The over-under fluctuates from year to year, in 2008, they paid more than 95% of the population. So, my point is, how much is enough ? What exactly is their fair share ? We simply can't ever answer that question because there is currently no limit to government spending. As long as politicians get in there with a blank check mentality, and in fact gain power with their constituents by spending even more, then government spending will spiral out of control. So, the answer is always to have the rich pay more ? That's just stupid. How much is enough ? There should be some concept of a limit on how much the government should be spending, and it should be based on a % of GDP or whatever measure ties it to the strength of the economy. Then, and only then, can we figure out who should pay how much. Until then, simply raising taxes on the rich is not an acceptable solution because the politicians will simply spend even more and we'll need to raise taxes more.
Uhh i think that is because the top what like 5% actually has like 95% of the wealth, not because they pay more in taxes. Really just indicates how top heavy the economic system is.
|
On August 17 2011 10:38 Retry17 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2011 10:35 rhs408 wrote:
Sigh, it is already a done deal that there are going to be major spending cuts, what is at issue is if taxes on the wealthiest 1% of Americans should be raised as well. Government is in the process of getting a huge overhaul, but right now it is not being overhauled to the extent that it could and should be, meaning that taxes are staying at their current, broken status quo. Direct money flow to the government through taxes does not stimulate the economy by itself. I simply don't understand the fascination with raising taxes when it has been show that lowering taxes is actually quit effective.
Drop the fucking strawman nonsense, what are you in 10th grade? Nobody is saying that the sole issue at stake is taxes. I don't think a single person thinks that not a single thing can be done to improve efficiency in government spending. Quit trolling.
Moreover, LOL, it's actually "been shown" that lowering taxes is disastrous. Have you studied Depression history? Take a look into the years of 1937-1938 and the fiscal politics of that era. Take a look at what outcomes "lowering taxes" would have had, had that been permitted.
|
On August 17 2011 10:36 hacpee wrote:
Nope, its more like you get less prize money the more starleagues you win.That's exactly what we have in this system.
I'll elaborate. These are made up numbers. Make 10k, pay no taxes on it. Make 20k? Pay no taxes on 10k, pay some taxes on 2nd 10k. Make 30k? Pay no taxes on 1st 10k, pay some on 2nd 10k, pay even more on 3rd 10k.
Same thing with my starleague analogy. Win one starleague? Get full prize money. Win two? You get less money on your 2nd. Win three? You get less money on your 3rd. And if progressives have their way, if you win 10 starleagues, you only get to keep 10% of the prize money.
You have no idea what you're talking about.
The poorest pay no taxes, but starting from the middle class and upward, you pay progressively less as a percentage of your total wealth inputs the more you make.
|
Explain to this cool hipster kid how further income to the government through taxes without any other change will help in the slightest?
You get to at least keep your AA+ rating from Standard and Poor. Go to http://www.standardandpoors.com/home/en/us and read their analysis. There could be a downgrade to AA if the 2001 & 2003 tax cuts were not allowed to expire.
|
On August 17 2011 10:42 sunprince wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2011 10:36 hacpee wrote:
Nope, its more like you get less prize money the more starleagues you win.That's exactly what we have in this system.
I'll elaborate. These are made up numbers. Make 10k, pay no taxes on it. Make 20k? Pay no taxes on 10k, pay some taxes on 2nd 10k. Make 30k? Pay no taxes on 1st 10k, pay some on 2nd 10k, pay even more on 3rd 10k.
Same thing with my starleague analogy. Win one starleague? Get full prize money. Win two? You get less money on your 2nd. Win three? You get less money on your 3rd. And if progressives have their way, if you win 10 starleagues, you only get to keep 10% of the prize money. You have no idea what you're talking about. The poorest pay no taxes, but starting from the middle class and upward, you pay progressively less as a percentage of your total wealth inputs the more you make.
He's going off that whole right-biased media concept of valuing "raw money figure" over logical percentages. He thinks that the upper 1% pay MORE taxes simply because the number they pay is higher. He fails to realize that percentages are what matter here.
|
On August 17 2011 10:42 sunprince wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2011 10:36 hacpee wrote:
Nope, its more like you get less prize money the more starleagues you win.That's exactly what we have in this system.
I'll elaborate. These are made up numbers. Make 10k, pay no taxes on it. Make 20k? Pay no taxes on 10k, pay some taxes on 2nd 10k. Make 30k? Pay no taxes on 1st 10k, pay some on 2nd 10k, pay even more on 3rd 10k.
Same thing with my starleague analogy. Win one starleague? Get full prize money. Win two? You get less money on your 2nd. Win three? You get less money on your 3rd. And if progressives have their way, if you win 10 starleagues, you only get to keep 10% of the prize money. You have no idea what you're talking about. The poorest pay no taxes, but starting from the middle class and upward, you pay progressively less as a percentage of your total wealth inputs the more you make.
I know exactly how it works. We have a tiered system. You pay less on your 1st 10k than you pay on your 20th 10k.
|
On August 17 2011 10:44 FallDownMarigold wrote:
He's going off that whole right-biased media concept of valuing "raw money figure" over logical percentages. He thinks that the upper 1% pay MORE taxes simply because the number they pay is higher. He fails to realize that percentages are what matter here.
Even his example doesn't match up with the raw money logic. If it was, then it would've been something like you get 100% of your first starleague win, 50% of your second one, 75% of your third one, 87% of your fourth one, etc.
I would label him a troll, if I didn't know that this pretty much represents what the once great Republican party has degenerated to.
On August 17 2011 10:44 hacpee wrote:
I know exactly how it works. We have a tiered system. You pay less on your 1st 10k than you pay on your 20th 10k.
But you pay less on your 3rd, and your 4th, and so on. We have a regressive tax system because income tax is not the primary source of wealth for the richest.
|
On August 17 2011 10:44 hacpee wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2011 10:42 sunprince wrote:On August 17 2011 10:36 hacpee wrote:
Nope, its more like you get less prize money the more starleagues you win.That's exactly what we have in this system.
I'll elaborate. These are made up numbers. Make 10k, pay no taxes on it. Make 20k? Pay no taxes on 10k, pay some taxes on 2nd 10k. Make 30k? Pay no taxes on 1st 10k, pay some on 2nd 10k, pay even more on 3rd 10k.
Same thing with my starleague analogy. Win one starleague? Get full prize money. Win two? You get less money on your 2nd. Win three? You get less money on your 3rd. And if progressives have their way, if you win 10 starleagues, you only get to keep 10% of the prize money. You have no idea what you're talking about. The poorest pay no taxes, but starting from the middle class and upward, you pay progressively less as a percentage of your total wealth inputs the more you make. I know exactly how it works. We have a tiered system. You pay less on your 1st 10k than you pay on your 20th 10k.
...That is such a meaningless statement. Just stop. Lol. You have no idea.
|
On August 17 2011 10:38 Retry17 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2011 10:35 rhs408 wrote:
Sigh, it is already a done deal that there are going to be major spending cuts, what is at issue is if taxes on the wealthiest 1% of Americans should be raised as well. Government is in the process of getting a huge overhaul, but right now it is not being overhauled to the extent that it could and should be, meaning that taxes are staying at their current, broken status quo. Direct money flow to the government through taxes does not stimulate the economy by itself. I simply don't understand the fascination with raising taxes when it has been show that lowering taxes is actually quit effective.
Again, no one is talking about just raising taxes, it is raising taxes along with cutting spending. Less than a couple of weeks ago our nation's credit rating from S&P was lowered because we only decided to cut spending (well we didn't decide, it was forced upon us by Republicans who care more about getting re-elected than fixing the economy).
As far as lowering taxes being effective, where were you when Bush was in office for 8 years? He lowered taxes on the rich and corporations, which did nothing but further break our economy by increasing the disparities between the rich and poor.
|
On August 17 2011 10:47 FallDownMarigold wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2011 10:44 hacpee wrote:On August 17 2011 10:42 sunprince wrote:On August 17 2011 10:36 hacpee wrote:
Nope, its more like you get less prize money the more starleagues you win.That's exactly what we have in this system.
I'll elaborate. These are made up numbers. Make 10k, pay no taxes on it. Make 20k? Pay no taxes on 10k, pay some taxes on 2nd 10k. Make 30k? Pay no taxes on 1st 10k, pay some on 2nd 10k, pay even more on 3rd 10k.
Same thing with my starleague analogy. Win one starleague? Get full prize money. Win two? You get less money on your 2nd. Win three? You get less money on your 3rd. And if progressives have their way, if you win 10 starleagues, you only get to keep 10% of the prize money. You have no idea what you're talking about. The poorest pay no taxes, but starting from the middle class and upward, you pay progressively less as a percentage of your total wealth inputs the more you make. I know exactly how it works. We have a tiered system. You pay less on your 1st 10k than you pay on your 20th 10k. ...That is such a meaningless statement. Just stop. Lol. You have no idea.
So how does it work if I have no idea? You tell me because this is exactly how it works.
|
On August 17 2011 10:48 hacpee wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2011 10:47 FallDownMarigold wrote:On August 17 2011 10:44 hacpee wrote:On August 17 2011 10:42 sunprince wrote:On August 17 2011 10:36 hacpee wrote:
Nope, its more like you get less prize money the more starleagues you win.That's exactly what we have in this system.
I'll elaborate. These are made up numbers. Make 10k, pay no taxes on it. Make 20k? Pay no taxes on 10k, pay some taxes on 2nd 10k. Make 30k? Pay no taxes on 1st 10k, pay some on 2nd 10k, pay even more on 3rd 10k.
Same thing with my starleague analogy. Win one starleague? Get full prize money. Win two? You get less money on your 2nd. Win three? You get less money on your 3rd. And if progressives have their way, if you win 10 starleagues, you only get to keep 10% of the prize money. You have no idea what you're talking about. The poorest pay no taxes, but starting from the middle class and upward, you pay progressively less as a percentage of your total wealth inputs the more you make. I know exactly how it works. We have a tiered system. You pay less on your 1st 10k than you pay on your 20th 10k. ...That is such a meaningless statement. Just stop. Lol. You have no idea. So how does it work if I have no idea? You tell me because this is exactly how it works.
Spend hours explaining it to you? How about you go get educated on the subject.
|
On August 17 2011 10:49 FallDownMarigold wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2011 10:48 hacpee wrote:On August 17 2011 10:47 FallDownMarigold wrote:On August 17 2011 10:44 hacpee wrote:On August 17 2011 10:42 sunprince wrote:On August 17 2011 10:36 hacpee wrote:
Nope, its more like you get less prize money the more starleagues you win.That's exactly what we have in this system.
I'll elaborate. These are made up numbers. Make 10k, pay no taxes on it. Make 20k? Pay no taxes on 10k, pay some taxes on 2nd 10k. Make 30k? Pay no taxes on 1st 10k, pay some on 2nd 10k, pay even more on 3rd 10k.
Same thing with my starleague analogy. Win one starleague? Get full prize money. Win two? You get less money on your 2nd. Win three? You get less money on your 3rd. And if progressives have their way, if you win 10 starleagues, you only get to keep 10% of the prize money. You have no idea what you're talking about. The poorest pay no taxes, but starting from the middle class and upward, you pay progressively less as a percentage of your total wealth inputs the more you make. I know exactly how it works. We have a tiered system. You pay less on your 1st 10k than you pay on your 20th 10k. ...That is such a meaningless statement. Just stop. Lol. You have no idea. So how does it work if I have no idea? You tell me because this is exactly how it works. Spend hours explaining it to you? How about you go get educated on the subject.
So you don't know.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
