| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
sunprince
United States2258 Posts
On August 17 2011 10:48 hacpee wrote: So how does it work if I have no idea? You tell me because this is exactly how it works. Or you could read my previous response to you, or Warren Buffet's actual article, but somehow, I'm pretty sure it would still escape your primitive reading comprehension and critical thinking skills. | ||
|
MaestroSC
United States2073 Posts
I dont agree with how people are misinterpreting it, and using it to support their own ideas. He said people with income above 1 mill should have their taxes razed, and he said people below that should stay the same. Obama quoted him and then said "people above 200k should have their taxes raised." Taxes should be a flat % regardless, amongst all levels of income imo. | ||
|
SharkSpider
Canada606 Posts
He's talking out of his ass. The only thing worth noting is that the richest people get tax breaks on capital gains and dividends, just like everyone else in the country, which is far from regressive. | ||
|
FallDownMarigold
United States3710 Posts
? Not sure if trolling or if serious. You asked me a troll question. To which I replied: I'm not about to sit here and spend hours of back-and-forthing with you over an issue about which you clearly know nothing. Bye On August 17 2011 10:54 SharkSpider wrote: He's talking out of his ass. Are you kidding? He just asked "so then how's it work" after it had been explained several times. What the fuck am I supposed to do? Feed the troll? | ||
|
sunprince
United States2258 Posts
On August 17 2011 10:54 SharkSpider wrote: The only thing worth noting is that the richest people get tax breaks on capital gains and dividends, just like everyone else in the country, which is far from regressive. Are you deliberately playing dumb, or truly incapable of understanding why low taxes on capital gains and dividends amounts to a regressive tax system? | ||
|
thisisSSK
United States179 Posts
Can you explain to me the entire process that is required to make an apple into turd via human digestive system? i'm sure anyone who went through some AP bio class could give me a pretty good explanation, but its certainly a very long one, especially when you have to consider neurological processes, storing of sugar, breaking down of sugar, mechanical digestion, absorption of nutrients, etc. etc. So I'm guessing that if you can't spend hours writing an essay about it to a random person on an internet forum, you must not "know." Wow. | ||
|
FallDownMarigold
United States3710 Posts
On August 17 2011 10:57 thisisSSK wrote: Can you explain to me the entire process that is required to make an apple into turd via human digestive system? i'm sure anyone who went through some AP bio class could give me a pretty good explanation, but its certainly a very long one, especially when you have to consider neurological processes, storing of sugar, breaking down of sugar, mechanical digestion, absorption of nutrients, etc. etc. So I'm guessing that if you can't spend hours writing an essay about it to a random person on an internet forum, you must not "know." Wow. And the best part? When you exasperatedly say you don't care to explain, you are labeled as "talking out of your ass". The internet truly is a win-win world for the troll-inclined and the willingly stupid. | ||
|
Archaron
New Zealand8 Posts
| ||
|
hacpee
United States752 Posts
On August 17 2011 10:53 sunprince wrote: Or you could read my previous response to you, or Warren Buffet's actual article, but somehow, I'm pretty sure it would still escape your primitive reading comprehension and critical thinking skills. There are 6 tax brackets. So when you win 6 star leagues, you continuously get less and less money. Then the decline stops. Now what progressives want to do is tax it up to 90%. So when you win 10 starleagues, you get 10% of your money. Then they also want to tax the money you earn on the side, IE endorsements which are like capital gains. | ||
|
thisisSSK
United States179 Posts
On August 17 2011 10:59 FallDownMarigold wrote: And the best part? When you exasperatedly say you don't care to explain, you are labeled as "talking out of your ass". The internet truly is a win-win world for the troll-inclined and the willingly stupid. Both a boon and a bane for me; I love to troll :D | ||
|
dreamsmasher
816 Posts
On August 17 2011 10:54 SharkSpider wrote: He's talking out of his ass. The only thing worth noting is that the richest people get tax breaks on capital gains and dividends, just like everyone else in the country, which is far from regressive. the richest people in the country don't really make their money via income. buffet (and most top ibankers/fiananciers/CEO's), dont make money via income, i would venture to say anyone who is truly wealthy does not make money via INCOME. most ceos make like 100k/year from salary, and make most of their money via stock options, investment opportunities, or have their pay strongly linked to corporate profits etc.. all of which are given big tax breaks. rich people also spend considerably less in terms of % of total wealth buying things, so while our income tax system is progressive, the net result is that the system taxes people who make less money more as a % of total wealth. how many poor people or even people from truly middle class homes make a significant portion of their income via stock options and or complicated financial instruments? (this should be a pretty obvious question here). if you also think about it money itself has an element of diminishing return, partially due to subjective nature of value. 10000 dollars is not the same in the hands of a multimillionaire as it is in the hands of a family that earns 50k/year. | ||
|
thisisSSK
United States179 Posts
On August 17 2011 11:00 hacpee wrote: There are 6 tax brackets. So when you win 6 star leagues, you continuously get less and less money. Then the decline stops. Now what progressives want to do is tax it up to 90%. So when you win 10 starleagues, you get 10% of your money. Then they also want to tax the money you earn on the side, IE endorsements which are like capital gains. You're use of sc as an analogy is comedic... and detracts from your argument. I can't take you seriously, bro. | ||
|
Hipsv
135 Posts
On August 17 2011 10:54 MaestroSC wrote: I agree with what he said. I dont agree with how people are misinterpreting it, and using it to support their own ideas. He said people with income above 1 mill should have their taxes razed, and he said people below that should stay the same. Obama quoted him and then said "people above 200k should have their taxes raised." Taxes should be a flat % regardless, amongst all levels of income imo. Well the thing is that they are taxing different types of income at different rates for example direct income is taxed higher than investment income and since the primary form of income for the rich is from investments you end up with them paying a smaller percent. In the 1950s back when everyone used to have 1 working parent per household and you were able to buy a house have a new car every few years and go on vacation every year investment tax was a lot higher and direct income tax was a lot lower. | ||
|
Retry17
30 Posts
History tells us that tax revenues grow and "rich" taxpayers pay more tax when marginal tax rates are slashed. This means lower income citizens bear a lower share of the tax burden. Periods of higher tax rates (when you try to over tax the rich) are associated with sub par economic performance and stagnant tax revenues. Lets look at some nifty facts from history. Did you know that President Kennedy implemented across-the-board tax rate reductions that reduced the top tax rate from more than 90 percent down to 70 percent. What happened? Tax revenues climbed from $94 billion in 1961 to $153 billion in 1968, an increase of 62 percent (33 percent after adjusting for inflation). The share of the income tax burden borne by the rich increased following the tax cuts. Tax collections from those making over $50,000 per year climbed by 57 percent between 1963 and 1966, while tax collections from those earning below $50,000 rose 11 percent. As a result, the rich saw their portion of the income tax burden climb from 11.6 percent to 15.1 percent. President Reagan (an era that is commonly bashed because people don't focus on the positives of tax cuts and instead focus on government spending) proposed sweeping tax rate reductions during the 1980s. What happened? Total tax revenues climbed by 99.4 percent during the 1980s, and the results are even more impressive when looking at what happened to personal income tax revenues. Once the economy received an unambiguous tax cut in January 1983, income tax revenues climbed dramatically, increasing by more than 54 percent by 1989 (28 percent after adjusting for inflation). The share of income taxes paid by the top 10 percent of earners jumped significantly, climbing from 48.0 percent in 1981 to 57.2 percent in 1988. The top 1 percent saw their share of the income tax bill climb even more dramatically, from 17.6 percent in 1981 to 27.5 percent in 1988. Don't tell me I have strawman arguments when the facts are right in front of your face. These aren't my fucking ideas, history has proven them. I don't understand how you could argue any of these facts, but I eagerly await the posts telling me that I don't understand anything and to go back to the 10th grade. | ||
|
sunprince
United States2258 Posts
On August 17 2011 11:00 hacpee wrote: Then they also want to tax the money you earn on the side, IE endorsements which are like capital gains. Except that in the real-world case, the "side money" makes up the overwhelming majority (if not all of it, as is the case for the 88 of the 400 richest Americans) of the total wealth that the richest 0.3% make each year, and that's who Buffet wants to increase taxes on. | ||
|
hacpee
United States752 Posts
On August 17 2011 10:57 thisisSSK wrote: Can you explain to me the entire process that is required to make an apple into turd via human digestive system? i'm sure anyone who went through some AP bio class could give me a pretty good explanation, but its certainly a very long one, especially when you have to consider neurological processes, storing of sugar, breaking down of sugar, mechanical digestion, absorption of nutrients, etc. etc. So I'm guessing that if you can't spend hours writing an essay about it to a random person on an internet forum, you must not "know." Wow. You can describe many things in simplified terms depending on what you want to know. | ||
|
andrewlaiguy
Canada47 Posts
On August 17 2011 11:00 hacpee wrote: There are 6 tax brackets. So when you win 6 star leagues, you continuously get less and less money. Then the decline stops. Now what progressives want to do is tax it up to 90%. So when you win 10 starleagues, you get 10% of your money. Then they also want to tax the money you earn on the side, IE endorsements which are like capital gains. Lets also make the model more realistic by making the allusion to investment, that only people who win previous starleagues have the resources to participate in further starleagues. So therefore the only people who can participate in starleagues are those who have placed high or won starleagues already. | ||
|
hacpee
United States752 Posts
On August 17 2011 11:06 sunprince wrote: Except that in the real-world case, the "side money" makes up the overwhelming majority (if not all of it, as is the case for the 88 of the 400 richest Americans) of the total wealth that the richest 0.3% make each year, and that's who Buffet wants to increase taxes on. And you think most good athletes (MJ) didn't make the majority of their cash on endorsements? | ||
|
sunprince
United States2258 Posts
On August 17 2011 11:06 hacpee wrote: You can describe many things in simplified terms depending on what you want to know. Except when you use simplified terms, trolls will nitpick at your explanation because it's too simple. You've been given tons of simple explanations but you refuse to accept them. Here's how you know if you're in a rational debate. Is there anything we could show that could prove you wrong? | ||
|
domovoi
United States1478 Posts
On August 17 2011 10:07 FallDownMarigold wrote: An appeal to authority is not necessarily a logical fallacy. Surely if you're going to be cute with debate lingo you know this fact, yes? Warren Buffet is espousing a legitimate standpoint, thus, the "appeal to authority" is warranted. Actual, it's an even worse fallacy when the person isn't even an authority on the subject matter. Buffet is not an economist. He's an investor. His expertise is not in government fiscal matters. A fallacious appeal to authority would be a situation in which an expert stated something - unsubstantiated - and was then cited as an example of outright truth. He made several unsubstantiated comments, which are being cited here as outright truth just because it's him. For example, right in the OP he's quoted as saying he's never seen anyone be deterred in investing by capital gains taxes. That's a fucking anecdote, useless as a data point. Then he goes on to say job growth was robust in the '80s despite higher tax rates than today (of course he doesn't mention that job growth was robust despite lower tax rates than the '70s or '60s or '50s or '40s). Post hoc ergo proptor hoc, aka correlation is not causation. That sort of argument is more likely something stupid internet forum users would make. | ||
| ||
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War Counter-Strike Heroes of the Storm Other Games |
|
Afreeca Starleague
Snow vs Sharp
Jaedong vs Mini
Wardi Open
OSC
Sparkling Tuna Cup
Afreeca Starleague
Light vs Speed
Larva vs Soma
PiGosaur Monday
LiuLi Cup
RSL Revival
Maru vs Reynor
Cure vs TriGGeR
The PondCast
RSL Revival
Zoun vs Classic
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
