|
On September 29 2011 08:59 Supamang wrote:Show nested quote +On September 29 2011 06:01 RedDeckWins wrote:On September 28 2011 13:10 Supamang wrote:
We lived in a $200K to $300K house. We had mortgages to pay on our house and on my dads office. He had to pay for labor as well. Eventually he had to pay for huge medical costs because my mother, grandmother, and grandfather had cancer.
I cant believe you people. Making me fucking sick. Who the fuck would lie about these things and even worse, who the fuck would call someone a liar without even knowing the guy? Im not whining about my life, you guys are the guys whining about our lives. My entire point was to dispel the notion that having a 6 figure income automatically means youre living in luxury. My family did not have to worry too much about money, but we were far from living in luxury. And look at all the bullshit that you guys start flinging at me for that simple assertion.
Again, what the fuck is wrong with you guys? Now imagine how much shittier your situation would be if your household only made 70k a year (still above median household income). Ill refer you to my post after the one you quoted: Show nested quote +On September 28 2011 13:31 Supamang wrote:On September 28 2011 13:23 hummingbird23 wrote:
Hmm, if that's the living standards of someone making 100K a year, what might be the living standards of someone making roughly a third to half that? More difficult. My living standards were not bad. They were actually quite good. But people seem to be suggesting that my family would be rolling in cash and wiping our asses with $100 bills. All I wanted to say was that we did not/could not live a lavish lifestyle If 3 of someones family members got cancer, most likely not all of them would get treatment. If 3 kids were applying to top end colleges, they would likely be massively in debt and/or some of the kids would have to settle for less prestigious and in-state schools. They might have 1 car instead of 2, their house might be 1 story instead of 2. Nothing about those things that I had growing up are luxurious, but they are also things that people with less income cannot enjoy. You guys are seriously just unbelievable. Youre treating me like Im the one whining about my situation. I never said that. NOT FUCKING ONCE. Ive been in this thread arguing for progressive tax rates and taxing the super rich more to help pay for government social programs. Then the moment I mention my family has a 6 figure income, people start telling me im an arrogant liar living a high consumption lifestyle and talking to me like I need to go to some sensitivity training seminar. Jesus fucking christ
Its mostly because households with a 6 figure income are roughly in the top 15% of americans so for most people that are in the 45-100k (35% of americans) who are technically "middle to upper middle class" who live comfortably it seems like a lot. But yeah, everyone's situation is different and you can have a family earning 120k or so in a lot of pain due to medical, housing bills etc. while a family earning 50k would be fine in another part of the country with no kids and low housing prices. (Though I gotta say, going through college without loans could be considered "posh" to a lot of people, few have that opportunity. Your dad is a good man).
I think it says a lot that the national median income in the US is 44k and that you're only truly well off if you're in the top 10% of the population. The wealth distribution in the US is laughable.
|
On August 17 2011 06:46 Kaitlin wrote:
Maybe we shouldn't debate what tax rates should be, but what is the appropriate level of government spending relative to GDP, then generate tax revenues for that amount. As it is now, tax increases merely result in more government spending, requiring additional tax income, and so forth. Let's figure out what and acceptable size of government is, and stick to that.
Yup, our government could do a lot of shit to save money, cutting the size of military spending is the most obvious. But thats never going to fucking happen. We need serious reforms now or this country is going to hell in a handbasket.
|
On September 29 2011 08:59 Supamang wrote:Show nested quote +On September 29 2011 06:01 RedDeckWins wrote:On September 28 2011 13:10 Supamang wrote:
We lived in a $200K to $300K house. We had mortgages to pay on our house and on my dads office. He had to pay for labor as well. Eventually he had to pay for huge medical costs because my mother, grandmother, and grandfather had cancer.
I cant believe you people. Making me fucking sick. Who the fuck would lie about these things and even worse, who the fuck would call someone a liar without even knowing the guy? Im not whining about my life, you guys are the guys whining about our lives. My entire point was to dispel the notion that having a 6 figure income automatically means youre living in luxury. My family did not have to worry too much about money, but we were far from living in luxury. And look at all the bullshit that you guys start flinging at me for that simple assertion.
Again, what the fuck is wrong with you guys? Now imagine how much shittier your situation would be if your household only made 70k a year (still above median household income). Ill refer you to my post after the one you quoted: Show nested quote +On September 28 2011 13:31 Supamang wrote:On September 28 2011 13:23 hummingbird23 wrote:
Hmm, if that's the living standards of someone making 100K a year, what might be the living standards of someone making roughly a third to half that? More difficult. My living standards were not bad. They were actually quite good. But people seem to be suggesting that my family would be rolling in cash and wiping our asses with $100 bills. All I wanted to say was that we did not/could not live a lavish lifestyle If 3 of someones family members got cancer, most likely not all of them would get treatment. If 3 kids were applying to top end colleges, they would likely be massively in debt and/or some of the kids would have to settle for less prestigious and in-state schools. They might have 1 car instead of 2, their house might be 1 story instead of 2. Nothing about those things that I had growing up are luxurious, but they are also things that people with less income cannot enjoy. You guys are seriously just unbelievable. Youre treating me like Im the one whining about my situation. I never said that. NOT FUCKING ONCE. Ive been in this thread arguing for progressive tax rates and taxing the super rich more to help pay for government social programs. Then the moment I mention my family has a 6 figure income, people start telling me im an arrogant liar living a high consumption lifestyle and talking to me like I need to go to some sensitivity training seminar. Jesus fucking christ
There's a middle ground there. I grew up in a similar situation. Family was relatively wealthy, but we certainly didn't have yachts or multiple houses or sports cars or whatnot. We paid bills, taxes, etc.
But we were still better off that a vast majority of people in the country. I grew up taking for granted the fact that whenever I got sick, I could go to the doctor and pay just a $5 copay. My prescriptions and medicines were free. When I got into school, my parents were able to foot tuition, and I didn't have to take out loans.
And then the myriad of small things that I never even thought about. Good healthy food for every meal of my entire life. A nice house to live in, whatever school supplies I needed, etc. I had it a lot better than most people in the country without realizing it. No crazy luxuries, but again, we, (you and I) certainly had privilege.
|
Flat tax. Problem solved.
|
This thread has lost topic pretty hardcore.. anyway
On September 29 2011 06:04 Pillage wrote:Show nested quote +My point was to bring up that it's only worth spending a metric fuckton of money on security when there's human lives at risk. You couldn't generate support for that kind of change any other way. If it turns out that giving out $100B in welfare costs us another $100B for 100% assurance of welfare security, but giving out $100B in welfare only costs us $15B for only 99.5% welfare security, you're going to have a tough time convincing people that's worth the cost, because it's easy to convince people that what you're doing is overkill, and fiscally irresponsible. Or even worse in my eye, you maintain the same overall costs by taking a ton of money away from all of the legitimate beneficiaries in order to fund that added security. Hurray, made sure that everyone on welfare is on it legitimately. But now the ones left on the system can't even pay a quarter of their rent while they look for work. I've told you I already understand this, that there is a threshold where it doesn't pay to worry about it anymore, we are not at this threshold (and I think you're grossly wrong with how much money it costs to ensure that a person is qualified for a govt service / this isn't equivalent to how much money it costs to provide for and PAY a man half a world away). I also would like to skim some off the top of the programs (I think you underestimate how many people are on welfare that are on the lower end of middle class with the money they make).
On this issue though, lets see some stats? It seems like you both are guessing at numbers, and telling the other one that they are wrong. I'm just curious to see who is right, and i will be looking for some stats myself. Post em' up or I'de say both arguments need some REAL INFORMATION, from REAL SOURCES.
You two have been in a pissing contest over the 'nah your wrong im right mentality' for like 2 pages here, and i just really wanted to read / discuss the current topic at hand with some real information. I'll catch yah later when I think i found some real numbers on the topic, lets see what you guys come up with
|
On September 29 2011 08:46 Deja Thoris wrote:Show nested quote +On September 29 2011 02:55 SySLeif wrote:On September 29 2011 02:52 Deja Thoris wrote:On September 29 2011 01:53 SySLeif wrote:On September 29 2011 01:49 Deja Thoris wrote:On September 29 2011 00:07 SySLeif wrote:
I have a question for people who think this is actually significant.
How does making class warfare in our country solve anything?
This isn't about class warfare This is about doing what is right and equitable. Like someone said, this isn't being talked about for vindictive reasons. Hell, even the richest of the rich agree that their portion of the tax burden is too low (those that are honest about it) You need to get it out of your head that the rich are" being punished for their success" That simply bullshit. They are just being asked to cough up what most think is their fair share. Yes, it is actually about class warfare at this point. That's the only thing Democrats can do to win elections. "The Republicans are only for the rich!" The rich pay their fair share, and even more than their fair share most of the time. Also if you look at small business owners who's business's take in a revenue of over 250,000 a year, instead of hiring a new person or two they are forced to pay more taxes. We have some of the highest business and corporation tax rates in the west. Also they are being punished. Why should I go to college and become a doctor to make good money when I know the person who never worked hard in their life is relying on me to pay more taxes than him so that he can sit on his but and collect welfare? High on rhetoric (punishing success blah blah) Low on facts (USA has amongst the highest tax tates in the west) - Complete and utter bullshit. Its clear your pov is just a political one and you won't let facts cloud your judgement. I'll leave you be now. I said the corporate and business tax rates. Our political class has managed to maintain America's rank with the second highest corporate tax rate in the world at 39.3% (average combined federal and state). OECD study, "Taxes and Economic Growth," Maybe if you could read what I wrote, you wouldn't be so ignorant. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_tax_revenue_as_percentage_of_GDPhttp://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/36/Income_Taxes_By_Country.svg/1000px-Income_Taxes_By_Country.svg.pngHeadline tax rate doesn't really matter, what matters is what the corporations / businesses actually pay after all of their dodges have been deducted. I know one of the graphs is old but I doubt there have been seismic shifts in the corporate tax rates of countries in the past few years. Where is the USA? Oh look, its corporations are paying less tax as a % than Canada, the UK, Luxemborg, Portugal, Norway, Netherlands, Greece, Spain, Denmark, Poland, Finland, Italy, Austria, Sweden, France, Germany and Belgium. Once again, the facts don't make me look ignorant. *Edit, I only included western countries and excluded stuff like Turkey since I guess thats up for debate since they have a foot in Asia too.
Don't ever use Wikipedia as a source. It is not reliable, sorry, in the bit sense. I can go on there and change any facts I want.
Edit: I'm talking about Corporate Tax rates.
|
On September 29 2011 09:59 UrbanSlayer wrote:
Flat tax. Problem solved.
Please read the thread.
There have been mountains of arguments about why a flat tax doesn't solve anything. The fact that people are wrinting page long responses should give you a clue that perhaps the answer is not so simple.
The main issues with a flat tax are
- It unfairly punishes those with less. The more money you have the more disposable that income becomes. Those with little have very little disposable income and so a flat tax whilst "fair" punishes the less well off.
- It won't solve the fiscal problem. The money that could be taxed is that the higher end of the wealth spectrum. A flat tax that captures sufficient revenue to rectify the situation would devastate the poor and would wreck the economy.
No-one with a reasonable unerstanding of the problems is arguing for a flat tax structure. The discussions here are what type of progressive system is fair.
|
On September 29 2011 10:20 SySLeif wrote:Show nested quote +On September 29 2011 08:46 Deja Thoris wrote:On September 29 2011 02:55 SySLeif wrote:On September 29 2011 02:52 Deja Thoris wrote:On September 29 2011 01:53 SySLeif wrote:On September 29 2011 01:49 Deja Thoris wrote:On September 29 2011 00:07 SySLeif wrote:
I have a question for people who think this is actually significant.
How does making class warfare in our country solve anything?
This isn't about class warfare This is about doing what is right and equitable. Like someone said, this isn't being talked about for vindictive reasons. Hell, even the richest of the rich agree that their portion of the tax burden is too low (those that are honest about it) You need to get it out of your head that the rich are" being punished for their success" That simply bullshit. They are just being asked to cough up what most think is their fair share. Yes, it is actually about class warfare at this point. That's the only thing Democrats can do to win elections. "The Republicans are only for the rich!" The rich pay their fair share, and even more than their fair share most of the time. Also if you look at small business owners who's business's take in a revenue of over 250,000 a year, instead of hiring a new person or two they are forced to pay more taxes. We have some of the highest business and corporation tax rates in the west. Also they are being punished. Why should I go to college and become a doctor to make good money when I know the person who never worked hard in their life is relying on me to pay more taxes than him so that he can sit on his but and collect welfare? High on rhetoric (punishing success blah blah) Low on facts (USA has amongst the highest tax tates in the west) - Complete and utter bullshit. Its clear your pov is just a political one and you won't let facts cloud your judgement. I'll leave you be now. I said the corporate and business tax rates. Our political class has managed to maintain America's rank with the second highest corporate tax rate in the world at 39.3% (average combined federal and state). OECD study, "Taxes and Economic Growth," Maybe if you could read what I wrote, you wouldn't be so ignorant. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_tax_revenue_as_percentage_of_GDPhttp://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/36/Income_Taxes_By_Country.svg/1000px-Income_Taxes_By_Country.svg.pngHeadline tax rate doesn't really matter, what matters is what the corporations / businesses actually pay after all of their dodges have been deducted. I know one of the graphs is old but I doubt there have been seismic shifts in the corporate tax rates of countries in the past few years. Where is the USA? Oh look, its corporations are paying less tax as a % than Canada, the UK, Luxemborg, Portugal, Norway, Netherlands, Greece, Spain, Denmark, Poland, Finland, Italy, Austria, Sweden, France, Germany and Belgium. Once again, the facts don't make me look ignorant. *Edit, I only included western countries and excluded stuff like Turkey since I guess thats up for debate since they have a foot in Asia too. Don't ever use Wikipedia as a source. It is not reliable, sorry, in the bit sense. I can go on there and change any facts I want. Edit: I'm talking about Corporate Tax rates.
http://www.heritage.org/index/Explore.aspx?view=by-variables
There's a direct link. Not hard to click on the footnote...
Anyways, overall, the tax burden Americans face is quite small compared to a great deal of 1st world countries. The fact that we are able to do so much with such a small share, while at the same time spending ~33% of it on a sector that nobody in the world spends as much on (military) is testament that we already get a sizable deal out of government spending.
I also want to touch on something somebody said either earlier in this topic or another topic. Supposedly, the stimulus plan created jobs at $278,000 per job. Many people cite that as some gross government inefficiency and waste, but fail to actually compare that number to the private sector's record of jobs created/dollar. If we look at GEs revenue of ~$150 billion, then look at the jobs they have on the books, ~287,000, it costs GE over $500,000 per job. This is for a company that has a rather robust workforce, that is quite a ways off from the government's cost/job. To compare it to another giant, Apple, you have revenue of ~$65 billion for 49,000 jobs, or $1.3 million per job.
You hear a lot about orphaned projects and bad investments and assume that government can't compete with the private sector, but it does a pretty good job when you step back and actually compare it with the private sector.
Government:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/cea_7th_arra_report.pdf
GE:
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/40545/000119312511047479/d10k.htm#tx37537_11
Apple:
http://phx.corporate-ir.net/External.File?item=UGFyZW50SUQ9Njc1MzN8Q2hpbGRJRD0tMXxUeXBlPTM=&t=1
|
On September 29 2011 10:20 SySLeif wrote:Show nested quote +On September 29 2011 08:46 Deja Thoris wrote:On September 29 2011 02:55 SySLeif wrote:On September 29 2011 02:52 Deja Thoris wrote:On September 29 2011 01:53 SySLeif wrote:On September 29 2011 01:49 Deja Thoris wrote:On September 29 2011 00:07 SySLeif wrote:
I have a question for people who think this is actually significant.
How does making class warfare in our country solve anything?
This isn't about class warfare This is about doing what is right and equitable. Like someone said, this isn't being talked about for vindictive reasons. Hell, even the richest of the rich agree that their portion of the tax burden is too low (those that are honest about it) You need to get it out of your head that the rich are" being punished for their success" That simply bullshit. They are just being asked to cough up what most think is their fair share. Yes, it is actually about class warfare at this point. That's the only thing Democrats can do to win elections. "The Republicans are only for the rich!" The rich pay their fair share, and even more than their fair share most of the time. Also if you look at small business owners who's business's take in a revenue of over 250,000 a year, instead of hiring a new person or two they are forced to pay more taxes. We have some of the highest business and corporation tax rates in the west. Also they are being punished. Why should I go to college and become a doctor to make good money when I know the person who never worked hard in their life is relying on me to pay more taxes than him so that he can sit on his but and collect welfare? High on rhetoric (punishing success blah blah) Low on facts (USA has amongst the highest tax tates in the west) - Complete and utter bullshit. Its clear your pov is just a political one and you won't let facts cloud your judgement. I'll leave you be now. I said the corporate and business tax rates. Our political class has managed to maintain America's rank with the second highest corporate tax rate in the world at 39.3% (average combined federal and state). OECD study, "Taxes and Economic Growth," Maybe if you could read what I wrote, you wouldn't be so ignorant. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_tax_revenue_as_percentage_of_GDPhttp://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/36/Income_Taxes_By_Country.svg/1000px-Income_Taxes_By_Country.svg.pngHeadline tax rate doesn't really matter, what matters is what the corporations / businesses actually pay after all of their dodges have been deducted. I know one of the graphs is old but I doubt there have been seismic shifts in the corporate tax rates of countries in the past few years. Where is the USA? Oh look, its corporations are paying less tax as a % than Canada, the UK, Luxemborg, Portugal, Norway, Netherlands, Greece, Spain, Denmark, Poland, Finland, Italy, Austria, Sweden, France, Germany and Belgium. Once again, the facts don't make me look ignorant. *Edit, I only included western countries and excluded stuff like Turkey since I guess thats up for debate since they have a foot in Asia too. Don't ever use Wikipedia as a source. It is not reliable, sorry, in the bit sense. I can go on there and change any facts I want. Edit: I'm talking about Corporate Tax rates.
Read the pages, they link right back to the OECD, you should trust them, its what you used as a source - links are there. Read again, tax RATES dont matter, especially when there are so many ways to massive cut the effective tax rate corporations pay.
Anyway, this has gone too far off course, Warren Buffet talked about the super rich, not doctors and decently well-off families.
|
I also want to touch on something somebody said either earlier in this topic or another topic. Supposedly, the stimulus plan created jobs at $278,000 per job. Many people cite that as some gross government inefficiency and waste, but fail to actually compare that number to the private sector's record of jobs created/dollar. If we look at GEs revenue of ~$150 billion, then look at the jobs they have on the books, ~287,000, it costs GE over $500,000 per job. This is for a company that has a rather robust workforce, that is quite a ways off from the government's cost/job. To compare it to another giant, Apple, you have revenue of ~$65 billion for 49,000 jobs, or $1.3 million per job.
It really isn't that simple. First of all saying that the revenue divided by costs per job is just wrong. As profit is included in revenue, and profit doesn't get paid to employees. It is the company's to use for whatever they want.
If you want to come close to accurately quantifying how much creating a job costs, you have to look at a few things.
- Money spent to train the employee
- Money paid to the training employee
- The company's opportunity cost of hiring a new employee in the first place.
The last one is the biggest one and encompasses the first two points. The thing is that when government pressures companies to take on extra jobs by providing them subsidies, the diminishing returns eat up the utility that the marginal worker provides. In other words, you're going to have to pay progressively more and more money to a private company to oversaturate its labor schedule, especially when the company has other plans for any profits it receives.
Edit: grammar mistakes
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
