|
On October 26 2011 12:25 shinosai wrote:Show nested quote +On October 26 2011 12:18 -orb- wrote:On October 26 2011 12:14 lizzard_warish wrote:On October 26 2011 11:47 shinosai wrote:On October 26 2011 10:39 lizzard_warish wrote:
How could you when Obama is fucking with the economy every two seconds? Would YOU invest in this economy if you had money?
If the answer is yes, I'm going to go out on a limb here with the projection you will never be rich.
edit: And up until this recent recession, the poor have been getting richer every single year since the depression, the richer simply got richer still. I dont give a fuck if theres a disproportionate wealth gap so long as they invest in the economy, and they do [did until Obama...]. Eh, sort of. Between 1950 and 1980 what you say is pretty true. After 1980 there was a lot of de-regulation of banks and this idea of trickle down economics was introduced. After 1980, the poor people started getting poorer and the rich people got richer. Wealth was redistributed towards the top for a variety of reasons. Mostly it was subtle, but the bailouts made it a great deal more obvious. Now, really, the rich getting richer actually does help the poor people out in certain conditions (when they invest in the economy). However, investment in speculative markets yields much better profits (especially if you're an inside trader!!), and these speculative markets don't actually produce anything. The other problem is that they also use extra money to exploit cheap labor overseas rather than creating jobs here. When those two things are taken into account, you probably should be very, very worried about the wealth gap. The thing that needs to be understood is that there really is a finite amount of wealth that is mistakenly perceived as infinite. You think, the rich are getting richer and the poor people are getting richer, too. But taking inflation into account, what's really going on is a reallocation of a finite amount of wealth rather than rich people getting infinitely wealthier. This idea that things were going great until Obama came around is crazy. This is a problem that has been compounding on itself for over two decades, possibly three. ![[image loading]](http://a3.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/293599_263794676991569_240984512605919_655561_474454595_n.jpg) Your own rambling nonsense is proven to be such by the very picture you give as visual example of it. We all got richer after 1980, the poor just didnt get as rich as fast. I already addressed that in my post, though I enjoyed your ridiculous rhetoric. Funny. If your income is increasing over a span of 30 years but it increases slower than inflation, is it still considered "getting richer" ? Apparently suggesting otherwise is ridiculous rhetoric and mindless rambling.
But seriously, how can you possibly be getting richer if your income grows more slowly than inflation? What that means is that the value of your money is decreasing faster than you are gaining more income. You then have less purchasing power, and that is what the income disparity is about. You can't 'create' wealth. There is a finite amount of resources and wealth is entitlement to those resources.
|
On October 26 2011 13:00 Eschaton wrote:Show nested quote +On October 26 2011 12:25 shinosai wrote:On October 26 2011 12:18 -orb- wrote:On October 26 2011 12:14 lizzard_warish wrote:On October 26 2011 11:47 shinosai wrote:On October 26 2011 10:39 lizzard_warish wrote:
How could you when Obama is fucking with the economy every two seconds? Would YOU invest in this economy if you had money?
If the answer is yes, I'm going to go out on a limb here with the projection you will never be rich.
edit: And up until this recent recession, the poor have been getting richer every single year since the depression, the richer simply got richer still. I dont give a fuck if theres a disproportionate wealth gap so long as they invest in the economy, and they do [did until Obama...]. Eh, sort of. Between 1950 and 1980 what you say is pretty true. After 1980 there was a lot of de-regulation of banks and this idea of trickle down economics was introduced. After 1980, the poor people started getting poorer and the rich people got richer. Wealth was redistributed towards the top for a variety of reasons. Mostly it was subtle, but the bailouts made it a great deal more obvious. Now, really, the rich getting richer actually does help the poor people out in certain conditions (when they invest in the economy). However, investment in speculative markets yields much better profits (especially if you're an inside trader!!), and these speculative markets don't actually produce anything. The other problem is that they also use extra money to exploit cheap labor overseas rather than creating jobs here. When those two things are taken into account, you probably should be very, very worried about the wealth gap. The thing that needs to be understood is that there really is a finite amount of wealth that is mistakenly perceived as infinite. You think, the rich are getting richer and the poor people are getting richer, too. But taking inflation into account, what's really going on is a reallocation of a finite amount of wealth rather than rich people getting infinitely wealthier. This idea that things were going great until Obama came around is crazy. This is a problem that has been compounding on itself for over two decades, possibly three. Your own rambling nonsense is proven to be such by the very picture you give as visual example of it. We all got richer after 1980, the poor just didnt get as rich as fast. I already addressed that in my post, though I enjoyed your ridiculous rhetoric. Funny. If your income is increasing over a span of 30 years but it increases slower than inflation, is it still considered "getting richer" ? Apparently suggesting otherwise is ridiculous rhetoric and mindless rambling. But seriously, how can you possibly be getting richer if your income grows more slowly than inflation? What that means is that the value of your money is decreasing faster than you are gaining more income. You then have less purchasing power, and that is what the income disparity is about. You can't 'create' wealth. There is a finite amount of resources and wealth is entitlement to those resources.
It's probably cause we're too lazy and not trying hard enough and not picking the choices to do well /end sarcasm
|
On October 26 2011 12:51 -orb- wrote:Show nested quote +On October 26 2011 12:41 relyt wrote:On October 26 2011 12:15 -orb- wrote:On October 25 2011 12:03 jeremysaint wrote:
i swear americans live on another planet sometimes. the usa is going broke because of its ridiculously low taxes. 3rd lowest in western world. you dont need a tax cut, and unless you really hate people with low income you dont need a federal sales tax or any kind of flat tax.
sometimes complex problems and systems don't have a simple answer, and a tax code you pulled out of your ass on a whim will not help your finacial woes. if there are problems with the current system fix the problems, close the loopholes, force republicans to cooperate with the us govt and president for the good of the country, at least once. The problem is the vast majority of Americans are unbelievably stupid and have an inability to detach themselves from their fantasies. Thus they dream of becoming rich one day, and thus subconsciously want taxes to be lowered for the rich so if they someday make it big they won't have to pay that oh-so-life-threatening extra 3%. It's a huge problem that I can't conceive a solution to. If poor people are voting to decrease taxes on the rich... what the fuck can we do? Its not just cutting taxes for the rich. Some people(like me) want lower taxes for everyone. I was more referring to the specific tax cuts to the rich that bush did and obama has been trying to undo By the way, if everyone gets lower taxes, how do you expect to pay for schools, roads, hospitals, etc?
Well, perhaps this is a ludicrous notion, but... we might pay for them quite easily if all our revenue wasn't going towards paying off the interest of the national debt, or going towards unsustainable war efforts and entitlements. In fact, before the federal government got involved in education, we put LESS money into schools and the quality of the education was BETTER.
|
On October 26 2011 12:51 -orb- wrote:Show nested quote +On October 26 2011 12:41 relyt wrote:On October 26 2011 12:15 -orb- wrote:On October 25 2011 12:03 jeremysaint wrote:
i swear americans live on another planet sometimes. the usa is going broke because of its ridiculously low taxes. 3rd lowest in western world. you dont need a tax cut, and unless you really hate people with low income you dont need a federal sales tax or any kind of flat tax.
sometimes complex problems and systems don't have a simple answer, and a tax code you pulled out of your ass on a whim will not help your finacial woes. if there are problems with the current system fix the problems, close the loopholes, force republicans to cooperate with the us govt and president for the good of the country, at least once. The problem is the vast majority of Americans are unbelievably stupid and have an inability to detach themselves from their fantasies. Thus they dream of becoming rich one day, and thus subconsciously want taxes to be lowered for the rich so if they someday make it big they won't have to pay that oh-so-life-threatening extra 3%. It's a huge problem that I can't conceive a solution to. If poor people are voting to decrease taxes on the rich... what the fuck can we do? Its not just cutting taxes for the rich. Some people(like me) want lower taxes for everyone. I was more referring to the specific tax cuts to the rich that bush did and obama has been trying to undo By the way, if everyone gets lower taxes, how do you expect to pay for schools, roads, hospitals, etc?
You do it by not spending money on the wasteful shit that they do. You don't need 30% taxes to pay for that. Like I said earlier Hong Kong has 15% flat tax or a progressive tax of 2% to 17% depending on which liability is lower. They seem to do fine.
|
On October 26 2011 13:43 shinosai wrote:Show nested quote +On October 26 2011 12:51 -orb- wrote:On October 26 2011 12:41 relyt wrote:On October 26 2011 12:15 -orb- wrote:On October 25 2011 12:03 jeremysaint wrote:
i swear americans live on another planet sometimes. the usa is going broke because of its ridiculously low taxes. 3rd lowest in western world. you dont need a tax cut, and unless you really hate people with low income you dont need a federal sales tax or any kind of flat tax.
sometimes complex problems and systems don't have a simple answer, and a tax code you pulled out of your ass on a whim will not help your finacial woes. if there are problems with the current system fix the problems, close the loopholes, force republicans to cooperate with the us govt and president for the good of the country, at least once. The problem is the vast majority of Americans are unbelievably stupid and have an inability to detach themselves from their fantasies. Thus they dream of becoming rich one day, and thus subconsciously want taxes to be lowered for the rich so if they someday make it big they won't have to pay that oh-so-life-threatening extra 3%. It's a huge problem that I can't conceive a solution to. If poor people are voting to decrease taxes on the rich... what the fuck can we do? Its not just cutting taxes for the rich. Some people(like me) want lower taxes for everyone. I was more referring to the specific tax cuts to the rich that bush did and obama has been trying to undo By the way, if everyone gets lower taxes, how do you expect to pay for schools, roads, hospitals, etc? Well, perhaps this is a ludicrous notion, but... we might pay for them quite easily if all our revenue wasn't going towards paying off the interest of the national debt, or going towards unsustainable war efforts and entitlements. In fact, before the federal government got involved in education, we put LESS money into schools and the quality of the education was BETTER.
The thing is, before the federal government got involved in education, the parents were better too. Education at the high end is as good as it ever was. Its the low end that is the problem and you're not going to solve that problem until you solve the crab bucket mentality within the lower classes, along many of the other social ills plaguing the poor.
|
On October 26 2011 13:52 relyt wrote:Show nested quote +On October 26 2011 12:51 -orb- wrote:On October 26 2011 12:41 relyt wrote:On October 26 2011 12:15 -orb- wrote:On October 25 2011 12:03 jeremysaint wrote:
i swear americans live on another planet sometimes. the usa is going broke because of its ridiculously low taxes. 3rd lowest in western world. you dont need a tax cut, and unless you really hate people with low income you dont need a federal sales tax or any kind of flat tax.
sometimes complex problems and systems don't have a simple answer, and a tax code you pulled out of your ass on a whim will not help your finacial woes. if there are problems with the current system fix the problems, close the loopholes, force republicans to cooperate with the us govt and president for the good of the country, at least once. The problem is the vast majority of Americans are unbelievably stupid and have an inability to detach themselves from their fantasies. Thus they dream of becoming rich one day, and thus subconsciously want taxes to be lowered for the rich so if they someday make it big they won't have to pay that oh-so-life-threatening extra 3%. It's a huge problem that I can't conceive a solution to. If poor people are voting to decrease taxes on the rich... what the fuck can we do? Its not just cutting taxes for the rich. Some people(like me) want lower taxes for everyone. I was more referring to the specific tax cuts to the rich that bush did and obama has been trying to undo By the way, if everyone gets lower taxes, how do you expect to pay for schools, roads, hospitals, etc? You do it by not spending money on the wasteful shit that they do. You don't need 30% taxes to pay for that. Like I said earlier Hong Kong has 15% flat tax or a progressive tax of 2% to 17% depending on which liability is lower. They seem to do fine.
Hong Kong isn't really the best example. For a start, its one of the most unequal places on earth, its effectively city state, its one of the most densely populated places on earth, plus its one of the major commercial/financial hubs in asia.
Its like comparing the tax system of the US to Monaco. You can run a city on gambling revenue. You can't run a country on it.
|
On October 26 2011 14:24 vetinari wrote:Show nested quote +On October 26 2011 13:52 relyt wrote:On October 26 2011 12:51 -orb- wrote:On October 26 2011 12:41 relyt wrote:On October 26 2011 12:15 -orb- wrote:On October 25 2011 12:03 jeremysaint wrote:
i swear americans live on another planet sometimes. the usa is going broke because of its ridiculously low taxes. 3rd lowest in western world. you dont need a tax cut, and unless you really hate people with low income you dont need a federal sales tax or any kind of flat tax.
sometimes complex problems and systems don't have a simple answer, and a tax code you pulled out of your ass on a whim will not help your finacial woes. if there are problems with the current system fix the problems, close the loopholes, force republicans to cooperate with the us govt and president for the good of the country, at least once. The problem is the vast majority of Americans are unbelievably stupid and have an inability to detach themselves from their fantasies. Thus they dream of becoming rich one day, and thus subconsciously want taxes to be lowered for the rich so if they someday make it big they won't have to pay that oh-so-life-threatening extra 3%. It's a huge problem that I can't conceive a solution to. If poor people are voting to decrease taxes on the rich... what the fuck can we do? Its not just cutting taxes for the rich. Some people(like me) want lower taxes for everyone. I was more referring to the specific tax cuts to the rich that bush did and obama has been trying to undo By the way, if everyone gets lower taxes, how do you expect to pay for schools, roads, hospitals, etc? You do it by not spending money on the wasteful shit that they do. You don't need 30% taxes to pay for that. Like I said earlier Hong Kong has 15% flat tax or a progressive tax of 2% to 17% depending on which liability is lower. They seem to do fine. Hong Kong isn't really the best example. For a start, its one of the most unequal places on earth, its effectively city state, its one of the most densely populated places on earth, plus its one of the major commercial/financial hubs in asia. Its like comparing the tax system of the US to Monaco. You can run a city on gambling revenue. You can't run a country on it.
Not to mention the massive amounts of corruption and triads with their hands everywhere...
If you're poor in HK you get to live in the slums, if you're rich you get to live in the nice ass hills.
![[image loading]](http://www.globalphotos.org/hongkong/20051006/DSCN1063.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.globalphotos.org/hongkong/20051006/DSCN1121.jpg)
Here's a pic of famous Kowloon's walled city back in the day:
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/8yt1c.jpg)
yeah...hong kong kinda sucks for poor people...
|
Yeah I guess Hong Kong wasn't the best example. But the US isnt much better despite having higher taxes and more welfare programs.
![[image loading]](http://www.danhagerman.com/images/Bronx%20Ghetto.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.american-pictures.com/gallery/usa/mediums/usa-03472.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://holapicasso.pbworks.com/f/1297424909/ghetto.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSjQLTfBoNuvfx34eBGlSYcOsTQ5ybFXSYAJADA7huoxs5pMOlFnlDgQqmcjQ)
|
On October 25 2011 12:01 Viciousvx wrote:
Breaking News: Rick Perry, Unlikely to Be Nominated Has Announced Free MuthaTrucking Rainbows and Unicorns!
You Get a Ron Paul, You get a Ron Paul, EVERYONE GETS A RON PAUL!
My thoughts exactly.
|
The US really doesn't have that high a tax rate compared to the rest of the first world countries. Hong Kong is basically a city and if you compare it's tax rate to American cities you'll still find that American cities have lower tax rates.
|
On October 26 2011 14:46 chaoser wrote:
The US really doesn't have that high a tax rate compared to the rest of the first world countries. Hong Kong is basically a city and if you compare it's tax rate to American cities you'll still find that American cities have lower tax rates.
The problem with taxes here is that so much of the tax money is wasted. I wouldn't mind paying taxes if it went to actually help people in this country, and if it was spent wisely and efficiently. I just don't like having so much money spent on subsidies, wars, foreign aid, $16 muffins, and $8 dollar coffee.
|
On October 26 2011 15:02 relyt wrote:Show nested quote +On October 26 2011 14:46 chaoser wrote:
The US really doesn't have that high a tax rate compared to the rest of the first world countries. Hong Kong is basically a city and if you compare it's tax rate to American cities you'll still find that American cities have lower tax rates. The problem with taxes here is that so much of the tax money is wasted. I wouldn't mind paying taxes if it went to actually help people in this country, and if it was spent wisely and efficiently. I just don't like having so much money spent on subsidies, wars, foreign aid, $16 muffins, and $8 dollar coffee.
You hear these horror stories but they happen in any large organization, public or private. Whenever a candidate is asked what he or she would cut, the answer invariably angers many people. The reason is most of the money is in fact well-spent on things people want and need. I wish the discussion was about what services we want to pay for as a society, not some limbo low tax contest to see who can have the most outrageous plan.
|
On October 26 2011 15:06 Sentient wrote:Show nested quote +On October 26 2011 15:02 relyt wrote:On October 26 2011 14:46 chaoser wrote:
The US really doesn't have that high a tax rate compared to the rest of the first world countries. Hong Kong is basically a city and if you compare it's tax rate to American cities you'll still find that American cities have lower tax rates. The problem with taxes here is that so much of the tax money is wasted. I wouldn't mind paying taxes if it went to actually help people in this country, and if it was spent wisely and efficiently. I just don't like having so much money spent on subsidies, wars, foreign aid, $16 muffins, and $8 dollar coffee. You hear these horror stories but they happen in any large organization, public or private. Whenever a candidate is asked what he or she would cut, the answer invariably angers many people. The reason is most of the money is in fact well-spent on things people want and need. I wish the discussion was about what services we want to pay for as a society, not some limbo low tax contest to see who can have the most outrageous plan.
Yeah, I agree that there are social programs out there that should stay. I just don't like all the money we spend on war and foreign aid.
|
On October 26 2011 15:02 relyt wrote:Show nested quote +On October 26 2011 14:46 chaoser wrote:
The US really doesn't have that high a tax rate compared to the rest of the first world countries. Hong Kong is basically a city and if you compare it's tax rate to American cities you'll still find that American cities have lower tax rates. The problem with taxes here is that so much of the tax money is wasted. I wouldn't mind paying taxes if it went to actually help people in this country, and if it was spent wisely and efficiently. I just don't like having so much money spent on subsidies, wars, foreign aid, $16 muffins, and $8 dollar coffee.
In reference to the $16 muffin/$8 coffee story, I'm sure you're referring to O'Reilly little story about how the Justice Department had a conference where the invoice charged said muffins were $16 bucks a piece right?
That's actually not the complete story:
Hilton Worldwide, which manages and franchises hotels including the Capital Hilton where the conference took place, says the price included not only breakfast baked goods but also fresh fruit, coffee, tea, soft drinks, tax and tips. It says the report misinterpreted its invoices, which often use shorthand and don't reflect the full menu and service provided.
The IG says that the total cost per person at the reception was $14.74 -- 2 cents over the allowable Justice Department limit. Totaling up the items in the IG's report, the 534 attendees over five days were given 1,150 pastries, 1,350 pieces of candy and fruit, 1,250 cups of coffee and tea and 250 soft drinks.
The IG's audit of excessive spending at 10 Justice Department conferences was one of those news stories that make the public sit up and take notice. Once again, the profligate government was overspending. But it wasn't billions. Or even millions. It was muffins at $16 apiece, according to the IG's office.
The report referenced the $16 muffins half a dozen times and it said their cost was one of many food items that "appeared extravagant and potentially wasteful."
Not so, Hilton Worldwide said in a statement Thursday.
"In Washington, the contracted breakfast included fresh fruit, coffee, juice, muffins, tax and gratuity, for an inclusive price of $16 per person," Hilton Worldwide said in a statement.
"Dining receipts are often abbreviated and do not reflect the full pre-contracted menu and service provided, as is the case with recent media reports of breakfast items approved for some government meetings," Hilton Worldwide's statement added.
So, it appears that not only did DOJ not extravagantly overspend for food and beverages at the conference -- it went 2 cents over the allowable limit -- many other things besides muffins were included in that $16 cost, including service, tax, and gratuity.
A lot of hotel services generally just charge all food and services under one vague heading in their invoices, this one just happened to have it under breakfast foods, ex. Muffins
|
On October 26 2011 15:19 chaoser wrote:Show nested quote +On October 26 2011 15:02 relyt wrote:On October 26 2011 14:46 chaoser wrote:
The US really doesn't have that high a tax rate compared to the rest of the first world countries. Hong Kong is basically a city and if you compare it's tax rate to American cities you'll still find that American cities have lower tax rates. The problem with taxes here is that so much of the tax money is wasted. I wouldn't mind paying taxes if it went to actually help people in this country, and if it was spent wisely and efficiently. I just don't like having so much money spent on subsidies, wars, foreign aid, $16 muffins, and $8 dollar coffee. In reference to the $16 muffin/$8 coffee story, I'm sure you're referring to O'Reilly little story about how the Justice Department had a conference where the invoice charged said muffins were $16 bucks a piece right? That's actually not the complete story: A lot of hotel services generally just charge all food and services under one vague heading in their invoices, this one just happened to have it under breakfast foods, ex. Muffins
Ah, thanks for the info looks like i was misinformed. And just to be clear I didn't hear it from O'Reilly, I hate that guy.
|
But I do agree with cutting back on superfluous spending. Kill the the pork barrel projects and cut really unnecessary military R&D projects that have no chance of being viable or useful.
At the same time though, taxes need to be raised, at least for those in the higher income brackets. O'Reilly even says so himself, agreeing that he's willing to pay increased taxes if government spending is also reigned in.
|
On October 26 2011 15:13 relyt wrote:Show nested quote +On October 26 2011 15:06 Sentient wrote:On October 26 2011 15:02 relyt wrote:On October 26 2011 14:46 chaoser wrote:
The US really doesn't have that high a tax rate compared to the rest of the first world countries. Hong Kong is basically a city and if you compare it's tax rate to American cities you'll still find that American cities have lower tax rates. The problem with taxes here is that so much of the tax money is wasted. I wouldn't mind paying taxes if it went to actually help people in this country, and if it was spent wisely and efficiently. I just don't like having so much money spent on subsidies, wars, foreign aid, $16 muffins, and $8 dollar coffee. You hear these horror stories but they happen in any large organization, public or private. Whenever a candidate is asked what he or she would cut, the answer invariably angers many people. The reason is most of the money is in fact well-spent on things people want and need. I wish the discussion was about what services we want to pay for as a society, not some limbo low tax contest to see who can have the most outrageous plan. Yeah, I agree that there are social programs out there that should stay. I just don't like all the money we spend on war and foreign aid.
Foreign aid is only 1% of the budget (when polled, the public says it's a staggering 25%). It's a small price to pay for increasing stability in the third world and engendering good will for the United States (which means we can spend less on military intervention).
|
On October 26 2011 15:27 chaoser wrote:
But I do agree with cutting back on superfluous spending. Kill the the pork barrel projects and cut really unnecessary military R&D projects that have no chance of being viable or useful.
At the same time though, taxes need to be raised, at least for those in the higher income brackets. O'Reilly even says so himself, agreeing that he's willing to pay increased taxes if government spending is also reigned in.
With our debt problem we have now I guess I will agree that some taxes do need to be raised and spending does need to go down. I wish that we didn't need higher taxes though, I guess I can always hope that in the future things will be better and we can have lower taxes while still keeping a lot of the useful social programs we have.
|
On October 26 2011 15:29 Sentient wrote:Show nested quote +On October 26 2011 15:13 relyt wrote:On October 26 2011 15:06 Sentient wrote:On October 26 2011 15:02 relyt wrote:On October 26 2011 14:46 chaoser wrote:
The US really doesn't have that high a tax rate compared to the rest of the first world countries. Hong Kong is basically a city and if you compare it's tax rate to American cities you'll still find that American cities have lower tax rates. The problem with taxes here is that so much of the tax money is wasted. I wouldn't mind paying taxes if it went to actually help people in this country, and if it was spent wisely and efficiently. I just don't like having so much money spent on subsidies, wars, foreign aid, $16 muffins, and $8 dollar coffee. You hear these horror stories but they happen in any large organization, public or private. Whenever a candidate is asked what he or she would cut, the answer invariably angers many people. The reason is most of the money is in fact well-spent on things people want and need. I wish the discussion was about what services we want to pay for as a society, not some limbo low tax contest to see who can have the most outrageous plan. Yeah, I agree that there are social programs out there that should stay. I just don't like all the money we spend on war and foreign aid. Foreign aid is only 1% of the budget (when polled, the public says it's a staggering 25%). It's a small price to pay for increasing stability in the third world and engendering good will for the United States (which means we can spend less on military intervention).
EDIT: nvm i found the source.
|
i like that he wants to remove the death tax... that shit is ridiculous
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
