The beauty of capitalism in pictures.

[quote name='speedracer']Look what you've done Bob. You're being so damned obtuse you've made FoC post three consecutive times without any trace of wry humor or obscure references. You should be ashamed of yourself.[/QUOTE]

Oh damn, quick! Someone post with a penis avatar - stat!
 
Well, there was that one individual case of the IRS going after tax cheats using Swiss accounts this summer. This one action initially targeted 52,000 Americans believed to be evading taxes, but after a settlement with UBS will "only" involve 4,450 individuals. "Just" those accounts were believed to hold about $18 billion. So figuring 35% (assuming this is all new, not from when tax rates were higher which is almost certainly true for a decent percentage), just these 4,450 would account for approximately $6.3 billion dollars in evaded taxes. This one instance of one bank in one country.

What's the average theft from social services $ figure and how many would we have to catch to equal this one action?

But the better question is is this tax fraud systematic?

According to court documents, in 2000, UBS entered into an agreement to begin providing the IRS with certain information relating to accounts in which the beneficial owner was a U.S. citizen. Around the same time, one of Chernick’s Swiss bankers left UBS for a smaller, less known Swiss bank. This banker told Chernick he had left UBS, in part, because the smaller bank would not be subject to Washington’s scrutiny and could not be pressured by the U.S. government to disclose certain information to American authorities. Following this banker’s advice, Chernick agreed to invest some of his assets with the smaller Swiss bank.

According to court documents, from 2002 through 2008, Chernick discussed his offshore accounts with this former UBS banker and other Swiss financial service providers. These meetings took place in the United States at various locations, including hotels in New York City. During these meetings, Chernick, the Swiss bankers and Swiss financial service providers would discuss Chernick’s investments held in his offshore accounts, as well as the payment of fees for banking services rendered by Hong Kong and Swiss financial service providers. In July 2008, despite Chernick’s concerns about the ongoing investigation into the activities of UBS, a Swiss financial service provider convinced Chernick not to disclose his offshore accounts, not to file amended returns, and not to pay to the IRS any additional taxes that were due and owing.
Click to expand...

http://www.justice.gov/tax/txdv09729.htm

Yup. Wholly and completely.

One steals $1000. One steals $1,000,000. Which should we spend more time and effort on? Clearly the $1000 because the $1000000 guy was in the top 20% and paid more taxes in aggregate than the other. Perfect sense.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Do tell - and, of course, you won't be able to cite evidence, because I understand such a thing would be impossible to know for sure - Let's take the money paid into the government by the top twenty and bottom twenty percent of all individuals living in America. Now, let's take the money the government didn't get because they were "cheated" out of it by the top and bottom 20%.

Which one of those two groups still probably end up paying a higher percentage of the total Federal Income Tax?[/QUOTE]

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/livecoverage/2008/10/after_bailout_aig_executives_h.html

How much did AIG employees pay for these services? Would it had been noticed if they hadn't just received a bailout?

...

You aren't understanding any part of my argument.

In order for the bottom 20% to pay a higher percentage in Federal Income Tax, they would have to be concealing a higher percentage of their income than the top 20% is concealing.
 
[quote name='speedracer']Look what you've done Bob. You're being so damned obtuse you've made FoC post three consecutive times without any trace of wry humor or obscure references. You should be ashamed of yourself.[/QUOTE]

I've been sarcastic elsewhere. My smartassery is not bound to any particular thread.
 
[quote name='speedracer']Yup. Wholly and completely.

One steals $1000. One steals $1,000,000. Which should we spend more time and effort on? Clearly the $1000 because the $1000000 guy was in the top 20% and paid more taxes in aggregate than the other. Perfect sense.[/QUOTE]

You run a bar.

Guy comes in, spends $200 every night, netting you $100 profit. Occasionally, he gets a drink or two that the waitress (who he also tips generously) "forgets" to put on his tab.

College kid comes in every night. Rarely orders anything. When he does, half the time, he doesn't even pay - he skips out on the bill. Generally sits around and eats the free beer nuts.

Which one do you get rid of?

I have an idea - I want to open a business. I'm thinking - grocery store. Everyone likes food. In order to shop at my grocery store, I'm going to require you to submit your W2's. Now, merchandise prices will be based on your income. For example, if you make $20,000/year, I'll sell you a 24-pack of Pepsi for $1. If you make $50,000/year, I'll sell it to you for $6. If you make $100,000/year, I'll sell it to you for $15. If you make $1 Million/Year, that 24-Pack of Pepsi is gonna run you about $100.

How long do you think such a business would last?
 
[quote name='UncleBob']You run a bar.

Guy comes in, spends $200 every night, netting you $100 profit. Occasionally, he gets a drink or two that the waitress (who he also tips generously) "forgets" to put on his tab.

College kid comes in every night. Rarely orders anything. When he does, half the time, he doesn't even pay - he skips out on the bill. Generally sits around and eats the free beer nuts.

Which one do you get rid of?
[/QUOTE]

The waitress.

I have an idea - I want to open a business. I'm thinking - grocery store. Everyone likes food. In order to shop at my grocery store, I'm going to require you to submit your W2's. Now, merchandise prices will be based on your income. For example, if you make $20,000/year, I'll sell you a 24-pack of Pepsi for $1. If you make $50,000/year, I'll sell it to you for $6. If you make $100,000/year, I'll sell it to you for $15. If you make $1 Million/Year, that 24-Pack of Pepsi is gonna run you about $100.

How long do you think such a business would last?
Click to expand...

Hmmm. Depends on how you market it. The thing I know about rich people is that they generally don't give a shit what the price is, so long as you tell them it's fashionable/unique/etc. So the Pepsi is suddenly "High Class Pepsi," and all I do is write it on there with a marker. Just tell them it's made from some country they've never heard of and that is tastes better - it's not the swill the proletariat is drinking. No, this is the big stuff - super Pepsi if you will, the kind the kings in Canada drink. Yes - kings in Canada. They'll believe that shit too. The mind is an easy thing to influence.

A better question is if A) this is legal, which I have to assume it is since you are setting the prices and still paying back the original manufacturer, and B) does that suddenly mean - should you start selling high volumes of products to rich people - that you're suddenly pissing away ~$4.17 when you yourself drink a Pepsi on your break? What about the kids working for you - when they steal, do you RIAA it up and charge 'em the full price for the 24 pack?

I could probably think up some more variables to fun around with. Which is to say, there are too many factors here to just broadside it out like this.

Reminds me of econ courses in college. They'd have all these hypothetical questions meant to teach me some term or concept, and I'd inevitably think around them. One was "If you have an ice cream shop with three flavors and one day run out of one, what happens?" The "correct" answer is that the other two MUST sell more. While I agree to that, my thinking was that if someone went in there and really wanted the flavor that's out, they'll just go somewhere else to get it or simply not worry about it anymore. I understand what the answer was implying, it's just that I felt more factors were at play.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='Strell']The waitress.
[/quote]
Wrong answer. The waitress was hot and the reason 98% of your customers came in. You just pissed off most of your business. The college kid that eats the free beer nuts still comes in though.
 
[quote name='Strell']The waitress.
[/QUOTE]

Exactly!

And it's another silly analogy. A big spender in a bar getting a free drink or two every now and then, is hardly comparable to the millionaires and billionaires cheating their way out of hundreds of thousands of dollars in tax liability.

That's a drop in the bucket of the bars bottom line. The billions of missed tax liability estimated in an earlier post above is a big issue for the US budget and deficit.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Wrong answer. The waitress was hot and the reason 98% of your customers came in. You just pissed off most of your business. The college kid that eats the free beer nuts still comes in though.[/QUOTE]

There's not shortage of hot waitresses to hire for a bar.

But really, to be serious, the correct answer is that you don't get rid of anyone. They want to keep the big spenders happy, so the owner is probably fine with them getting the occasional freebie. Beer nuts aren't meant to make money, so no big deal if someone eats them a lot and only occasional buy something.

If anything, you get rid of the nuts and only give them out when someone orders something and asks for them (available upon request with order).
 
These people are already paying billions in taxes.

You want them to pay more. Why? For no other reason than that they have the money.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']These people are already paying billions in taxes.

You want them to pay more. Why? For no other reason than that they have the money.[/QUOTE]

We're currently talking about them not paying all their taxes by hiding some taxable income through various loopholes.

I see no argument that they should be allowed to do that. People should have to pay the full taxes on all of their income, and not either commit outright income tax evasion, or take advantage of loopholes. Though the later is on the government to close the loopholes.

Now earlier, we were talking about needing a higher tax bracket than 35% as it isn't reasonable to some of us that someone making $372K is in the same bracket as someone making $1 billion. That's a different issue, and I'm not going to go in circles with you on that one anymore as we'll never agree on anything there as you're coming from libertarian (skewing to anarchist/anti-government) view and I'm coming from a view teetering on socialism.

Though I will add one more point, that taxing them more isn't just because they have the money. But also as a mechanism to try and reduce the absurd income inequality we have in the US that causes hosts of problems throughout the economy and society in general.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']These people are already paying billions in taxes.

You want them to pay more. Why? For no other reason than that they have the money.[/QUOTE]

We already established you can't make an actual argument, can you at least try to make a faux argument that doesn't rely on a blatantly false premise?

You can't do honesty Bob at least try for subtlety.
 
[quote name='UncleBob'] Why? For no other reason than that they have the money.[/QUOTE]

No, it's because the system in place allowed them to, and further allows them to make arbitrary rules and exploit loopholes once they are at the top, which is fast becoming an increasingly slim possibility.

When you open up a bar, it shouldn't be because you spent the previous week setting every other bar in the area on fire. And then when you make a shit ton of profit, you shouldn't be allowed to pay off the police.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']These people are already paying billions in taxes.

You want them to pay more. Why? For no other reason than that they have the money.[/QUOTE]

What are you saying - we should get the people who don't have money to pay taxes?
 
Rich people shouldn't pay more taxes cuz they already pay a lot. They also shouldn't pay the taxes they're already supposed to cuz they don't wanna.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Guy comes in, spends $200 every night, netting you $100 profit. Occasionally, he gets a drink or two that the waitress (who he also tips generously) "forgets" to put on his tab.[/QUOTE]
We could have this conversation like grown ups if you would take a damn economics course. But yea, haha, you're too cute dude. You're assuming that all rich people pay at least *some* federal income taxes. Your naivete is endearing and tiring at the same time.

Oh look. Another hour, another tax scandal involving rich people hiding their money in overseas accounts.

The revenue service said it has evidence suggesting that some Stanford investors were underreporting their income or evading taxes. The total amount is unknown.
Click to expand...
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl...-+Top+Stories)&utm_content=Google+Feedfetcher
 
[quote name='Strell']No, it's because the system in place allowed them to, and further allows them to make arbitrary rules and exploit loopholes once they are at the top, which is fast becoming an increasingly slim possibility.[/QUOTE]

Thank you, kind government, for allowing me to run a business, have a family, start a savings account, eat, breathe and sleep.

I don't know what we would all do if it wasn't for the government allowing us to do all these wonderful things we do.

[quote name='speedracer']We could have this conversation like grown ups if you would take a damn economics course. But yea, haha, you're too cute dude. You're assuming that all rich people pay at least *some* federal income taxes. Your naivete is endearing and tiring at the same time.[/QUOTE]

As opposed to all those poor people that you assume pay in *some* federal income taxes?

I'd bet you $50 that the top 20% pay in a lot more money than the bottom 20%. Wanna take me up on that offer?
 
[quote name='mykevermin']1) Wasn't Pew. Was a Krugman blog. My apologies:
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/10/30/if-a-deficit-falls-in-the-forest/

2) The poll reflects on 1996 - now, by then the annual deficit was not in the balanced/surplus range it was in 1999-2000, but the annual deficit had been reduced significantly.

3) The Krugman blog cites these claims. The actual sources are
3a: http://www.princeton.edu/~bartels/thinking.pdf (the paper that presents the poll data)
3b: http://www.census.gov/statab/hist/HS-47.pdf (budget information - for deficit/surplus info, see the third column)

4) While I really want to make the strong claim that this means ideology trumps history, a simple refutation can throw a wrench into that: people often can't differentiate b/w "budget deficit" and "national debt" (especially when simply phrased as "deficit" or "debt"). Clinton increased the debt year over year (duh), but the deficit declined each year he was in office. People could simply be responding in a way that conflates those two terms. However, I'm not wholly convinced by that - primarily because there's no consistency from party to party in that area (if it was wholesale confusion of two words, we'd see parity in all party opinions on whether or not the deficit went up).[/QUOTE]

Thanks. Always interested in the effects of party propaganda on people's perceptions of the truth.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']As opposed to all those poor people that you assume pay in *some* federal income taxes?

I'd bet you $50 that the top 20% pay in a lot more money than the bottom 20%. Wanna take me up on that offer?[/QUOTE]
Something inside you thinks you're making a point by repeating this over and over. I don't understand what it is you *think* you're conveying. What's the point? Do you even have one?
 
[quote name='speedracer']Something inside you thinks you're making a point by repeating this over and over. I don't understand what it is you *think* you're conveying. What's the point? Do you even have one?[/QUOTE]

The exact same point I made when this whole thing started. Someone chimed in, thinking they'd be cute and said that the rich pay less in taxes than the poor. Merely pointing out that, on the whole, those evil, rich bastards pretty much pay for running the entire Federal Government. But, apparently, that's not enough.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']The exact same point I made when this whole thing started. Someone chimed in, thinking they'd be cute and said that the rich pay less in taxes than the poor. Merely pointing out that, on the whole, those evil, rich bastards pretty much pay for running the entire Federal Government. But, apparently, that's not enough.[/QUOTE]

Ohhhh! That's your point? Yes, the rich pay more in taxes than the poor. That guy who claimed a million in "wages" and had his company dole out another million or two in perks IS paying more in taxes than the fry cook at McDonald's. You're right.

Now, let's move on to something where I don't sound like such a pinko.
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']Ohhhh! That's your point?[/QUOTE]

Yes... That was my point nearly 150 posts ago...
http://www.cheapassgamer.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6573693&postcount=228

I'd like to throw something else out. I'm sure it won't stick to most of you, but... just try it.

How many millions (or billions) of dollars do you think all these filthy, evil rich folks are hiding in mattresses in Switzerland?

I'm sure it's a pretty penny or two.

Now - let's pretend for a moment that, instead of setting in jars, buried six feet under some rich guy's second home in Austria, all these billions of dollars were back home, here, in America... But not directly given to our government - let's put them in American Banks. Let's invest these formerly-hidden away billions into the American Stock Market. Once in banks and the stock market, we can see credit lines start to open back up. We can see investors start to feel a little more confident in their investing.

Pretty neat idea, eh?

I mean, sure, we could just take the money, give it to the government... They can dole it out as food stamps or other types of Welfare payments. It'll help some people out in the short term. Perhaps, even, some of them will be able to use this short-term to get back on their feet. Find a job in the booming work-force we have right now.

Alternatively, a small business owner who's gone to his bank to find that, suddenly, his bank has a rather large influx of cash and they *can* approve his loan application for the construction of his new restaurant he wanted to build. Jobs for construction. Jobs for cooks and waiters/waitresses. Jobs for managers and busboys. Taxes being paid in on sales and employment. Taxes being paid in by the employees who, instead of getting by on welfare, are now making (and thus, spending) money.
 
[quote name='willardhaven']Trickle Down economics? Really?[/QUOTE]

Because "Trickle Up" works so well.

How many jobs do the bottom 20% create?

Outside of law enforcement and prison guards, that is?
 
[quote name='speedracer']We could have this conversation like grown ups if you would take a damn economics course. But yea, haha, you're too cute dude. You're assuming that all rich people pay at least *some* federal income taxes. Your naivete is endearing and tiring at the same time.
[/QUOTE]

Agreed, other than the endearing part. I've had all I can take, no more time going in pointless circles with a Wal-mart employee. Yet another addition to the ignore list.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Because "Trickle Up" works so well.

How many jobs do the bottom 20% create?

Outside of law enforcement and prison guards, that is?[/QUOTE]

That's a logical fallacy good sir. Besides, most of the jobs created by rich involve third world countries and the destruction of resources. Our future might be better if we just burn the money.
 
Given the rabid greed being displayed right now, how can you possibly justify giving more money to those who already have a lot? They'll just keep it.

I am amazed someone ever thought this was a good idea. Do you put out fires by making more fires alongside them?

See: EA's John Riticello, roughly two weeks ago, re: Pandemic
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']Agreed, other than the endearing part. I've had all I can take, no more time going in pointless circles with a Wal-mart employee. Yet another addition to the ignore list.[/QUOTE]

I love using "a Wal-mart employee" as an insult. Very high-class of you.
 
[quote name='Strell']Given the rabid greed being displayed right now, how can you possibly justify giving more money to those who already have a lot? They'll just keep it.[/QUOTE]

You know, I'd love to run a social experiment, take about 100 people, some wealthy and successful, some not so much... Give them three changes of clothes and $100 each and - leaving all their former assets and resources behind - put them in some kind of contained area. Give them some shelter, tools, some other basics, and time and see who ends up with all the money and power within the community. It'd be interesting.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']You know, I'd love to run a social experiment, take about 100 people, some wealthy and successful, some not so much... Give them three changes of clothes and $100 each and - leaving all their former assets and resources behind - put them in some kind of contained area. Give them some shelter, tools, some other basics, and time and see who ends up with all the money and power within the community. It'd be interesting.[/QUOTE]

It's been done.

Also, I'm not sure if your proposal is meant to be an analogy. It would be like taking 100 people, some of them being millionaires, some of them being dirt poor, and giving them equal clothing/shelter/money.

For added fun, make the dirt poor people be former employees of the rich doods, who closed their place of work to pocket an extra million as a self-serving bonus.
 
[quote name='Strell']It's been done.[/QUOTE]

Dude! We should get all scientific data in regards to human nature from 80's comedy films. What could possibly go wrong?

Also, I'm not sure if your proposal is meant to be an analogy. It would be like taking 100 people, some of them being millionaires, some of them being dirt poor, and giving them equal clothing/shelter/money.

For added fun, make the dirt poor people be former employees of the rich doods, who closed their place of work to pocket an extra million as a self-serving bonus.
Click to expand...

No analogy. I just think it'd be interesting to see what percentage of the poor stay poor and what percentage of the rich manage to make themselves "rich" in this new community - in spite of all parties starting off with the exact same amount of property and power.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Dude! We should get all scientific data in regards to human nature from 80's comedy films. What could possibly go wrong?[/QUOTE]

You know me better than that. Seriously. Lemme pull in some Homestar Runner up ins.

180px-Seriously.PNG
 
[quote name='Strell']You know me better than that. Seriously. Lemme pull in some Homestar Runner up ins.[/QUOTE]

I know your reply was a joke - as was mine. Sorry, should have added a few :D's
 
Rather than saying "we should study x y and z" you should fire up google scholar and read up on the studies that debunk such naturalistic fallacies. They're numerous, convincing, and are far older than either you or I.

Don't say "we should study blah blah blah" when you mean to say "I don't know what I'm talking about and haven't read existing research."
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Rather than saying "we should study x y and z" you should fire up google scholar and read up on the studies that debunk such naturalistic fallacies. They're numerous, convincing, and are far older than either you or I.

Don't say "we should study blah blah blah" when you mean to say "I don't know what I'm talking about and haven't read existing research."[/QUOTE]

Weren't you the one, like a few posts ago, ranting and raving about people using google for reading and such?
 
[quote name='mykevermin']are you deliberately this cinder-block fucking stupid, or don't you grasp the difference between google and google scholar?[/QUOTE]

Myke, you are a constant source of amusement and insight.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Because "Trickle Up" works so well.

How many jobs do the bottom 20% create?

Outside of law enforcement and prison guards, that is?[/QUOTE]

Outside of protectionist policies the executive class are going to outsource each and every bluecollar and whitecollar job that can be outsourced anyway so let's not pretend they are going to be creating new American jobs. If they can get a robot or Chinese pre-teen to take your job you'll be filing for unemployment tomorrow.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Thank you, kind government, for allowing me to run a business, have a family, start a savings account, eat, breathe and sleep.

I don't know what we would all do if it wasn't for the government allowing us to do all these wonderful things we do.[/QUOTE]

Now let's play your game and imagine an America without government.

Don't you think you'd gladly spend a little money to get a little protection? Oh, that's right. You don't have any money because everyone just farms, fishes, hunts, and gathers. And there goes a marauding band of thieves that just stole all your crops, raped your wife and daughter, burned your house down, and stole your son to be a child soldier. Wonder what the next marauding band of thugs is going to do to you when they realize all you have left is that sweet sweet ass?

If you don't like government doing it's job, move to Somalia. I hear they don't ever have to worry about high taxes over there.
 
[quote name='depascal22'][...snip...][/QUOTE]

I thought you were done with me? Did you change your mind?

[quote name='mykevermin']http://todayspictures.slate.com/20091203/

It's cool, though. They innovated stuff and created jobs. They also reduced unemployment, so to speak.[/QUOTE]

That's a horrible story.

Sure hope our tax dollars never do something like that... whoops.... Hell, it was just 70,000+ of them dirty Japs in one day, 40,000+ on the second day (around 200,000+ total, by the end of the year, as a direct result... another 410,000 more as time went on... oh, and 22,000 Koreans...). It's all good, so long as it's the government in control. Yay government!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='UncleBob']Sure hope our tax dollars never do something like that... whoops.... Hell, it was just 70,000+ of them dirty Japs in one day, 40,000+ on the second day (around 200,000+ total, by the end of the year, as a direct result... another 410,000 more as time went on...). It's all good, so long as it's the government in control. Yay government![/QUOTE]

Gosh. Where would one start with a response? You think an industrial accident was the same as an act of war.
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']Gosh. Where would one start with a response? You think an industrial accident was the same as an act of war.[/QUOTE]

No - one was an accident.
One was done on purpose.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']You know, I'd love to run a social experiment, take about 100 people, some wealthy and successful, some not so much... Give them three changes of clothes and $100 each and - leaving all their former assets and resources behind - put them in some kind of contained area. Give them some shelter, tools, some other basics, and time and see who ends up with all the money and power within the community. It'd be interesting.[/QUOTE]
The Jews.
[quote name='dmaul1114']Agreed, other than the endearing part. I've had all I can take, no more time going in pointless circles with a Wal-mart employee. Yet another addition to the ignore list.[/QUOTE]
Aye...well except for the ignore list part. I find it best just to lurk in threads like these. It's getting a bit rough trade in here as it is.
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']I want to save the thread 100 responses. What is your point?[/QUOTE]

I suppose, the same as Myke's point with his link, except substitute "company" with "government" and replace "accident" with "We killed thousands on purpose. America. fuck Yeah."
 
[quote name='UncleBob']I suppose, the same as Myke's point with his link, except substitute "company" with "government" and replace "accident" with "We killed thousands on purpose. America. fuck Yeah."[/QUOTE]

It was World War II. Sorry. You're not going to get too far here.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top