It's good to know that our nation's Motor Sports arenas are safe for another two years.
Keep up the people's work, Congress.
Keep up the people's work, Congress.
The Fiscal Cliff
- Thread starter dmaul1114
- Start date
mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
[quote name='Javery']It is a good compromise - $250k was just too low without taking into any cost of living adjustments but even in the super-expensive areas around here you are killing it if you are making $400k.[/QUOTE]
Should taxes only go up on those who are "killing it"? How do we measure "killing it"?
Alternatively, what kind of substantive financial burdens would be imposed by raising taxes on those making $250,000 per year? What have we avoided in terms of economic impact (on the individual tax payer) by raising the threshold?
Should taxes only go up on those who are "killing it"? How do we measure "killing it"?
Alternatively, what kind of substantive financial burdens would be imposed by raising taxes on those making $250,000 per year? What have we avoided in terms of economic impact (on the individual tax payer) by raising the threshold?
[quote name='mykevermin']Should taxes only go up on those who are "killing it"? How do we measure "killing it"?
Alternatively, what kind of substantive financial burdens would be imposed by raising taxes on those making $250,000 per year? What have we avoided in terms of economic impact (on the individual tax payer) by raising the threshold?[/QUOTE]
You read Javery's post in a much different way than I did. I figured he picked $250,000 as being "too low" because then it would have affected him, whereas $400,000 won't...
Alternatively, what kind of substantive financial burdens would be imposed by raising taxes on those making $250,000 per year? What have we avoided in terms of economic impact (on the individual tax payer) by raising the threshold?[/QUOTE]
You read Javery's post in a much different way than I did. I figured he picked $250,000 as being "too low" because then it would have affected him, whereas $400,000 won't...
mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
Maserati class = "killing it."
Fully optioned Volkswagen CC class = "scraping by."
I guess that's the logic.
EDIT: But I do want to better understand what sorts of expenditures $250K earners would no longer be able to afford if their tax cuts expired.
Fully optioned Volkswagen CC class = "scraping by."
I guess that's the logic.
EDIT: But I do want to better understand what sorts of expenditures $250K earners would no longer be able to afford if their tax cuts expired.
How the hell did even this "emergency" legislation get loaded up with special interest bull crap? Our government is waaay corrupt and deceitful. I wouldn't trust most of these guys with a year's contribution to my IRA, let alone my kid's future.
I love the "let's stick it to the rich who pay 70% of all federal taxes already" mantra while, yet again, I helped a 23 year old lady living in subsidized housing deliver her 4th baby last night. How much do you want to bet that she gets a tax "refund" along with her TANF, food stamps, and medical aid coverage this year?
I love the "let's stick it to the rich who pay 70% of all federal taxes already" mantra while, yet again, I helped a 23 year old lady living in subsidized housing deliver her 4th baby last night. How much do you want to bet that she gets a tax "refund" along with her TANF, food stamps, and medical aid coverage this year?
How swell is it that now that a bill has passed, instead of actually discussing the bill that passed, "the usual suspects" are trying their best to derail the thread into anything but discussion of the final bill?
Sweet.
To be fair though, if the idiots I've been cheerleading for over the past while had pushed this bill through, I'd be trying to avoid discussing it as well.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...e-10-weirdest-parts-of-the-fiscal-cliff-deal/
Doin' the people's work.
http://truth-out.org/news/item/1364...f-bill-from-goldman-sachs-to-disney-to-nascar
I like this one the best:
Sweet.
To be fair though, if the idiots I've been cheerleading for over the past while had pushed this bill through, I'd be trying to avoid discussing it as well.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...e-10-weirdest-parts-of-the-fiscal-cliff-deal/
Doin' the people's work.
http://truth-out.org/news/item/1364...f-bill-from-goldman-sachs-to-disney-to-nascar
I like this one the best:
Trancendental
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 4 (100%)
[quote name='Javery']It is a good compromise - $250k was just too low without taking into any cost of living adjustments but even in the super-expensive areas around here you are killing it if you are making $400k.[/QUOTE]
I figured that bumping it up from 250K to 400K was to protect small business job creators, and I think it's a load of crap.
If we're going to give breaks for job creators, we should make them have to prove that they are creating jobs.
How many jobs have you created Javery?
I figured that bumping it up from 250K to 400K was to protect small business job creators, and I think it's a load of crap.
If we're going to give breaks for job creators, we should make them have to prove that they are creating jobs.
How many jobs have you created Javery?
http://truth-out.org/opinion/item/13651-who-won-in-the-fiscal-cliff-deal
Just doin' the people's work.
So, we got no significant spending cuts and the 'evil rich' still made out like bandits. That whole "Compromise: where both sides don't get what they want" thing seems to play here real well.
Just doin' the people's work.
So, we got no significant spending cuts and the 'evil rich' still made out like bandits. That whole "Compromise: where both sides don't get what they want" thing seems to play here real well.
[quote name='RedvsBlue']You read Javery's post in a much different way than I did. I figured he picked $250,000 as being "too low" because then it would have affected him, whereas $400,000 won't...[/QUOTE]
Of course! It is OK to set the bar at whatever they want as long as it doesn't affect me.
[quote name='mykevermin']EDIT: But I do want to better understand what sorts of expenditures $250K earners would no longer be able to afford if their tax cuts expired.[/QUOTE]
I don't know how other people spend their money but co-workers and friends were concerned with mortgage payments, after school-care payments for the kids, college tuition, saving for retirement and things like that - nothing really to do with fancy cars or vacations or electronics but it would affect things that have been budgeted based on the current system. Could they "survive" on a tighter budget? Of course. Should they have to? I guess that's the argument.
[quote name='camoor']How many jobs have you created Javery?[/QUOTE]
Who claimed that I am creating jobs? I'm not sure what is so confusing about my position on this - I want more money in my pocket and less money not in my pocket.
Of course! It is OK to set the bar at whatever they want as long as it doesn't affect me.
[quote name='mykevermin']EDIT: But I do want to better understand what sorts of expenditures $250K earners would no longer be able to afford if their tax cuts expired.[/QUOTE]
I don't know how other people spend their money but co-workers and friends were concerned with mortgage payments, after school-care payments for the kids, college tuition, saving for retirement and things like that - nothing really to do with fancy cars or vacations or electronics but it would affect things that have been budgeted based on the current system. Could they "survive" on a tighter budget? Of course. Should they have to? I guess that's the argument.
[quote name='camoor']How many jobs have you created Javery?[/QUOTE]
Who claimed that I am creating jobs? I'm not sure what is so confusing about my position on this - I want more money in my pocket and less money not in my pocket.
Trancendental
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 4 (100%)
[quote name='Javery']Who claimed that I am creating jobs? I'm not sure what is so confusing about my position on this - I want more money in my pocket and less money not in my pocket.[/QUOTE]
Right that's why the narrative of job creators - and raising the bar on this bill - is bullshit.
I like any bill that increases taxes on the rich - but we can do better.
Right that's why the narrative of job creators - and raising the bar on this bill - is bullshit.
I like any bill that increases taxes on the rich - but we can do better.
mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
[quote name='Javery']Should they have to?[/QUOTE]
Yep.
Maybe we could juxtapose the list of items you've overheard being discussed versus egofed's poverty-shaming the past few days and think about that for a moment w/r/t taxation and spending.
Yep.
Maybe we could juxtapose the list of items you've overheard being discussed versus egofed's poverty-shaming the past few days and think about that for a moment w/r/t taxation and spending.
[quote name='mykevermin']Yep.
Maybe we could juxtapose the list of items you've overheard being discussed versus egofed's poverty-shaming the past few days and think about that for a moment w/r/t taxation and spending.[/QUOTE]
If only these people had any shame. I wish I could call em out and not get fired. How can you defend someone who is willing to bring more lives into such a crappy cycle of "mooching" just to pad their wallets a little more?
Maybe we could juxtapose the list of items you've overheard being discussed versus egofed's poverty-shaming the past few days and think about that for a moment w/r/t taxation and spending.[/QUOTE]
If only these people had any shame. I wish I could call em out and not get fired. How can you defend someone who is willing to bring more lives into such a crappy cycle of "mooching" just to pad their wallets a little more?
mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
Hey, shouldn't you be busy defending a company who wishes to reduce access to birth control?
[quote name='mykevermin']Yep.[/QUOTE]
So they should also be forced to uproot their families and move somewhere cheaper? Why does no one take cost of living into consideration when throwing out arbitrary numbers? Just look at this (I picked a random state in the mid-west and this is the first city that came up). Housing is 82% LESS!!!
So they should also be forced to uproot their families and move somewhere cheaper? Why does no one take cost of living into consideration when throwing out arbitrary numbers? Just look at this (I picked a random state in the mid-west and this is the first city that came up). Housing is 82% LESS!!!
[quote name='Javery']Who claimed that I am creating jobs? I'm not sure what is so confusing about my position on this - I want more money in my pocket and less money not in my pocket.[/QUOTE]
If you kept your argument strictly to this, you wouldn't get half the grief you get for saying shit like this, especially the bolded part:
I don't remember if you mentioned if you grew up poor, but you don't really have a realistic or healthy perspective on what luxury is anymore. That list of things you gave? A vast majority of the population doesn't have access to that and it's partially because of the mantra that you parrot about taxes...a good part of it actually. Sorry (well not really), but a guy making $300k that bitches about paying another $5k(1.6%) in taxes can go
off while whining about his expenses living in a high COL neighborhood.
Why don't people think of the HENRY's?? Q_Q
Honestly, I wouldn't even give that much of a shit if you thought that others that put in an honest 40 a week should have a taste of that stuff, but no, it's all about your socio-economic peers. This is exactly why it rings hallow as when you say that you're no better off than some blue collar worker if something bad happens like a serious medical condition. I might disagree with everything you say, but I could at least respect honesty. Although, that " you; got mine" reply you gave camoor is as honest you've been about it in recent memory, so good for you.
If you kept your argument strictly to this, you wouldn't get half the grief you get for saying shit like this, especially the bolded part:
If I alone, were making $300k a year, I could live almost anywhere I want in Boston metro while doing all the bullshit that you do with your money and Boston has some of the most expensive real estate in the country...I could live smack dab in the middle of it. In matter of fact, I know people that do.
I don't remember if you mentioned if you grew up poor, but you don't really have a realistic or healthy perspective on what luxury is anymore. That list of things you gave? A vast majority of the population doesn't have access to that and it's partially because of the mantra that you parrot about taxes...a good part of it actually. Sorry (well not really), but a guy making $300k that bitches about paying another $5k(1.6%) in taxes can go
off while whining about his expenses living in a high COL neighborhood. Why don't people think of the HENRY's?? Q_Q
Honestly, I wouldn't even give that much of a shit if you thought that others that put in an honest 40 a week should have a taste of that stuff, but no, it's all about your socio-economic peers. This is exactly why it rings hallow as
when you say that you're no better off than some blue collar worker if something bad happens like a serious medical condition. I might disagree with everything you say, but I could at least respect honesty. Although, that " you; got mine" reply you gave camoor is as honest you've been about it in recent memory, so good for you.
mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
Making a hair under $100K per year in the midwest is not going to get you any sympathy from me, if that's the sort of thing you're aiming for.
[quote name='mykevermin']Hey, shouldn't you be busy defending a company who wishes to reduce access to birth control?
[/QUOTE]
Why should they pay for this? Don't want to get pregnant, then don't have sex. How in the hell should your employer even be involved. If its a recreational activity to you, as it is to me, then fine, but I don't demand that my employer pays for my sunscreen or bike helmet. This is freakin gov't over reach in the worst way. Don't you also think that insurance companies are just gonna pass this new expenditure off on their rates? Buy your own dang condoms, or should I come over and your girlfriend for you also?
[/QUOTE]Why should they pay for this? Don't want to get pregnant, then don't have sex. How in the hell should your employer even be involved. If its a recreational activity to you, as it is to me, then fine, but I don't demand that my employer pays for my sunscreen or bike helmet. This is freakin gov't over reach in the worst way. Don't you also think that insurance companies are just gonna pass this new expenditure off on their rates? Buy your own dang condoms, or should I come over and
your girlfriend for you also?[quote name='egofed']Why should they pay for this? Don't want to get pregnant, then don't have sex. How in the hell should your employer even be involved. If its a recreational activity to you, as it is to me, then fine, but I don't demand that my employer pays for my sunscreen or bike helmet. This is freakin gov't over reach in the worst way. Don't you also think that insurance companies are just gonna pass this new expenditure off on their rates? Buy your own dang condoms, or should I come over and your girlfriend for you also?[/QUOTE]
You're doing a fantastic job of talking out of both sides of your mouth.
your girlfriend for you also?[/QUOTE]You're doing a fantastic job of talking out of both sides of your mouth.
I'm not sure when I haven't been "honest" about my position on this. I generally want more money and I want to be taxed less (what a crazy position to take!). This would apply whether I made $50,000, $500,000 or $5,000,000 per year (notwithstanding what I could "afford"). I'm also in favor of a change to the tax system if COL is taken into consideration, including raising the minimum threshold for taxing the "poor". No one has an answer as to why COL isn't factored in to any of these decisions.
[quote name='mykevermin']Making a hair under $100K per year in the midwest is not going to get you any sympathy from me, if that's the sort of thing you're aiming for.[/QUOTE]
No, I was using the comparison to point out that someone making $100k in OK wouldn't get dinged by the tax increase like someone in the same economic position living in NY.
[quote name='mykevermin']Making a hair under $100K per year in the midwest is not going to get you any sympathy from me, if that's the sort of thing you're aiming for.[/QUOTE]
No, I was using the comparison to point out that someone making $100k in OK wouldn't get dinged by the tax increase like someone in the same economic position living in NY.
soulvengeance
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 195 (100%)
[quote name='Javery']I'm not sure when I haven't been "honest" about my position on this. I generally want more money and I want to be taxed less (what a crazy position to take!). This would apply whether I made $50,000, $500,000 or $5,000,000 per year (notwithstanding what I could "afford"). I'm also in favor of a change to the tax system if COL is taken into consideration, including raising the minimum threshold for taxing the "poor". No one has an answer as to why COL isn't factored in to any of these decisions.
[/QUOTE]
I certainly understand your position, and I have to say you've been pretty honest about where you're coming from. However, as far as COL, you could technically move to a cheaper area if you can't afford that area. I mean, just using your area as an example, you could move to PA and commute, no?
[/QUOTE]
I certainly understand your position, and I have to say you've been pretty honest about where you're coming from. However, as far as COL, you could technically move to a cheaper area if you can't afford that area. I mean, just using your area as an example, you could move to PA and commute, no?
cancerman1120
CAGiversary!
[quote name='egofed']How the hell did even this "emergency" legislation get loaded up with special interest bull crap? Our government is waaay corrupt and deceitful. I wouldn't trust most of these guys with a year's contribution to my IRA, let alone my kid's future.
I love the "let's stick it to the rich who pay 70% of all federal taxes already" mantra while, yet again, I helped a 23 year old lady living in subsidized housing deliver her 4th baby last night. How much do you want to bet that she gets a tax "refund" along with her TANF, food stamps, and medical aid coverage this year?[/QUOTE]
You are getting pretty old. Why do you even help people if you seem to hate them so much?
I love the "let's stick it to the rich who pay 70% of all federal taxes already" mantra while, yet again, I helped a 23 year old lady living in subsidized housing deliver her 4th baby last night. How much do you want to bet that she gets a tax "refund" along with her TANF, food stamps, and medical aid coverage this year?[/QUOTE]
You are getting pretty old. Why do you even help people if you seem to hate them so much?
cancerman1120
CAGiversary!
[quote name='Javery']
I don't know how other people spend their money but co-workers and friends were concerned with mortgage payments, after school-care payments for the kids, college tuition, saving for retirement and things like that - nothing really to do with fancy cars or vacations or electronics but it would affect things that have been budgeted based on the current system. Could they "survive" on a tighter budget? Of course. Should they have to? I guess that's the argument.
[/QUOTE]
I am surprised no one has just done the Math. An individual making 400,000 will pay $6,900 less on the $150,000 between the 250k and 400k with this compromise. That represents 1.7% of the person's gross income. If you mean to tell me that someone is unable to get by because taxes were raise at 250k instead is just dishonest or greedy.
The federal poverty line for an individual is $11,170 in 2012. I would think those people have a lot more to worry about.
Edit: I see Doh was doing some math above...my bad.
Edit 2: I dd see Capital gains was raised to 20% also so that is a start to get all income on more equal footing.
Edit 3: Looking things over I think my Math is incorrect.
Ok the real difference based on the 2012 tax rates for that $150,000 would be $9,686. This is because the tax rate for 250k to 388k is 33% and not 35% so for that income is a 6.6% tax increase. So that represent 2.4% of gross income. Although a bigger chunk than I thought before I still feel like people making that much money have less to complain about than a person at poverty level even with all those "benefits".
I don't know how other people spend their money but co-workers and friends were concerned with mortgage payments, after school-care payments for the kids, college tuition, saving for retirement and things like that - nothing really to do with fancy cars or vacations or electronics but it would affect things that have been budgeted based on the current system. Could they "survive" on a tighter budget? Of course. Should they have to? I guess that's the argument.
[/QUOTE]
I am surprised no one has just done the Math. An individual making 400,000 will pay $6,900 less on the $150,000 between the 250k and 400k with this compromise. That represents 1.7% of the person's gross income. If you mean to tell me that someone is unable to get by because taxes were raise at 250k instead is just dishonest or greedy.
The federal poverty line for an individual is $11,170 in 2012. I would think those people have a lot more to worry about.
Edit: I see Doh was doing some math above...my bad.
Edit 2: I dd see Capital gains was raised to 20% also so that is a start to get all income on more equal footing.
Edit 3: Looking things over I think my Math is incorrect.
Ok the real difference based on the 2012 tax rates for that $150,000 would be $9,686. This is because the tax rate for 250k to 388k is 33% and not 35% so for that income is a 6.6% tax increase. So that represent 2.4% of gross income. Although a bigger chunk than I thought before I still feel like people making that much money have less to complain about than a person at poverty level even with all those "benefits".
Last edited by a moderator:
Trancendental
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 4 (100%)
[quote name='Javery']I'm not sure when I haven't been "honest" about my position on this. I generally want more money and I want to be taxed less (what a crazy position to take!).[/QUOTE]
This is the TLDR version of Javery (and really all you need to know about 99.999% of rich people)
They don't create jobs, they don't do great things for the economy, they just want to extract as much wealth as possible and give back as little as possible.
They are the takers. They don't want to pay taxes, let alone their fair share.
that.
This is the TLDR version of Javery (and really all you need to know about 99.999% of rich people)
They don't create jobs, they don't do great things for the economy, they just want to extract as much wealth as possible and give back as little as possible.
They are the takers. They don't want to pay taxes, let alone their fair share.
that.[quote name='camoor']This is the TLDR version of Javery (and really all you need to know about 99.999% of rich people)
They don't create jobs, they don't do great things for the economy, they just want to extract as much wealth as possible and give back as little as possible.
They are the takers. They don't want to pay taxes, let alone their fair share.
that.[/QUOTE]
Hahhahahahahhahhhehhehehehehehehehehhhahahahahahha......woooo...even if that was true, any money they make through legal means is theirs. Whatever insane % you want them to pay would not be their "fair share", it would be them picking up the less successful people's slack. You want to make me, by force and threat of imprisonment, my brother's keeper. Sounds like freedom to me
....
By your definition, can I rightfully call those in generational poverty "Takers" also?
They don't create jobs, they don't do great things for the economy, they just want to extract as much wealth as possible and give back as little as possible.
They are the takers. They don't want to pay taxes, let alone their fair share.
that.[/QUOTE]Hahhahahahahhahhhehhehehehehehehehehhhahahahahahha......woooo...even if that was true, any money they make through legal means is theirs. Whatever insane % you want them to pay would not be their "fair share", it would be them picking up the less successful people's slack. You want to make me, by force and threat of imprisonment, my brother's keeper. Sounds like freedom to me
....By your definition, can I rightfully call those in generational poverty "Takers" also?
Um, I do pay my "fair share" - I probably pay more in taxes than some people earn in a year. How is that not fair? I should just keep paying and paying and paying and paying and paying, right? I can "afford" it so why not? that.
It also has nothing to do with "giving back" - this is a ridiculous argument. Maybe I'll just stop making charitable donations (on nos! tax deduction!) or volunteering to help out with school programs and coaching soccer and basketball, etc. I'm perfectly content with how much I give. I don't want the government dictating how I spend my money.
that.It also has nothing to do with "giving back" - this is a ridiculous argument. Maybe I'll just stop making charitable donations (on nos! tax deduction!) or volunteering to help out with school programs and coaching soccer and basketball, etc. I'm perfectly content with how much I give. I don't want the government dictating how I spend my money.
cancerman1120
CAGiversary!
I know ignoring people is sort of against the point of a Vs. thread but it is the New Year and I am tired of reading other people's BS. I do not mind debate. I am just tired of the BS.
Trancendental
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 4 (100%)
[quote name='Javery']It also has nothing to do with "giving back" - this is a ridiculous argument. Maybe I'll just stop making charitable donations (on nos! tax deduction!) or volunteering to help out with school programs and coaching soccer and basketball, etc. I'm perfectly content with how much I give. I don't want the government dictating how I spend my money[/QUOTE]
You're a member of a society. Our government is elected by that society, so ultimately society decides how much you pay.
You shouldn't be fearing some fictional dictatorial US government - instead you should be thanking ignorant Americans for electing the dumbass teapartiers who forced this unholy compromise.
Also noone gives a shit how much soccer you coach, how much help you provide to school programs, or how content you are smelling your own farts. It has nothing to do with how much taxes you should pay.
You're a member of a society. Our government is elected by that society, so ultimately society decides how much you pay.
You shouldn't be fearing some fictional dictatorial US government - instead you should be thanking ignorant Americans for electing the dumbass teapartiers who forced this unholy compromise.
Also noone gives a shit how much soccer you coach, how much help you provide to school programs, or how content you are smelling your own farts. It has nothing to do with how much taxes you should pay.
[quote name='camoor']You're a member of a society. Our government is elected by that society, so ultimately society decides how much you pay.[/QUOTE]
LOL - I get it now.... when "society" agrees with your position "society" is right and I should just accept it. But when "society" agrees with my position the people put in charge (by the same "society" who are now ignorant Americans) are total dumbasses unfit to lead.
LOL - I get it now.... when "society" agrees with your position "society" is right and I should just accept it. But when "society" agrees with my position the people put in charge (by the same "society" who are now ignorant Americans) are total dumbasses unfit to lead.
Trancendental
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 4 (100%)
[quote name='Javery']LOL - I get it now.... when "society" agrees with your position "society" is right and I should just accept it. But when "society" agrees with my position the people put in charge (by the same "society" who are now ignorant Americans) are total dumbasses unfit to lead.[/QUOTE]
I never said society is always right.
I just said you can thank/blame society for electing the leaders who decide how much you will pay in taxes.
Do you have a problem with that?
I never said society is always right.
I just said you can thank/blame society for electing the leaders who decide how much you will pay in taxes.
Do you have a problem with that?
I'm confused. Society isn't always right... but they are right about wanting the "rich" to pay more in taxes?
Of course our elected leaders will decide how much we all pay in taxes. If they go up I'm not going to not pay them - I just completely disagree with it and will make a frowny face every time I think about it. I thought this was the reason we are having these pointless arguments on the internet. I might still be a little groggy from New Year's Eve though...
Of course our elected leaders will decide how much we all pay in taxes. If they go up I'm not going to not pay them - I just completely disagree with it and will make a frowny face every time I think about it. I thought this was the reason we are having these pointless arguments on the internet. I might still be a little groggy from New Year's Eve though...
Trancendental
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 4 (100%)
[quote name='Javery']I'm confused. Society isn't always right... but they are right about wanting the "rich" to pay more in taxes?
Of course our elected leaders will decide how much we all pay in taxes. If they go up I'm not going to not pay them - I just completely disagree with it and will make a frowny face every time I think about it. I thought this was the reason we are having these pointless arguments on the internet. I might still be a little groggy from New Year's Eve though...[/QUOTE]
I'm just tired of people like you saying that the government dictates this or the government dictates that. What a load of horseshit. This tax issue has been very transparent from Day 1, it is not hard to find out your representative's position on this issue.
You can thank the teapartiers for the fact that you can keep more cash in your pocket and out of the government's hands. They elected the guys who ultimately forced the need for this compromise.
Of course our elected leaders will decide how much we all pay in taxes. If they go up I'm not going to not pay them - I just completely disagree with it and will make a frowny face every time I think about it. I thought this was the reason we are having these pointless arguments on the internet. I might still be a little groggy from New Year's Eve though...[/QUOTE]
I'm just tired of people like you saying that the government dictates this or the government dictates that. What a load of horseshit. This tax issue has been very transparent from Day 1, it is not hard to find out your representative's position on this issue.
You can thank the teapartiers for the fact that you can keep more cash in your pocket and out of the government's hands. They elected the guys who ultimately forced the need for this compromise.
[quote name='Javery']Um, I do pay my "fair share" - I probably pay more in taxes than some people earn in a year. How is that not fair? I should just keep paying and paying and paying and paying and paying, right? I can "afford" it so why not? that.[/quote]
Ugh, I hate the "fair share" argument...when both sides use it. It has nothing to do with what's "fair," but what keeps the plebs and proles from storming down 5th Avenue with pitch forks lining people up against a wall. It's in your class interest to make sure that doesn't happen. Now unless you don't believe in the social contract and having a semblance of a stable society, then you might as well throw your lot in with the libertarians, otherwise, maybe it'd do you some good by not making it sound like the libs are trying to take you to the poor house. Here's a hint: they're not.
that.[/quote]Ugh, I hate the "fair share" argument...when both sides use it. It has nothing to do with what's "fair," but what keeps the plebs and proles from storming down 5th Avenue with pitch forks lining people up against a wall. It's in your class interest to make sure that doesn't happen. Now unless you don't believe in the social contract and having a semblance of a stable society, then you might as well throw your lot in with the libertarians, otherwise, maybe it'd do you some good by not making it sound like the libs are trying to take you to the poor house. Here's a hint: they're not.
Cry my a river about how much you "give" to "help" privileged kids in an already privileged neighborhood to be even more privileged. edit: You volunteer your time with kids? Good for you, but your little rant similar to the "job creators" trope.
Last edited by a moderator:
Trancendental
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 4 (100%)
[quote name='dohdough']Ugh, I hate the "fair share" argument...when both sides use it. It has nothing to do with what's "fair,"[/QUOTE]
But it should.
We shouldn't lose sight of what's morally optimal, even when achieving it is nearly impossible.
But it should.
We shouldn't lose sight of what's morally optimal, even when achieving it is nearly impossible.
Trancendental
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 4 (100%)
[quote name='dohdough']Yeah, but I can be pedantic if I want to.:lol:[/QUOTE]
I know what you're getting it - but I believe that is the true slippery slope that leads to the DC we have today, where all the politicians just want to win reelection and scarce few have an ideological background. Then the corporate media gets onboard and starts covering elections as if they're a horserace instead of parsing policy recommendations and informing the public of ideological differences between the candidates.
It allows bullshit of the kind that Javery loves to spew, you know his whole 'poor little me, the faceless tyrannical govt is coming to take my money'.
We voted for these representatives and most Americans think Javery should pay up. He only gets away with not paying his fair share because there are enough ignoramus teapartiers in the Midwest to block a more meaningful reform.
I know what you're getting it - but I believe that is the true slippery slope that leads to the DC we have today, where all the politicians just want to win reelection and scarce few have an ideological background. Then the corporate media gets onboard and starts covering elections as if they're a horserace instead of parsing policy recommendations and informing the public of ideological differences between the candidates.
It allows bullshit of the kind that Javery loves to spew, you know his whole 'poor little me, the faceless tyrannical govt is coming to take my money'.
We voted for these representatives and most Americans think Javery should pay up. He only gets away with not paying his fair share because there are enough ignoramus teapartiers in the Midwest to block a more meaningful reform.[quote name='camoor']
I know what you're getting it - but I believe that is the true slippery slope that leads to the DC we have today, where all the politicians just want to win reelection and scarce few have an ideological background. Then the corporate media gets onboard and starts covering elections as if they're a horserace instead of parsing policy recommendations and informing the public of ideological differences between the candidates.
It allows bullshit of the kind that Javery loves to spew, you know his whole 'poor little me, the faceless tyrannical govt is coming to take my money'. We voted for these representatives and most Americans think Javery should pay up. He only gets away with not paying his fair share because there are enough ignoramus teapartiers in the Midwest to block a more meaningful reform.[/QUOTE]
I gotta ask, so if the "majority" decided they wanted 95% of Javery's income each year, you would be cool with that?
I know what you're getting it - but I believe that is the true slippery slope that leads to the DC we have today, where all the politicians just want to win reelection and scarce few have an ideological background. Then the corporate media gets onboard and starts covering elections as if they're a horserace instead of parsing policy recommendations and informing the public of ideological differences between the candidates.
It allows bullshit of the kind that Javery loves to spew, you know his whole 'poor little me, the faceless tyrannical govt is coming to take my money'.
We voted for these representatives and most Americans think Javery should pay up. He only gets away with not paying his fair share because there are enough ignoramus teapartiers in the Midwest to block a more meaningful reform.[/QUOTE]I gotta ask, so if the "majority" decided they wanted 95% of Javery's income each year, you would be cool with that?
mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
[quote name='Javery']No, I was using the comparison to point out that someone making $100k in OK wouldn't get dinged by the tax increase like someone in the same economic position living in NY.[/QUOTE]
Point accepted. should we lower the tax threshold or raise it, then? Since I assume you want to raise it (so as to have more of your income), where do you want to raise it to? Do you have an ideal in mind, or as long as you're under the cut mark, you're okay with whatever?
We're all hedonists, so we all want as much as we can, sure. I see your point. But as members of a nation, our individual desires don't trump the good of the country - and it's dishonest to portend that the nation should suffer or grow debt because I want my tax revenue. That's the thing about cuts - we all want them, but we want to be hurt the least. Cuts for thee, but not for me. I get it.
That said, we need to recognize that spending some money here saves potential spending later. Spending on preventative medical care saves money because treatment can be assessed at an earlier stage of an illness/ailment. Spending on education can save money by making American workers attractive to employers, so they get hired and not left to hustle on the streets, inevitably getting caught up in our prison system.
There's no evidence, for instance, that extending unemployment assistance makes people lazy or give up searching for work until the very last opportunity. Extending it keeps people healthy, keeps them from hustling, keeps them spending money. Maybe I'd rather it was shorter, but the economic recovery is still lagging in terms of jobs recovered and grown.
As members of American society, we're expected to contribute to maintaining it. If that means some Americans might have to cut their au pair's hours, well, so be it. Personally, I'd like to see lawyers and doctors get paid what teachers do; when you earn $60K per year, you can have your tax cuts and I won't argue one bit. Deal?
Point accepted. should we lower the tax threshold or raise it, then? Since I assume you want to raise it (so as to have more of your income), where do you want to raise it to? Do you have an ideal in mind, or as long as you're under the cut mark, you're okay with whatever?
We're all hedonists, so we all want as much as we can, sure. I see your point. But as members of a nation, our individual desires don't trump the good of the country - and it's dishonest to portend that the nation should suffer or grow debt because I want my tax revenue. That's the thing about cuts - we all want them, but we want to be hurt the least. Cuts for thee, but not for me. I get it.
That said, we need to recognize that spending some money here saves potential spending later. Spending on preventative medical care saves money because treatment can be assessed at an earlier stage of an illness/ailment. Spending on education can save money by making American workers attractive to employers, so they get hired and not left to hustle on the streets, inevitably getting caught up in our prison system.
There's no evidence, for instance, that extending unemployment assistance makes people lazy or give up searching for work until the very last opportunity. Extending it keeps people healthy, keeps them from hustling, keeps them spending money. Maybe I'd rather it was shorter, but the economic recovery is still lagging in terms of jobs recovered and grown.
As members of American society, we're expected to contribute to maintaining it. If that means some Americans might have to cut their au pair's hours, well, so be it. Personally, I'd like to see lawyers and doctors get paid what teachers do; when you earn $60K per year, you can have your tax cuts and I won't argue one bit. Deal?
Trancendental
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 4 (100%)
[quote name='egofed']I gotta ask, so if the "majority" decided they wanted 95% of Javery's income each year, you would be cool with that?[/QUOTE]
Don't get carried away - 95% is a little high
Don't get carried away - 95% is a little high
[quote name='UncleBob']How swell is it that now that a bill has passed, instead of actually discussing the bill that passed, "the usual suspects" are trying their best to derail the thread into anything but discussion of the final bill?
Sweet.
To be fair though, if the idiots I've been cheerleading for over the past while had pushed this bill through, I'd be trying to avoid discussing it as well.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...e-10-weirdest-parts-of-the-fiscal-cliff-deal/
Doin' the people's work.
http://truth-out.org/news/item/1364...f-bill-from-goldman-sachs-to-disney-to-nascar
I like this one the best:[/QUOTE]
Nooo stop telling everyone these things, everyone knows the problem is that 23 year old and her baby that egofed helped deliver!
Sweet.
To be fair though, if the idiots I've been cheerleading for over the past while had pushed this bill through, I'd be trying to avoid discussing it as well.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...e-10-weirdest-parts-of-the-fiscal-cliff-deal/
Doin' the people's work.
http://truth-out.org/news/item/1364...f-bill-from-goldman-sachs-to-disney-to-nascar
I like this one the best:[/QUOTE]
Nooo stop telling everyone these things, everyone knows the problem is that 23 year old and her baby that egofed helped deliver!
Dr Mario Kart
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 6 (100%)
If the majority crafts a bracket that somehow only has Javery in it and its 95%, and they pass it, sure. Same goes if its only me. Or me and one other person named Steve. Or everyone in the country. 95%. I'll take tyranny of the majority over that of the minority every time.
It would be marginally more productive than just having anti-abortion measures and post office namings that are currently what the House likes to spend its time on.
It would be marginally more productive than just having anti-abortion measures and post office namings that are currently what the House likes to spend its time on.
[quote name='IRHari']Nooo stop telling everyone these things, everyone knows the problem is that 23 year old and her baby that egofed helped deliver![/QUOTE]
Hahahahahahaahhaha....that damn baby. I feel sooo sorry for him. He is screwed. And I don't hate anyone, just the actions that they do.
Hahahahahahaahhaha....that damn baby.
I feel sooo sorry for him. He is screwed. And I don't hate anyone, just the actions that they do.
[quote name='mykevermin']There's no evidence, for instance, that extending unemployment assistance makes people lazy or give up searching for work until the very last opportunity. Extending it keeps people healthy, keeps them from hustling, keeps them spending money. Maybe I'd rather it was shorter, but the economic recovery is still lagging in terms of jobs recovered and grown. [/QUOTE]
I personally know of three people that did this, not because they couldn't get another job but because unemployment was paying them what they felt acceptable and wanted to milk it to the end. I know this isn't an isolated problem and in each area it may be different where there really is no work or places that supported the community just packed up and left. From the three people I know two of the three milked it the full amount. The other one has been on unemployment after being laid off from a teaching position this past summer, my wife offered her a long term while she was on leave and declinded because she would make more on unemployment.
[/QUOTE]I personally know of three people that did this, not because they couldn't get another job but because unemployment was paying them what they felt acceptable and wanted to milk it to the end. I know this isn't an isolated problem and in each area it may be different where there really is no work or places that supported the community just packed up and left. From the three people I know two of the three milked it the full amount. The other one has been on unemployment after being laid off from a teaching position this past summer, my wife offered her a long term while she was on leave and declinded because she would make more on unemployment.
Dr Mario Kart
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 6 (100%)
I also know someone who stayed on unemployment for the maximum amount of time possible. He was and still is a libertarian. Meanwhile, another guy I know, super liberal was also on unemployment but got off it as quickly as he possibly could. They would go down to unemployment together, and naturally, the libertarian didnt see anything amiss.
[quote name='Dr Mario Kart']I also know someone who stayed on unemployment for the maximum amount of time possible. He was and still is a libertarian. Meanwhile, another guy I know, super liberal was also on unemployment but got off it as quickly as he possibly could. They would go down to unemployment together, and naturally, the libertarian didnt see anything amiss.[/QUOTE]
So between you and skiizim, myke's hypothesis is blown out of the water.
The Stossel video I posted showed a study showing that Danes stayed on unemployment till it ended then miraculously found a job when the program lasted 5 years, then 4, then 2.5.
So between you and skiizim, myke's hypothesis is blown out of the water.
The Stossel video I posted showed a study showing that Danes stayed on unemployment till it ended then miraculously found a job when the program lasted 5 years, then 4, then 2.5.
[quote name='Msut77']Explain to me why say 70% on some making 20 million dollars a year be bad?[/QUOTE]
Something deep down inside you should trigger and send a twinge of uncertainty to your brain when anyone talks of taking half, let alone 70%!!!, of another person's livelihood no matter what the amount. It's not justified in any situation. Taking what you did not work for, by force and threat of imprisonment, is evil. And i request that no one engage you until you deem it as so.
Something deep down inside you should trigger and send a twinge of uncertainty to your brain when anyone talks of taking half, let alone 70%!!!, of another person's livelihood no matter what the amount. It's not justified in any situation. Taking what you did not work for, by force and threat of imprisonment, is evil. And i request that no one engage you until you deem it as so.
[quote name='egofed']Something deep down inside you should trigger and send a twinge of uncertainty to your brain when anyone talks of taking half, let alone 70%!!![/quote]
It doesn't, also can't help but notice you aren't even attempting to make an actual argument.
You know the tax rate used to be even higher correct?
It doesn't, also can't help but notice you aren't even attempting to make an actual argument.
You know the tax rate used to be even higher correct?
usickenme
CAGiversary!
[quote name='dohdough']Ugh, I hate the "fair share" argument...when both sides use it. It has nothing to do with what's "fair," but what keeps the plebs and proles from storming down 5th Avenue with pitch forks lining people up against a wall. It's in your class interest to make sure that doesn't happen. Now unless you don't believe in the social contract and having a semblance of a stable society, then you might as well throw your lot in with the libertarians, otherwise, maybe it'd do you some good by not making it sound like the libs are trying to take you to the poor house. Here's a hint: they're not.
.[/QUOTE]
OMG, well said. I've made the point many times that it's the well off who benefit from social programs, transit
funding, etc. It's a racket to protect their lifestyle.
.[/QUOTE]
OMG, well said. I've made the point many times that it's the well off who benefit from social programs, transit
funding, etc. It's a racket to protect their lifestyle.
bread's done