Jump to content


- - - - -

Obama: We Have Money For Warfare, But Not For Welfare


#31 joeboosauce   Snarf! Get in the... CAGiversary!   826 Posts   Joined 8.3 Years Ago  

joeboosauce

Posted 15 July 2011 - 04:40 PM

How many small business owners would take those loans knowing that the justification for them owing X% of the proceeds is because they took that loan?

Would the businesses that find alternative funding be exceptions to the tax?

This argument is BS. We do not pay taxes because we OWE the government. We pay taxes because the government needs it to function. A lot of people have problems with the role the government is taking, not that they have to pay taxes.


Your signature with the dohdough quote is great! I cannot believe that you cannot comprehend it... Really? Are you joking that you do not understand it?
Posted Image

"The nationalist not only does not disapprove of atrocities committed by his own side, but he has a remarkable capacity for not even hearing about them." - George Orwell

#32 Knoell   Achievement Unlocked CAGiversary!   2584 Posts   Joined 7.0 Years Ago  

Posted 15 July 2011 - 04:40 PM

My point wasn't that there should be a tax simply because someone relied on the government to get where they were. Rather, I'm saying that there's little chance that the rich got to where they are without any government assistance.

I'm not saying it is because they "owe" it to the government but rather they must pay their fair share in order for future citizens to have the opportunity to succeed as they did.


Your point is that they should feel grateful for the programs provided and give back. I agree with ending certain subsidies, and closing loopholes, but I feel they already pay more than their "fair share" at the current tax rates.

#33 RedvsBlue  

RedvsBlue

Posted 15 July 2011 - 04:47 PM

Your point is that they should feel grateful for the programs provided and give back. I agree with ending certain subsidies, and closing loopholes, but I feel they already pay more than their "fair share" at the current tax rates.


I never once advocated them having to pay an increased share of taxes out of gratitude. Simply that they should help to fund the government that helped them get where they are.

If they were paying their fair share, they wouldn't have money to burn.

#34 RAMSTORIA   fate is inexorable CAGiversary!   11980 Posts   Joined 12.2 Years Ago  

Posted 15 July 2011 - 05:00 PM

I never once advocated them having to pay an increased share of taxes out of gratitude. Simply that they should help to fund the government that helped them get where they are.

If they were paying their fair share, they wouldn't have money to burn.


This post blows me away.

The first part implies that nobody is successful without the government.

The second portion implied that Mayweather (who earned every penny as an entertainer, which has little to do with government assistance) shouldn't be able to throw money around that he's earned.

Would you say that someone like me, on my modest salary, needs to pay more in taxes if I an extra $50 at the end of the month that I use for a poker game and some beer?

Posted Image


#35 fullmetalfan720   CAGiversary! CAGiversary!   1688 Posts   Joined 9.9 Years Ago  

fullmetalfan720

Posted 15 July 2011 - 05:05 PM

Your telling me guys like Bill Gates, who spent years in a garage working with some guys to build a program that built the basis of mostly everything we do on a PC today, should pay a higher tax percentage... how about a guy like Master P who spent years on the street selling mixtapes just to get his music out to get to level he got to and make the money he did... how is that not labor?

It's funny that Bill Gates is always used as this rages to riches success story, and yet his dad was rich before he was. Hell, his dad was even on the board of Planned Parenthood. As to the rest of your argument, how about the man who toils all day working at a job where they don't make enough to live off? Should they not be taking into consideration? Or do we just care about the "producers"?


Think about this topic from a non-party line. If you let the car companies fail, now what? You cripple cities like Detroit. Take away jobs. Outsource. All leaving less money in the government's hands in the long run while hurting the economy.

Detroit is crippled now, post bailout. The car companies are hardly in better shape now. Its interesting how you argue for socialism for the rich (bailouts), and then rail against what you perceive to be attempts at socialism for the poor.
The man who trades freedom for security does not deserve nor will he ever receive either.
-Ben Franklin
The humblest citizen in all the land, when clad in the armor of a righteous cause, is stronger than all the hosts of error. - William Jennings Bryan

#36 yahoosale14   CAGiversary! CAGiversary!   592 Posts   Joined 6.7 Years Ago  

yahoosale14

Posted 15 July 2011 - 05:11 PM

Who is saying that they shouldn't pay tax? They currently do, just not as much as you would like them to. Why should someone be taxed a different rate because they make more... ridiculous.



t.


...you're against graduated income tax? do you think its fair to tax somebody who makes 20k a year 30%?

#37 dohdough   Sum Dum Guy CAGiversary!   6744 Posts   Joined 7.2 Years Ago  

Posted 15 July 2011 - 05:16 PM

...you're against graduated income tax? do you think its fair to tax somebody who makes 20k a year 30%?

I think you mean progressive taxation. I'm sure he doesn't mind regressive taxation, as both are technically graduated, at all. Probably because he doesn't understand the concept of marginal utility.

#38 cochesecochese   corrompido e imoral CAGiversary!   4894 Posts   Joined 11.2 Years Ago  

cochesecochese

Posted 15 July 2011 - 05:44 PM

go on...


You typed this out with one hand, didn't you?

this signature is an illusion and is a trap devised by satan. go ahead dauntlessly! make rapid progress!


#39 soulvengeance   Beating dead horses CAGiversary!   4161 Posts   Joined 13.0 Years Ago  

soulvengeance

Posted 15 July 2011 - 05:49 PM

Think about this topic from a non-party line. If you let the car companies fail, now what? You cripple cities like Detroit. Take away jobs. Outsource. All leaving less money in the government's hands in the long run while hurting the economy and the people that live in it.


Eh? So my taxes should go to bail large businesses out because they don't know how to run a company, but the guys who own the company shouldn't pay more taxes even though they're responsible for running it into the ground? They're going to outsource regardless because it makes good business sense, so that's not really even a consideration.
mytradelist:
http://www.cheapassg...864#post2614864

Calls this what you may, but I would say that Blacks actually benefited from the slavery. Comparing the current lives of many African Americans to Africans, one can see that the former live in much better conditions with greater freedoms and opportunities.


#40 RedvsBlue  

RedvsBlue

Posted 15 July 2011 - 05:51 PM

This post blows me away.

The first part implies that nobody is successful without the government.

The second portion implied that Mayweather (who earned every penny as an entertainer, which has little to do with government assistance) shouldn't be able to throw money around that he's earned.

Would you say that someone like me, on my modest salary, needs to pay more in taxes if I an extra $50 at the end of the month that I use for a poker game and some beer?


Everyone has some type of reliance on the government at some point along the way is what I am saying and I still stand by. There's just no way to say otherwise. The government is deeply involved in our economy making it one of the top economies in the world, even in a recession. One only needs to look at any 3rd world country to appreciate how their government plays a role in their success.

#41 camoor   Jams on foot fires CAGiversary!   15213 Posts   Joined 12.8 Years Ago  

Posted 15 July 2011 - 05:58 PM

Your telling me guys like Bill Gates, who spent years in a garage working with some guys to build a program that built the basis of mostly everything we do on a PC today, should pay a higher tax percentage... how about a guy like Master P who spent years on the street selling mixtapes just to get his music out to get to level he got to and make the money he did... how is that not labor?


It's been a long time since someone made themselves the butt of a joke that both sides of the political spectrum can laugh at.

Gates was born in Seattle, Washington, to William H. Gates, Sr. and Mary Maxwell Gates, of English, German, and Scotch-Irish descent.[9][10] His family was upper middle class; his father was a prominent lawyer, his mother served on the board of directors for First Interstate BancSystem and the United Way, and her father, J. W. Maxwell, was a national bank president.



http://en.wikipedia....wiki/Bill_Gates

A classic riches to wealth story!

All this schooling you is good fun, but remember, I didn't even get into the progressive taxes question. It would be a good start if multimillionaires were taxed at the same rate as the rest of us. Don't see how you can legitimately argue with this, but I'm looking forward to it.

#42 dohdough   Sum Dum Guy CAGiversary!   6744 Posts   Joined 7.2 Years Ago  

Posted 15 July 2011 - 06:07 PM

This post blows me away.

The first part implies that nobody is successful without the government.

The second portion implied that Mayweather (who earned every penny as an entertainer, which has little to do with government assistance) shouldn't be able to throw money around that he's earned.

Would you say that someone like me, on my modest salary, needs to pay more in taxes if I an extra $50 at the end of the month that I use for a poker game and some beer?

As much as I drink the Mayweather hate-orade, despite a large portion of his current income being derived from boxing, most of that money goes towards investments, which is taxed at a lower rate and what will sustain his lifestyle long after he hangs up his gloves. He doesn't benefit so much as being a boxer, but as a person with a lot of capital. So what RvB said was correct using that framework. Not sure if he meant it that way though...lolz.

#43 RedvsBlue  

RedvsBlue

Posted 15 July 2011 - 06:13 PM

As much as I drink the Mayweather hate-orade, despite a large portion of his current income being derived from boxing, most of that money goes towards investments, which is taxed at a lower rate and what will sustain his lifestyle long after he hangs up his gloves. He doesn't benefit so much as being a boxer, but as a person with a lot of capital. So what RvB said was correct using that framework. Not sure if he meant it that way though...lolz.


An analysis of Floyd Mayweather wasn't my intention but rather the simple point that some incredibly wealthy people literally have no other use for their money than to burn it.

#44 Msut77   Occam's Shank CAGiversary!   6093 Posts   Joined 11.9 Years Ago  

Posted 15 July 2011 - 06:34 PM

Who is saying that they shouldn't pay tax? They currently do, just not as much as you would like them to. Why should someone be taxed a different rate because they make more... ridiculous.


Adam Smith was pro progressive taxation.

#45 Knoell   Achievement Unlocked CAGiversary!   2584 Posts   Joined 7.0 Years Ago  

Posted 15 July 2011 - 07:01 PM

An analysis of Floyd Mayweather wasn't my intention but rather the simple point that some incredibly wealthy people literally have no other use for their money than to burn it.


Why is this an indication that the government should take it? I thought we were talking about "fair share" not "whatever they don't need". Chances are if you doubled his tax rate he would still have money to spend and you would still be complaining that he is burning his own money, when the government could seize it and use it as their own.

#46 RedvsBlue  

RedvsBlue

Posted 15 July 2011 - 07:04 PM

Why is this an indication that the government should take it? I thought we were talking about "fair share" not "whatever they don't need". Chances are if you doubled his tax rate he would still have money to spend and you would still be complaining that he is burning his own money, when the government could seize it and use it as their own.


Now you've just shifted into pure ridiculous mode.

#47 Msut77   Occam's Shank CAGiversary!   6093 Posts   Joined 11.9 Years Ago  

Posted 15 July 2011 - 07:04 PM

When they cannot pretend it actually benefits everyone ala trickle down they pivot to a half assed moral argument.

#48 dohdough   Sum Dum Guy CAGiversary!   6744 Posts   Joined 7.2 Years Ago  

Posted 15 July 2011 - 07:15 PM

When they cannot pretend it actually benefits everyone ala trickle down they pivot to a half assed moral argument.

Cause then they wouldn't be rich anymore you socialist commie kenyan usurper!

#49 Knoell   Achievement Unlocked CAGiversary!   2584 Posts   Joined 7.0 Years Ago  

Posted 15 July 2011 - 07:33 PM

Insults a plenty I see. Haha.

The government is not entitled to everyones money simply because it is the government.

Yours and my definition of their fair share are vastly different it seems. You believe fair is complaining that people have too much and wanting to take the excess. I believe fair is paying a tax in proportion to your income. Not only does that happen, but they pay a higher percentage of their income as well. You all act as if 10% of a million bucks is the same tax as 10% of 25,000.

And before you rant on the issue of rich people not paying taxes (again). What percent of revenue in the US is from those "rich" people again? Wow they really must not be paying their taxes huh?

If I make $1,000,000 dollars, and lock $900,000 of it away because I don't need or want it. The government should not be thinking the $900,000 would make a nice addition or help to a social program.

#50 RedvsBlue  

RedvsBlue

Posted 15 July 2011 - 07:43 PM

First, I'm not advocating communism redistribution of wealth. If people work hard and take risks then they are entitled to have more money and better stuff.

On the other hand, it cannot be denied the government was a benefit to them in building their wealth. If you don't believe me, go try to make yourself into a millionaire in Uganda or Somalia. If you aren't killed in the process (yep, government helps prevent that from happening as well) then you'll have proven me wrong.

I enjoy hearing your report when you get back.

#51 Knoell   Achievement Unlocked CAGiversary!   2584 Posts   Joined 7.0 Years Ago  

Posted 15 July 2011 - 07:52 PM

First, I'm not advocating communism redistribution of wealth. If people work hard and take risks then they are entitled to have more money and better stuff.

On the other hand, it cannot be denied the government was a benefit to them in building their wealth. If you don't believe me, go try to make yourself into a millionaire in Uganda or Somalia. If you aren't killed in the process (yep, government helps prevent that from happening as well) then you'll have proven me wrong.

I enjoy hearing your report when you get back.


This is part of the governments responsibility. What part of that responsibility includes what they are trying to accomplish now? This is why people are upset with the governments role not that they are being taxed.

#52 RedvsBlue  

RedvsBlue

Posted 15 July 2011 - 07:55 PM

This is part of the governments responsibility. What part of that responsibility includes what they are trying to accomplish now? This is why people are upset with the governments role not that they are being taxed.


I'm a little lost on your direction here.

I will say that the government does have responsibilities yes, however, they also need to finance those responsibilities somehow.

#53 nasum   CAGiversary! CAGiversary!   3480 Posts   Joined 12.3 Years Ago  

Posted 15 July 2011 - 08:05 PM

I'm no fan of Obama either but this argument that he's a socialist is just as silly and ridiculous as the claims that Bush was Hitler.


Bullshit, Hitler was a wonderful public speaker!

My real favorite is that those accusing Obama of socialism don't seem to realize that we live in a bizarre hybrid of social socialism with a sort of free market economy. Novus Ordo Seclorum indeed!


I wonder what their response to Social Security will be if the checks don't go out. Do they (A) Defend it because Obama screwed it up or (B) jump to their old argument that it should have been privatized all along?


I love privatized SSI, not only is my 401(k) down 50% but my SSI is gone too!
3DS Buddy Code 2767-0055-5245 send a pm with your code if you add and I will return the favor
XBL - Nasum2

#54 Knoell   Achievement Unlocked CAGiversary!   2584 Posts   Joined 7.0 Years Ago  

Posted 15 July 2011 - 08:06 PM

I'm a little lost on your direction here.

I will say that the government does have responsibilities yes, however, they also need to finance those responsibilities somehow.


I will say again, people are not upset with the fact that they have to pay taxes. They are upset with the role the government is taking.

Notice something?

http://www.usgovernm...color=c&local=s

We aren't receiving less revenue as a percentage of GDP (despite the vastly lower taxes that are devasting our income), besides 9/11, and the recent recession.

http://www.usgovernm...color=c&local=s

But look spending as a percent of GDP is steadily increasing year after year after year.

Edited by Knoell, 15 July 2011 - 08:19 PM.


#55 dohdough   Sum Dum Guy CAGiversary!   6744 Posts   Joined 7.2 Years Ago  

Posted 15 July 2011 - 08:21 PM

Insults a plenty I see. Haha.

The government is not entitled to everyones money simply because it is the government.

Yours and my definition of their fair share are vastly different it seems. You believe fair is complaining that people have too much and wanting to take the excess. I believe fair is paying a tax in proportion to your income. Not only does that happen, but they pay a higher percentage of their income as well. You all act as if 10% of a million bucks is the same tax as 10% of 25,000.

So are you saying that you are ok with a millionaire paying more tax by percentage than someone making $25k? Cause that's what it sounds like to me.

And before you rant on the issue of rich people not paying taxes (again). What percent of revenue in the US is from those "rich" people again? Wow they really must not be paying their taxes huh?

Yes, the rich pay more in taxes than the poor. But then again, they control a Vast majority of the wealth to begin with.

If I make $1,000,000 dollars, and lock $900,000 of it away because I don't need or want it. The government should not be thinking the $900,000 would make a nice addition or help to a social program.

Did you edit this part?

I will say again, people are not upset with the fact that they have to pay taxes. They are upset with the role the government is taking to tax them more.

fix.d

#56 nasum   CAGiversary! CAGiversary!   3480 Posts   Joined 12.3 Years Ago  

Posted 15 July 2011 - 08:22 PM

Insults a plenty I see. Haha.

The government is not entitled to everyones money simply because it is the government.

Yours and my definition of their fair share are vastly different it seems. You believe fair is complaining that people have too much and wanting to take the excess. I believe fair is paying a tax in proportion to your income. Not only does that happen, but they pay a higher percentage of their income as well. You all act as if 10% of a million bucks is the same tax as 10% of 25,000.

And before you rant on the issue of rich people not paying taxes (again). What percent of revenue in the US is from those "rich" people again? Wow they really must not be paying their taxes huh?

If I make $1,000,000 dollars, and lock $900,000 of it away because I don't need or want it. The government should not be thinking the $900,000 would make a nice addition or help to a social program.


Uh oh, you fell into the logical abyss of the flat tax. Don't worry, I crawled out of it after some more analysis and you can too.
Let's just use your 10% figure, though x% can be substituted and it all works in the end. It looks great on paper as you basically see that your "dues" for citizenship are 10% and that's not bad. But then you tack on property taxes, sales taxes, alcohol and booze taxes etc... and then it starts to become very unbalanced. Then you have to remember that income over $106,800.01 is taxed at a rate that is 4.2% less or 10.4% less if you're self employed (OASDI) so now you've effectively given that 10%er at $1m a tax free income on $894,000.99 of income compared to the other guy.
As much as it sounds like a dohdough platitude, it truly does cost more to be poor.
3DS Buddy Code 2767-0055-5245 send a pm with your code if you add and I will return the favor
XBL - Nasum2

#57 Knoell   Achievement Unlocked CAGiversary!   2584 Posts   Joined 7.0 Years Ago  

Posted 15 July 2011 - 08:27 PM

So are you saying that you are ok with a millionaire paying more tax by percentage than someone making $25k? Cause that's what it sounds like to me.


Yes, the rich pay more in taxes than the poor. But then again, they control a Vast majority of the wealth to begin with.


Did you edit this part?


fix.d


I am fine with current tax rates.

Rich people control the vast majority of the wealth and pay the vast majority of the US budget. Sounds like their fair share to me.

I don't know if I edited or not, sometimes I edit right after I post but I don't remember.

Your edit is partially true. I don't want to pay more taxes because the government demands it to fund programs and participate in actions I do not agree with. Do you? I bet you could get by without an extra $50 bucks a year? Why not? You can afford it right? Then it shouldn't be a problem right?

And Nasum, I am not advocating a flat tax rate. I am simply pointing out that they should realize they are thinking of a different kind of "fair share" than their opposition. The fair share is not what the rich spend or keep in excess.

#58 dohdough   Sum Dum Guy CAGiversary!   6744 Posts   Joined 7.2 Years Ago  

Posted 15 July 2011 - 08:53 PM

I am fine with current tax rates.

I'm going to one up you on this one: I want to go back to Reagan tax rates!

Rich people control the vast majority of the wealth and pay the vast majority of the US budget. Sounds like their fair share to me.

Not in proportion to the wealth they actually control and the method they acquire more of it. Income tax isn't the only form of taxation and wages aren't the only way to gain an income.

Your edit is partially true. I don't want to pay more taxes because the government demands it to fund programs and participate in actions I do not agree with. Do you? I bet you could get by without an extra $50 bucks a year? Why not? You can afford it right? Then it shouldn't be a problem right?

We all pay for shit we don't want. I didn't vote for Bush or for us to go to Iraq or for mercenaries. And yes, I can afford an extra $50, but that doesn't mean the he person that makes half what I make is able to afford it and that doesn't mean that those that make twice as much as me can't afford $100.

And Nasum, I am not advocating a flat tax rate. I am simply pointing out that they should realize they are thinking of a different kind of "fair share" than their opposition. The fair share is not what the rich spend or keep in excess.

You do know that the rich don't derive most of their income through wages right? That's why Warren Buffet pays less tax as a percentage than his secretary. This is also why your idea of a "fair share" also isn't fair.

#59 Knoell   Achievement Unlocked CAGiversary!   2584 Posts   Joined 7.0 Years Ago  

Posted 15 July 2011 - 08:57 PM

Bah you have successfully kept me awake long enough, I have 3 hours to sleep before work. I will respond sometime over the weekend.

#60 Feeding the Abscess   CAGiversary! CAGiversary!   3198 Posts   Joined 7.2 Years Ago  

Feeding the Abscess

Posted 16 July 2011 - 12:58 PM

$0 - $50,000 = 0%
$50,001 - $250,000 = 5%
$250,001 - $1,000,000 = 10%
$1,000,001+ = 15%

Capital gains = 15%

Corporate rate = 15%

No deductions or subsidies. GE and other conglomerates don't deserve to have money given to them while legitimate businesses pay a 30%+ rate. Millionaires don't get write-offs on their portfolios that bring their tax rate into the negative range.

Who's with me

Edited by Feeding the Abscess, 16 July 2011 - 01:11 PM.

Anti-State, Anti-War, Pro-Market

 

ThroneofSeth.png