$250,000+

[TeknoAXE]

So, a big stipulation to Obama's really huge budget is that he's going to increase taxes for those who make $250k and above. Their rates would go to nearly %40 while nearly everyone below that cutoff mark would would get a tax cut. Depending on where you are, that could mean that your total contributing funds, including medicare, social security and state income tax, could inch towards the %50 mark.

So, while the majority of the population gets to pay less taxes, those who have reached this milestone will pay a bigger percentage of the taxes. They pay a huge majority of the revenue for the U.S. government.

I'm wondering if there's some sort of compromise that could be offered to those who are about to carry more of the tax burden--especially those who fall just above the $250k mark. You'd think that many of these people might feel that they should have more of a say on how and where this money is being spent. But, of course, equality is supposed to be for everyone in the United States, so what sort of compensation could be offered? Maybe they could sleep in the Lincoln Bedroom for shits and giggles.

[HexRei]

maybe they could feel good about not hoarding so much wealth.

[TeknoAXE]

You mean actually saving the shit you earn? Maybe China does have a few lessons to teach us after all.

[B_tech]

I'm wondering if there's some sort of compromise that could be offered to those who are about to carry more of the tax burden--especially those who fall just above the $250k mark.
Right... just like I get a say when I get a raise and am thrust to the bottom of a higher tax bracket, rather than the top of the lower one?

[Andromeda.]

oh, don't fret! because people who make that much money generally only get taxed that much in theory. often, they end up paying less than 25% in taxes because they have all kinds of awesome write-offs that the middle and lower classes don't :) and also can afford phenomenally creative accountants.

cheers!









again, i point to warren buffett. after his give-away-all-my-money charitypalooza he went on, he then repeatedly went on record saying that, while making double-digit billions per year, his secretary (who makes 60k) pays higher taxes than he does.

the tax burden has always fallen on the middle class, and with few exceptions, always will :rolleyes:

oddly enough, from what i've read it seems that the least-selfish megarich are...uhhhh, hollywood. strange huh! i've read many many many manymanymany celebrity interviews where they admit they pay 50% in taxes, and don't care because they're still filthy rich in the end. i can't even count how many times i've read that.

but i digress on those horrible, shallow people and their horrible, shallow generosity / honesty. all those awesome tax cheats get to run the world. and (somehow) so amazingly, with the full support of people who can't even fathom that much money, let alone having it.

american dreams my ass.

[burnt]

my heart bleeds for those poor poor unfortunate investment bankers and others who earn over $250k per year. now more than ever, I think its incredibly important to make sure we take care of the people at the top of the totem pole so that ....... so that, they, can continue to show such care for the rest of us.

[spazmunkee]

Lololololol

[Andromeda.]

my heart bleeds for those poor poor unfortunate investment bankers and others who earn over $250k per year. now more than ever, I think its incredibly important to make sure we take care of the people at the top of the totem pole so that ....... so that, they, can continue to show such care for the rest of us.

SIDE FEED / TRICKLE DOWN ECONOMICS FTL





no, really. they don't work.
someone needs to make a lolcat diagram for them.
hey. hey u!
ur doin it wrong.

[TeknoAXE]

See, it's not just the bankers who we're talking about, though. And whether you like it or not, a big portion of the income tax comes from people who hover around the 250k mark. So if they fork over the most monies in the tax game, should they end up having more say about where that money should go?

[burnt]

the first thing they would have to do - if that were to happen? - is crawl out from their little troll caverns and show their fucking faces.

and once they do that, we'll know who to throw eggs at, on account of the $750 billion bailout they just got.

remember that? remember last Christmas when a bunch of anonymous told a government agent to beg for $750 billion on their behalf, and the rest of us got mad about it, but then they got the money anyway, and nobody said thank you?? remember that??

ya. those fuckers would have to come out of hiding in order for that to happen.

and I don't know about you, homeboy, but I got a suspicion they're getting worried about some guillotines and shit.

*******
also, trickle down economics no longer work. I have proof. so I say, tax em. knock em down. steal their lunch money. cut out the middlemen lobbyists.

[burnt]

let me tell you part of the reason I really like this Obama.

remember back in junior high, that kid who used to bring lunch money to school - we would intimidate him and shake him down and steal his lunch money from him. remember that fuckin kid?

well - he used to go home, biting back the tears until he hit his pillow, where he'd cry and cry to his room full of cats and no friends. and he'd swear that some day - SOME DAY! - some day, god dammit, HE'D be in charge! HE'D be the one bossing all those bullies around and HE'D be the one to FIRE US if he wanted to!

that nerdy, pudgy little shit grew up to become a powerful, rich boss man. and by god, now that the economy is taking a bad turn south.... **insert evil laugh** ... he's FIRED all the kids who used to bully him around! he's foreclosing our houses! HE'S STILL HOLDING ONTO HIS MORE THAN $250,000 per year job, and WE'RE ALL FUCKED!

*****
here is why I like Barack Obama...

Barack Obama - is drafting legislation - to raise his taxes. raise his taxes in a huge, huge way.

that motherfucker is like 43 years old now.

and we're about to shake him down for his lunch money AGAIN!

its ..... its beautiful...

*****
socialism???
no.... no.... no, its so much more .... beautiful ... than that. =)

[B_tech]

my heart bleeds for those poor poor unfortunate investment bankers and others who earn over $250k per year. now more than ever, I think its incredibly important to make sure we take care of the people at the top of the totem pole so that ....... so that, they, can continue to show such care for the rest of us.
Yea... their life is way harder than the guy with 2 kids, working at McDonalds, just trying to make ends meet. We really do need to think of the people making over $250k. :D

[TeknoAXE]

Why are you still working at McDonalds trying to support 2 kids?

[burnt]

Lunch money shake down!!!11 :d

[tr0llaccount]

i feel better having learned that all the blame for our country's current economic state can be placed on everyone who earned more than a particular amount of income.

[TeknoAXE]

the first thing they would have to do - if that were to happen? - is crawl out from their little troll caverns and show their fucking faces.

and once they do that, we'll know who to throw eggs at, on account of the $750 billion bailout they just got.

remember that? remember last Christmas when a bunch of anonymous told a government agent to beg for $750 billion on their behalf, and the rest of us got mad about it, but then they got the money anyway, and nobody said thank you?? remember that??

ya. those fuckers would have to come out of hiding in order for that to happen.

and I don't know about you, homeboy, but I got a suspicion they're getting worried about some guillotines and shit.

*******
also, trickle down economics no longer work. I have proof. so I say, tax em. knock em down. steal their lunch money. cut out the middlemen lobbyists.

Aren't the homeowners who bought homes they couldn't afford part of the formula here? And are they not getting a big chunk of this dumbass stimulus package being passed right now? You're talking about knocking down the people who originally created the jobs--a huge chunk of those jobs--in the first place; the guy who you benefited off of because he worked his way up with his own sweat and tears to create those small business jobs in the first place.

Also, your lobbyist schtick doesn't work because guess what! A big chunk of that over-bloated fiscal budget of Obama's is going to--you guessed it!--more lobbyists! Oops. You lose.

So raise the taxes on the guys who created your jobs. That's a winner because, ultimately, to save the money they're losing, many will cut those jobs they originally provided to you. You lose.

And, with the militant attitude about those who've raised the mark for themselves, I bet a big portion will probably skip over the donation box when the salvation army sets up shop at the airport. You lose.

And....and....with more taxes going into inefficient government processes, I guess less monies will go into the market and, hence more businesses will close and layoff more people to survive. You lose.

Sorry. But your hateful plan to take the kid's lunch money that he spent the time and effort to get will only result in you falling on your ass in the end.

[burnt]

we're stealing their personal money. money from their personal accounts.

not their business accounts.

if a businessman has to fund payroll out of his personal accounts, then his business deserves to fail. his customers deserve better.

[St. Earl]

leave the tax code the way it is. it works just great.

those bush tax cuts on the well to do just need more time to work. then the benefits are gonna rain down like manna.

they didn't so much raise the bar as have it lowered for them ( bush tax breaks) while most did not get that extra help.
their lunch money will still be there for them.
it's just the extra candy allowance that is being taken away.

[Boyd Main]

So if they fork over the most monies in the tax game, should they end up having more say about where that money should go?

Dude, they already do, and have done for time immemorial. The US government has always been about maintaining income inequality: keeping the rich rich and the poor hungry.

You should flip your original question around and say, "If those making over $250,000 p.a. have all the structural advantages of an unfair government, why shouldn't they pay a disproportionate amount in taxes?"

[Mayo Finch]

"Speaking for myself, I don't need a tax cut or tax relief," said David Geffen, the music mogul who has amassed a $3.3 billion fortune and is 70th on the Forbes 400 list of wealthiest Americans. "It is appropriate to pay a greater share of taxes."

[burnt]

And, with the militant attitude about those who've raised the mark for themselves, I bet a big portion will probably skip over the donation box when the salvation army sets up shop at the airport. You lose.


also - two things here. see, I worked for the Salvation Army. when I was dead broke and 10 minutes away from homeless for about 6 months, living in Eugene.


(aaaaaaah, scenic Eugene Oregon.... such memories...)

anyway - so ya, I took a shitty job from a temp agency, making $6/hour standing outside in the cold for 8 hours ringing a bell. so - couple of things.

first - fuck the salvation army. mother fuck those fucking fucks. and you can fucking quote me. me and all of my coworkers used to get SCREAMED at by the "Major" who was supervising us, every single day, because we weren't "making enough" in our little red buckets.

they went through training techniques to get us to boost donations. things like - try to get in their way. open the door for them. loudly say "HELLO!" or "MERRY CHRISTMAS!" to people walking by and awkwardly avoiding eye contact with you. ooh ooh ooh... better yet... if they have kids, say hello to the kids or maybe pull some bright looking toy out of your pocket and smile big & creepy at the kids, so the kids stop, forcing the parents with their deep pockets to stop.

shit like that.

so, first of all, mother fuck the fucking salvation army.


*****

and second of all?

let me tell you who was the biggest donors. big ass families climbing out of piece of shit mid-70's or 80's era cars with 3 grubby looking kids. little old ladies with walkers.

now let me tell you who the fuck DIDN'T give me cash.

suave, sophisticated, rich looking motherfuckers.

so this argument just doesn't hold water, dude. richies don't donate money anyway - just like every pizza driver out there knows richies don't fucking tip, either.

[burnt]

or you know - conversely - we could give them a whole lot of money instead of taking a whole lot of money, and that'll fix the economy.

*looks at yet another AIG bailout*

*looks at the stock market results today*

oh shit, wait...

[Mayo Finch]

I was dead broke and 10 minutes away from homeless for about 6 months, living in Eugene.

(aaaaaaah, scenic Eugene Oregon.... such memories...)

*****
now let me tell you who the fuck DIDN'T give me cash.

suave, sophisticated, rich looking motherfuckers.

so this argument just doesn't hold water, dude. richies don't donate money anyway - just like every pizza driver out there knows richies don't fucking tip, either.

Dude... you just totally gained a ton of respect in this post. Double thumbs up and kudo's!

[jaden]

http://www.travelweekly.co.uk/blogs/angry%20users.JPG

[Roddimus]

my heart bleeds for those poor poor unfortunate investment bankers and others who earn over $250k per year. now more than ever, I think its incredibly important to make sure we take care of the people at the top of the totem pole so that ....... so that, they, can continue to show such care for the rest of us.
how is allowing people to keep what they earn even close to "taking care" of them? and yeah, all rich people are assholes who are out to screw you, just like how all black people are desperate crackheads out to rape your daughter.
:rolleyes:
fuck all income taxes, they just give the government more power and guaranteed interest payments on their ballooning credit card bills.
now those who have worked hard, saved and played by the rules will be even less willing to make loans and investments to small businesses and startups. oh but that's right, with the ongoing bank nationalizations now we'll get to have the government to do all that instead! it's a good thing they always know how to spend money efficiently and intelligently!

[Roddimus]

Dude... you just totally gained a ton of respect in this post. Double thumbs up and kudo's!
yeah, now that we're no longer allowed to hate people based on their skin color or weird accent, it's such a relief that we can now go after the size of their savings account instead! i was getting worried there for a minute!

[B_tech]

i feel better having learned that all the blame for our country's current economic state can be placed on everyone who earned more than a particular amount of income.
I'm pretty sure the predatory lending and shady practices weren't done by people making minimum wage. I think we can also conclude that those making minumum wage are still renters and weren't trying to buy 2-3x the house than they could afford. As over-simplified as it sound, YES, you can blame this problem on people that made over a certain amount, should you desire.

[B_tech]

*looks at yet another AIG bailout*

Ug. Can someone PLEASE tell me how a fucking insurance company can lose $60BILLION in a quarter? I mean, that's worse than the automaker AND airlines combined! I can see why we might keep BANKS from failing... but an insurance company? C'mon.. those sheisters get paid and rarely have to pay out... they're the LAST form of business that needs help from anyone else.

[Roddimus]

I'm pretty sure the predatory lending and shady practices weren't done by people making minimum wage. I think we can also conclude that those making minumum wage are still renters and weren't trying to buy 2-3x the house than they could afford. As over-simplified as it sound, YES, you can blame this problem on people that made over a certain amount, should you desire.
and if you desire, you can also attribute the morals and actions of some black people to every single african american you encounter. it's better to assume they're all secret criminals out to get you than actually, k'now, give them the benefit of the doubt.

[Roddimus]

I can see why we might keep BANKS from failing...
i can't...

[Mayo Finch]

You know, the rhetoric you espouse is not well founded.

The concept of withholding investment money because of tax restraints is a huck-o-louie.

I could go on an unqualifide personal rant based on my position and feelings that is likely just to turn into an odd argument about things neither of us are really into seeing eye to eye on, but instead, I'll show you what I'm talking about.

MYTH: TAX INCREASES WILL RUIN ECONOMIC GROWTH: The Heritage Foundation claimed that Obama's tax proposals "sacrifice future economic growth at the altars of redistributionism," while House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) called the budget a "job killer." But as Orszag said, "[W]e're returning to the tax rates that applied during the 1990's. I think all Americans -- including high income Americans -- did quite well during that decade." The Center for Budget and Policy Priorities pointed out that "what the data do show clearly is that, despite major tax cuts in 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, and 2006, the economy's performance between 2001 and 2007 was far from stellar." As CAP's Joshua Picker found, the Bush economy "registered the weakest jobs and income growth in the post-war period. Overall monthly job growth was the worst of any cycle since at least February 1945, and household income growth was negative for the first cycle since tracking began in 1967." Women reversed employment gains of previous cycles, and for African-Americans, the worst job growth on record was matched by an unprecedented increase in poverty. Businesses didn't fare any better, as the Bush tax cuts "were actually followed by a pronounced decrease in the fraction of G.D.P. devoted to business investment." Business investment fell after both the Reagan and Bush tax cuts, but rose after the Clinton tax increase, according to work by Princeton professor Uwe Reinhardt.

[tr0llaccount]

I'm pretty sure the predatory lending and shady practices weren't done by people making minimum wage. I think we can also conclude that those making minumum wage are still renters and weren't trying to buy 2-3x the house than they could afford. As over-simplified as it sound, YES, you can blame this problem on people that made over a certain amount, should you desire.

they're probably jews too ('cause they're rich)

[Roddimus]

You know, the rhetoric you espouse is not well founded.

The concept of withholding investment money because of tax restraints is a huck-o-louie.

I could go on an unqualifide personal rant based on my position and feelings that is likely just to turn into an odd argument about things neither of us are really into seeing eye to eye on, but instead, I'll show you what I'm talking about.

MYTH: TAX INCREASES WILL RUIN ECONOMIC GROWTH: The Heritage Foundation claimed that Obama's tax proposals "sacrifice future economic growth at the altars of redistributionism," while House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) called the budget a "job killer." But as Orszag said, "[W]e're returning to the tax rates that applied during the 1990's. I think all Americans -- including high income Americans -- did quite well during that decade." The Center for Budget and Policy Priorities pointed out that "what the data do show clearly is that, despite major tax cuts in 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, and 2006, the economy's performance between 2001 and 2007 was far from stellar." As CAP's Joshua Picker found, the Bush economy "registered the weakest jobs and income growth in the post-war period. Overall monthly job growth was the worst of any cycle since at least February 1945, and household income growth was negative for the first cycle since tracking began in 1967." Women reversed employment gains of previous cycles, and for African-Americans, the worst job growth on record was matched by an unprecedented increase in poverty. Businesses didn't fare any better, as the Bush tax cuts "were actually followed by a pronounced decrease in the fraction of G.D.P. devoted to business investment." Business investment fell after both the Reagan and Bush tax cuts, but rose after the Clinton tax increase, according to work by Princeton professor Uwe Reinhardt.
oh yeah, because the "prosperity" of the 90s was obviously so real and in no way a huge tech bubble driven by artificially low interest rates and the government sponsored bailout of long term capital management. yeah! we raised taxes when frenzied people were fooled into investing in dot com companies with zero earnings! i guess you showed me!
it's not like our increasing economic weakness for the past 2 decades has been the result of globalization and free trade gutting our industrial base and leaving us with a service based house of cards.
no, it's because we lowered taxes.
:rolleyes:

[St. Earl]

if the government would sell me good weed at $10 an 1/8th, i'd gladly pay $5 tax on top of that.

shit, sell it for $5 and i'll pay $10 in tax.

one thing on which i agree with roddimus is, income tax sucks and should be done away with.

[B_tech]

they're probably jews too ('cause they're rich)
OH YEA!! We would be remiss if we didn't have the obligatory "blame the Jews" comment. Thanks for catching that... we almost missed it in this thread.

[St. Earl]

pot=green jobs :p:p:p:p

[Roddimus]

so.... - fuck the richies! if they're not going to willing share their wealth and use pre-existing tax write-offs to document and showcase their willingness to "trickle down" their wealth? ... well, shit man ... times are hard. shake em down. get that cash, yo. cuz. well, fuck em.

you used popular sentiment to dance around your prejudices all you want, but i think this line really does show just how full of hate you truly are.
i want to see the "richies" who fucked up to get punished just as much as you, which is why i want their companies to fail miserably. then the honest, hard working and helpful "richies" who have been waiting patiently on the sidelines for the assholes to fail would actually have a chance to set our economy right.
there are actually many smart and responsible "richies" who didn't partake in the orgy of the past decade who are extremely frustrated they're not being given the opportunity they've earned and deserved to buy up these failed companies. i see them on tv making their case, they're just not given the same amount of airtime and attention that the money grubbing stereotypes you love to hate are given. i wonder why...

[tr0llaccount]

there are actually many smart and responsible "richies" who didn't partake in the orgy of the past decade who are extremely frustrated they're not being given the opportunity they've earned and deserved to buy up these failed companies.

i find it impossible to believe that someone with a lot of money could have good financial sense!

[B_tech]

you used popular sentiment to dance around your prejudices all you want, but i think this line really does show just how full of hate you truly are.
i want to see the "richies" who fucked up to get punished just as much as you, which is why i want their companies to fail miserably.
But that resolution is flawed because letting the companies fail doesn't just hurt those that perpetrated the crimes, but ALL employees. So seemingly innocent people (like the call center agents, making $30K a year) would be affected by that loss, not just the 'richies' that pulled the shit off.

[Roddimus]

But that resolution is flawed because letting the companies fail doesn't just hurt those that perpetrated the crimes, but ALL employees. So seemingly innocent people (like the call center agents, making $30K a year) would be affected by that loss, not just the 'richies' that pulled the shit off.
and keeping these irresponsible, greedy assholes in charge of our banking industry would be GOOD for the economy?
letting them fail wouldn't be pretty and there would definitely be economic pain, but as i've repeated to you and others many times, there's going to be pain one way or another. it's time to man up and deal with the pain now rather than risk total collapse later.

[Mayo Finch]

When wealthy people are faced with declining wealth, they actually do more to earn more, thus increasing their wealth and creating prosperity.

[burnt]

But that resolution is flawed because letting the companies fail doesn't just hurt those that perpetrated the crimes, but ALL employees. So seemingly innocent people (like the call center agents, making $30K a year) would be affected by that loss, not just the 'richies' that pulled the shit off.

plus! - and I think I mentioned this earlier? - the richies who want to swoop up the failed companies...... are *ALSO* saying "oh ya, for sure... ya... ya, of *COURSE* the government should be taxing our personal incomes all to shit. I mean duh. obviously. we earn more..."

*****
Roddimus, there's an old French saying that people who have no strong, burning hatred in their hearts, have no strong, burning love in their hearts either. its like light and shadow, you can't have one without the other.

of course there's hatred burning in my heart. because of the people I love, so much - I mean, of *course* I "hate" those who would stand in the way of their health and happiness. what, you don't? you don't "hate" the guys who killed civilians on 9/11? you don't "hate" the guys who deliberately put poisonous food into the general food supply? you don't "hate" the guys who hide taxes overseas, when they're smart and powerful enough to know the damage that their selfishness causes?

huh.

so is it fair to say that you don't "love" the people damaged by those fuckers?

anyway - this thread's about to get derailed.

[Roddimus]

When wealthy people are faced with declining wealth, they actually do more to earn more, thus increasing their wealth and creating prosperity.
do you have any examples of this besides the bubble ridden 90s?
because we taxed the wealthy for a good part of the 60s and 70s and all we got were stagnated markets and tons of inflation.

[Roddimus]

plus! - and I think I mentioned this earlier? - the richies who want to swoop up the failed companies...... are *ALSO* saying "oh ya, for sure... ya... ya, of *COURSE* the government should be taxing our personal incomes all to shit. I mean duh. obviously. we earn more..."
not the ones i've seen...(buffett actually supports the bailouts btw)
but what's wrong with not having any income taxes at all, for anyone? just tax trade and capital gains...it worked pretty well for us for nearly a century.
*****
Roddimus, there's an old French saying that people who have no strong, burning hatred in their hearts, have no strong, burning love in their hearts either. its like light and shadow, you can't have one without the other.

of course there's hatred burning in my heart. because of the people I love, so much - I mean, of *course* I "hate" those who would stand in the way of their health and happiness. what, you don't? you don't "hate" the guys who killed civilians on 9/11? you don't "hate" the guys who deliberately put poisonous food into the general food supply? you don't "hate" the guys who hide taxes overseas, when they're smart and powerful enough to know the damage that their selfishness causes?

huh.

so is it fair to say that you don't "love" the people damaged by those fuckers?

anyway - this thread's about to get derailed.
i don't hate people i don't like, i just feel bad for them. true compassion man, it's a glorious thing. it sure as shit is better than holding onto and justifying hatred.

[B_tech]

and keeping these irresponsible, greedy assholes in charge of our banking industry would be GOOD for the economy?
letting them fail wouldn't be pretty and there would definitely be economic pain, but as i've repeated to you and others many times, there's going to be pain one way or another. it's time to man up and deal with the pain now rather than risk total collapse later.
No no, IMO, if they took a payout, the senior management should be removed and then charged with the crimes for which they have committed. I think the whole process is fux0red, because Bush decided to ram through money for these asses with zero oversight and now the govt STILL refuses to remove the assholes that cause the problems.

Let's say for the sake of argument that saving these businesses would be a positive thing... then at the very least, we should remove all the people in senior and maybe mid-level management that made the decisions to invest/back these securities. WIth the shite job maket, I'm sure you can find a meriad of eager candidates to fill the rolls at a FAR lower wage.

[Roddimus]

No no, IMO, if they took a payout, the senior management should be removed and then charged with the crimes for which they have committed. I think the whole process is fux0red, because Bush decided to ram through money for these asses with zero oversight and now the govt STILL refuses to remove the assholes that cause the problems.

Let's say for the sake of argument that saving these businesses would be a positive thing... then at the very least, we should remove all the people in senior and maybe mid-level management that made the decisions to invest/back these securities. WIth the shite job maket, I'm sure you can find a meriad of eager candidates to fill the rolls at a FAR lower wage.
but these businesses are almost worthless! no one with any financial sense wants to touch them. how is saving a worthless company a positive thing?
and besides, the companies getting bailed out are STILL firing tons of people.
all the bailouts are going to do is create inflation and transfer the collapse from private industry to the public sector. i'd rather deal with the pain of a banking industry collapse than the pain of a complete government collapse.

[seattle science]

I hope to someday make 250k a year. It will take me a while, no doubt, but I'm going to try my hardest to make it happen. Seems like if I do make it to that point, I shouldn't be punished extra for doing so. I ain't going to have kids. Just be a good uncle and work hard.

Am I evil and greedy for wanting to be well off?

[Roddimus]

I hope to someday make 250k a year. It will take me a while, no doubt, but I'm going to try my hardest to make it happen. Seems like if I do make it to that point, I shouldn't be punished extra for doing so. I ain't going to have kids. Just be a good uncle and work hard.

Am I evil and greedy for wanting to be well off?
not as far as i'm concerned, and i'm someone who would be perfectly happy making 40k a year till i retire (assuming, of course, i didn't have to deal with the inflation tax between now and then).

[tr0llaccount]

I hope to someday make 250k a year. It will take me a while, no doubt, but I'm going to try my hardest to make it happen. Seems like if I do make it to that point, I shouldn't be punished extra for doing so. I ain't going to have kids. Just be a good uncle and work hard.

Am I evil and greedy for wanting to be well off?

i certainly don't think so. 250k is only ~$120/hr. that's a heck of a lot more than i currently make, but it's not an absurd amount of money by any means. i'd go so far as to say that it's the lower end of "rich," and it's certainly a reasonable combined income for two people.

[burnt]

I hope to someday make 250k a year. It will take me a while, no doubt, but I'm going to try my hardest to make it happen. Seems like if I do make it to that point, I shouldn't be punished extra for doing so. I ain't going to have kids. Just be a good uncle and work hard.

Am I evil and greedy for wanting to be well off?

is it punishment to pay taxes?

are you going to bitch if the government makes you pay a lousy $1 or $2000/year than someone who "only" makes $150,000/year?

[B_tech]

I hope to someday make 250k a year.

**SNIP**

Am I evil and greedy for wanting to be well off?
Only if you acquired that money by faking loan incomes and lying like the meriad of people at Countrywide or property appraisers that all made fortunes off the housing market.

[seattle science]

is it punishment to pay taxes?

are you going to bitch if the government makes you pay a lousy $1 or $2000/year than someone who "only" makes $150,000/year?

I could only consider taxes to be punishment if they apply differently to people depending on how well they do. If I have a higher tax rate than someone else, that is most definitely punishment. If it's equal across the board, then it's fair, and it further encourages me to try to do well.

[seattle science]

Only if you acquired that money by faking loan incomes and lying like the meriad of people at Countrywide or property appraisers that all made fortunes off the housing market.

Cool. Though I think some others may believe anyone who does relatively well to be evil and greedy (although they themselves ironically want nothing more than to be similarly wealthy).

[Boyd Main]

I just don't buy the idea that taxing the higher incomes will make people less inclined to work to earn more. It doesn't seem logical. If I am taxed at, say 25% overall on my income up to $249,999, and then only keep 60c for every dollar over that, I'm still going to try to earn as many of those 60c as I can. After all, only keeping 75c for every dollar didn't stop me from getting to 249,000. Hell, if taxes were such a disincentive, wouldn't everyone be keeping sure to earn only $10,000 a year?

Historical correlations just dont hold any water for me, so I've been trying to find anything from game theory literature on this, but no avail. It seems that there must be some kind of optimization of the tradeoffs involved in tax rates and thresholds. Do any of you know any literature that deals with these ideas?

[B_tech]

I just don't buy the idea that taxing the higher incomes will make people less inclined to work to earn more. It doesn't seem logical.
But you will agree that people with a certain level of income tend to invest more, thereby increasing their income with seemingly less work, no? Personally, if I were making more and more income with less and less work, I'd opt to keep that type of income generation going forward and lessening the type that required more work. I don't think that's an odd way of looking at income generation..

But I also don't think it's fair to demonize all those who have worked and are fortunate enough to make the phat cash; those that do are just jealous/envious. Only those that gained their money illicitly should be judged.

[Boyd Main]

But you will agree that people with a certain level of income tend to invest more, thereby increasing their income with seemingly less work, no? Personally, if I were making more and more income with less and less work, I'd opt to keep that type of income generation going forward ....

Exactly - I don't see people changing their investment choices to go to lower yielding options, and consciously choose to earn less, just so that they can avoid paying higher taxes.

[seattle science]

I don't think higher tax rates encourage people to not do as well, although they probably don't act as an incentive to achieve more.

For example: Lots of businesses offer performance incentives if you have a good quarter. I'm thinking the idea is that it encourages people to work extra hard to earn a bit more. Take away those incentives, or cut them in half, and I might not have the drive to put in the extra work.

Plus there's the principalities of the matter... doing your best to achieve the most possible should = greatest reward. Kinda perpetuates theory that you should want to study hard and do well in school so that you can land a good job.

[burnt]

I just don't buy the idea that taxing the higher incomes will make people less inclined to work to earn more. It doesn't seem logical.

lol exactly. it might make them inclined to bitch more. or lie on their tax forms more. operative word there being "more".

but I really doubt we're going to see upwardly mobile young people - en masse - all going "ok you know what? I know I could make my first million before I'm 30, but I think I'm just gonna tap out at $249,999.... and call it a day...."

lol

[Roddimus]

yeah, you guys are right, taking away resources from someone and giving it to an inefficient government couldn't possibly have any adverse affects.

[burnt]

When wealthy people are faced with declining wealth, they actually do more to earn more, thus increasing their wealth and creating prosperity.

do you have any examples of this besides the bubble ridden 90s?
because we taxed the wealthy for a good part of the 60s and 70s and all we got were stagnated markets and tons of inflation.

lol at Roddimus demanding proof that rich people try to get richer shitty during economic times.......... in a thread about rich people complaining about wanting tax cuts not tax hikes during these shitty economic times.

lol...

[Roddimus]

lol at Roddimus demanding proof that rich people try to get richer shitty during economic times.......... in a thread about rich people complaining about wanting tax cuts not tax hikes during these shitty economic times.

lol...
i assumed mayo was implying that higher taxes act as some sort of a perverse motivation for the rich to try and get richer, since that's what he was pushing in his previous post.
rich people can reverse the losses that come from economic downturns by investing in industries that will reverse the downturns. they can't reverse the losses that come from higher taxes by doing the same.

[burnt]

damn you're right, so ... so maybe the twins will have to *share* just *one* jet ski next summer when they visit their summer home in the Hamptons.... instead of each child getting his own jet ski...

all so us selfish peasants get the extravagance of a few extra cops, firefighters and teachers.





so sad. so sad. forgive me. I see the error of my ways now.

;)

[Roddimus]

damn you're right, so ... so maybe the twins will have to *share* just *one* jet ski next summer when they visit their summer home in the Hamptons.... instead of each child getting his own jet ski...

all so us selfish peasants get the extravagance of a few extra cops, firefighters and teachers.
oh yeah, and the federal government does such a good job of funding those local services. it's a good thing schools haven't taken a nosedive ever since the department of education was formed.
:rolleyes:
but whatever. you seem pretty giddy that you finally get to play class warfare. have fun letting your hatred consume you!

[burnt]

oh, I am Roddimus! =)

the last 8 years sucked. this shit is downright fun.

next up? Blackwater goes to prison and Rush Limbaugh's 1st Amendment rights get trampled.

*******
richies should pay more taxes. they get "more stuff" from "the system" and its logical to presume they should insert more "mass" back into "the system".

its pretty logical and the richies who have actually continued to succeed through this economic downturn agree with that basic logic.

boosting personal taxes for people with personal earnings of $250k or more per year makes perfect sense and is in no way unethical.

so - I'm sorry - was I uh.... was I not supposed to enjoy this?

I used to shoot squirrels when I was a little kid. in order to ensure that the local community of potato and cattle feed farmers could provide a substantial crop to the folks who purchased their crops, thereby ensuring that the community maintained a healthy standard of living.

I uh ... I also enjoyed watching Chip & Dale's heads pop open. shit was fuckin funny.

along those lines - it makes perfect sense to tax the wealthy a little harder during an economic downturn. also? it makes me lol watching some of the pissant grumpy right leaning richies get pissed while we enact those new tax laws.

so I'm sorry dude, was I not supposed to enjoy this?

****
also - you and I have had a healthy debate today, referencing mathematics and history and (fairly) good English. we're also both products of the American public education system.

are you sure you want to assert that public schools are some kind of catastrophic failure? ;)

[Roddimus]

and Rush Limbaugh's 1st Amendment rights get trampled.
really, so you're a fascist now? finally coming out of the closet are we?
*******
richies should pay more taxes. they get "more stuff" from "the system" and its logical to presume they should insert more "mass" back into "the system".
what is this "system?" the government? the government does not equal the marketplace.
its pretty logical and the richies who have actually continued to succeed through this economic downturn agree with that basic logic.

boosting personal taxes for people with personal earnings of $250k or more per year makes perfect sense and is in no way unethical.

so - I'm sorry - was I uh.... was I not supposed to enjoy this?

I used to shoot squirrels when I was a little kid. in order to ensure that the local community of potato and cattle feed farmers could provide a substantial crop to the folks who purchased their crops, thereby ensuring that the community maintained a healthy standard of living.

I uh ... I also enjoyed watching Chip & Dale's heads pop open. shit was fuckin funny.

along those lines - it makes perfect sense to tax the wealthy a little harder during an economic downturn. also? it makes me lol watching some of the pissant grumpy right leaning richies get pissed while we enact those new tax laws.

so I'm sorry dude, was I not supposed to enjoy this?
wow, OK, so you're just sick and perverse. that put a lot of this into perspective. thanks.
****
also - you and I have had a healthy debate today, referencing mathematics and history and (fairly) good English. we're also both products of the American public education system.

are you sure you want to assert that public schools are some kind of catastrophic failure? ;)
catastrophic failure? who said that?
but considering all of my opinions and facts concerning economics and taxation came from my own self-education and were more or less directly opposed to the lines i was fed in my federally funded schools...kinda, yeah.

[tr0llaccount]

it concerns me when emotions get wrapped up in politics (particular when it comes to financial matters)

[burnt]

if you think I'm the only one snickering at the news of rich people's taxes going up - well - you're naive.

this shit's not fascist dude. after the last 8 years of republican-driven get rich quick schemes at the expense of our economy? its poetic justice.

I'm stepping out. pick up the argument with someone else.

[burnt]

wow, OK, so you're just sick and perverse. that put a lot of this into perspective. thanks.


also, thanks for suggesting that 3/4 of eastern oregonians, eastern washingtonians, most idahoans, etc, etc, etc... are "sick and perverse" for finding ways to maintain their local economies and ecosystems.

I guess the argument really has been put into perspective, hasn't it.

peaches come from a can, right? and ground beef comes from McDonalds.

[tr0llaccount]

also, thanks for suggesting that 3/4 of eastern oregonians, eastern washingtonians, most idahoans, etc, etc, etc... are "sick and perverse" for finding ways to maintain their local economies and ecosystems.

i'm pretty sure he was saying that there is a huge difference between doing what needs to be done, and enjoying it.

i'd say (as i pretty much did in my previous post) that goes for political/financial decisions as well as shooting rodents.

[Roddimus]

if you think I'm the only one snickering at the news of rich people's taxes going up - well - you're naive.

this shit's not fascist dude. after the last 8 years of republican-driven get rich quick schemes at the expense of our economy? its poetic justice.
so because you (and me) have been struggling it's perfectly acceptable to punish the people who might actually be able to employ you with the money that they're now being forced to give to the government (especially those who had zero to do with those get rich quick schemes)?
freakin' sadistic man.

[Roddimus]

also, thanks for suggesting that 3/4 of eastern oregonians, eastern washingtonians, most idahoans, etc, etc, etc... are "sick and perverse" for finding ways to maintain their local economies and ecosystems.
something tells me not all of those people get some sort of perverse enjoyment from killing those animals that you did, let alone transpose that same enjoyment onto punishing people who make more money than you.

[B_tech]

really, so you're a fascist now? finally coming out of the closet are we?

I'm not sure,l but think he was being sardonic about Rush's recent comments about how he's being repressed and then proceeds to refer text in the Declaration of Independance as that of the Constitution.

[Roddimus]

I'm not sure,l but think he was being sardonic about Rush's recent comments about how he's being repressed and then proceeds to refer text in the Declaration of Independance as that of the Constitution.
i assumed he was referring to the fairness doctrine possibly being brought back. could be wrong tho.

[B_tech]

I thought he may be talking about this: http://thinkprogress.org/2009/03/02/limbaugh-constitution-ignorance/. Rush has been prattling on about his 'rights' for a few weeks now.

[seattle science]

Burnt, you can have a pair of jetskis too. There is no law barring you from purchasing such things.

There's only one catch: you have to succeed in your career. Then you can buy those jetskis. And hopefully, if that ever happens, you aren't forced to give one up because somebody who probably got straight D's in highschool and never went to college is mad that he drives an '87 Escort and wants the "richies" to cough it up.

[Mayo Finch]

You want to talk about fucked up?

You had a president that created tax relief for people that didn't need it.

Bill Gates and his Dad were not really into the whole getting tax relief. Warren Buffet was pretty aghast at the idea. Richard Branson thought it was pathetic.

When Bush created tax exemptions for people, he took money that pay for social services. You know, stuff like medicare, paying off the national debt, paying for those little wars of ours, putting up the money in case of national financial disaster, money to give states in case of national disaster, monitoring traffic safety in the sea land and air, providing the loan capitol for students, managing our national natural areas, subsidizing food fuel to maintain its affordability to all citizens... you know all that inefficient shit you hate so much. We get a whole hell of alot of bang for our tax dollar than if we were to privatize the government.

Trust me, by the time you are making that kind of money, taxes are not a big deal.

If you can show me that personal net gains actually decline due to higher income, I'll show you someone that can obviously afford it and not care.

Wealthy people in America do not live off their yearly income. They live off their investment returns. They put their net income into principal investments and live off the proceeds.

I learned this along time ago when I worked at the country club. People that make the kind of money we are talking about are not going broke or withholding investment money.

[seattle science]

You want to talk about fucked up?

You had a president that created tax relief for people that didn't need it.

Bill Gates and his Dad were not really into the whole getting tax relief. Warren Buffet was pretty aghast at the idea. Richard Branson thought it was pathetic.

When Bush created tax exemptions for people, he took money that pay for social services. You know, stuff like medicare, paying off the national debt, paying for those little wars of ours, putting up the money in case of national financial disaster, money to give states in case of national disaster, monitoring traffic safety in the sea land and air, providing the loan capitol for students, managing our national natural areas, subsidizing food fuel to maintain its affordability to all citizens... you know all that inefficient shit you hate so much. We get a whole hell of alot of bang for our tax dollar than if we were to privatize the government.

Trust me, by the time you are making that kind of money, taxes are not a big deal.

If you can show me that personal net gains actually decline due to higher income, I'll show you someone that can obviously afford it and not care.

Wealthy people in America do not live off their yearly income. They live off their investment returns. They put their net income into principal investments and live off the proceeds.

I learned this along time ago when I worked at the country club. People that make the kind of money we are talking about are not going broke or withholding investment money.

You know, people who make 250k a year would probably be fine and dandy if the government took 75% of their gross income. Would you have any problem with that?

[Roddimus]

who cares if they're going broke or not? i know plenty of business owners who complain at length that they could easily employ many more people if they didn't have to pay income taxes.
what about the poor people going broke who could have a job but can't because people like you think the governmentknows how to spend their potential employer's money better?

[tr0llaccount]

You know, people who make 250k a year would probably be fine and dandy if the government took 75% of their gross income. Would you have any problem with that?

i've lived on less than half of even that. maybe we should institute a national salary cap...

[TeknoAXE]

i've lived on less than half of even that. maybe we should institute a national salary cap...

And how the fuck would you initiate that without killing job creation? You realize that with small business--especially for the ones who start up that business--income means the revenue coming from your SALES. National salary cap is not the way to go, does not encourage people to forward their careers and will kill what little competitiveness we have left in the market place as a nation.

You guys can hate on the guy who gets that job pushing him above that 250K mark,. But really, does that get you anywhere but nowhere? The guy that got there didn't spend his time trying to tear everyone who got there down; he found a way to get there on his own. Don't hate that guy--look at what you're doing instead.

[oneandoneisone]

Fuck rich people, give the government your money so you're as broke as the rest of us poor fucks!

[Boyd Main]

who cares if they're going broke or not? i know plenty of business owners who complain at length that they could easily employ many more people if they didn't have to pay income taxes.


But if they didn't play income taxes, those people wouldn't have had an education, and would be useless to employee. Or possibly they would have crippling illnesses which they couldn't get healthcare for.

Is your problem really taxes, or how the government spends them?

[tr0llaccount]

And how the fuck would you initiate that without killing job creation? You realize that with small business--especially for the ones who start up that business--income means the revenue coming from your SALES. National salary cap is not the way to go, does not encourage people to forward their careers and will kill what little competitiveness we have left in the market place as a nation.

You guys can hate on the guy who gets that job pushing him above that 250K mark,. But really, does that get you anywhere but nowhere? The guy that got there didn't spend his time trying to tear everyone who got there down; he found a way to get there on his own. Don't hate that guy--look at what you're doing instead.

i think your sarcasm meter needs to be recalibrated. either that, or i should make my sarcasm more clear. ;)

i was mocking the idea that there is an amount of income that suddenly makes you responsible for the ills of this country.

[TeknoAXE]

i think your sarcasm meter needs to be recalibrated. either that, or i should make my sarcasm more clear. ;)

i was mocking the idea that there is an amount of income that suddenly makes you responsible for the ills of this country.

Ya, sorry, that was not my most intelligent moment :P.

[burnt]

guys, you do understand that we're talking about personal income here - not business income.

GM's Payroll Department - and the CEO of GM - are two completely different bank accounts. I mean, thats like, by law and obvious good common sense.

if GM has to scale back and lay off a few hundred workers, and initiate a hiring freeze ..... because the IRS decides to tax the CEO a little harder ..... I mean, you guys do understand that that's an obvious sign of piss poor business management, right?

there is no way that this is going to cut back on jobs. if it does, its a glaringly obvious sign that the wrong people are in charge of businesses.

[Roddimus]

But if they didn't play income taxes, those people wouldn't have had an education, and would be useless to employee. Or possibly they would have crippling illnesses which they couldn't get healthcare for.

Is your problem really taxes, or how the government spends them?
no, it's more the type of taxes that i have a problem with. the income tax is unnecessary and evil. i have no problem with uniform tariffs, sales taxes, capital gains taxes or some forms of corporate taxes.
however federal income taxes are an unnecessary burden on working individuals and do more to stifle our economic growth than improve it. we didn't even have a full fledged income tax until after world war 2 and we were still able to fund public schools, police and firemen just fine up until then.
i can see the logic in taxing profits, but personal income is not profit, it is exchange.

[Roddimus]

guys, you do understand that we're talking about personal income here - not business income.

GM's Payroll Department - and the CEO of GM - are two completely different bank accounts. I mean, thats like, by law and obvious good common sense.

if GM has to scale back and lay off a few hundred workers, and initiate a hiring freeze ..... because the IRS decides to tax the CEO a little harder ..... I mean, you guys do understand that that's an obvious sign of piss poor business management, right?

there is no way that this is going to cut back on jobs. if it does, its a glaringly obvious sign that the wrong people are in charge of businesses.
fuck GM.
what about the successful small business owner who would have been able to hire more people this year but now cannot?
you're not just taking money from those asshole rich people who are obviously all exactly the same and therefore all deserve to be punished, you're taking it from unemployed workers those asshole rich people who are obviously all exactly the same and therefore all deserve to be punished would have been able to hire.

[burnt]

who Roddimus - who are we talking about here.

what successful small business owner whose *PERSONAL TAKE HOME SALARY* is over $250,000.... what guy who is already taxed pretty heavily .... what guy looking at losing another couple thousand bucks out of his OWN PERSONAL SALARY ....... and therefore can't hire another employee ..... because - apparently - employees cost a couple thousand bucks a year

what business man are you referring to here. what's his name. what's his company.

I'm gonna fucking lol at you if you come back with Joe the Plumber or Rick Santelli.

******
dude - businesses - are not getting taxed more.

just personal income.

my god man .... you run a "small business" - and you set aside an account for your lease or property taxes, for your electric and water and garbage .... and you set aside multiple accounts for supplies or whatever .... and you set aside a payroll account so that all your employees get paid.

then.

you make money. and then you pay your bils. payroll. the lease. operating costs. parts/supplies.

but you don't take *ALL* the leftover money home with you.

no, what you do is, you write yourself a salary, and you put the rest into a savings' account for the company.

and if you don't do that? you're a fucking moron and your business deserves to fail.

so its not like small business owners all over the country are taking home 100% of the net profits, then realizing they might not be able to hire more employees.

and for fuck's sake, if that *IS* what's happening? hey, here's a great idea. WRITE YOURSELF A $249k SALARY AND PUT THE REST INTO A RAINY DAY SAVINGS' ACCOUNT. simple as that. you avoid the big tax, you keep hiring employees.

the outrage over this income tax is an outrage because right-leaning rich assholes don't want to fund the cops and teachers in their community. they don't want to improve the roads and bridges. they're fucking selfish. which is fair. fine. whatever. its a free country, and people have the right to be selfish. I don't wanna be forced to volunteer, because I'm selfish. so whatever.

but the talking points, are utter bullshit dude. small business owners' payroll accounts, and personal checking accounts, are two very very very separate things. Obama plans to tax their wallets.... not their LLC's payroll's account.

[Cethe]

but you don't take *ALL* the leftover money home with you.

no, what you do is, you write yourself a salary, and you put the rest into a savings' account for the company.

and if you don't do that? you're a fucking moron and your business deserves to fail.


uh, yeah....what moron of a small business owner gives them selves EVERY penny of profit as a salary?

[seattle science]

Cops and teachers! And single moms! Haha.

Forget shit like million dollar pay automated toilets and 60 million dollar salmon-etched concrete to "beautify" highway overpasses. No, no... we're talking about CHILDREN!

Fuck children. I chose not to have children, the only people who should pay for public schools are those who made the decision to procreate.

Burnt, would you have a problem if the goverment decided to take 75% of the gross income of those earning over 250k/year?

[Roddimus]

who Roddimus - who are we talking about here.

what successful small business owner whose *PERSONAL TAKE HOME SALARY* is over $250,000.... what guy who is already taxed pretty heavily .... what guy looking at losing another couple thousand bucks out of his OWN PERSONAL SALARY ....... and therefore can't hire another employee ..... because - apparently - employees cost a couple thousand bucks a year

what business man are you referring to here. what's his name. what's his company.

I'm gonna fucking lol at you if you come back with Joe the Plumber or Rick Santelli.

******
dude - businesses - are not getting taxed more.

just personal income.

my god man .... you run a "small business" - and you set aside an account for your lease or property taxes, for your electric and water and garbage .... and you set aside multiple accounts for supplies or whatever .... and you set aside a payroll account so that all your employees get paid.

then.

you make money. and then you pay your bils. payroll. the lease. operating costs. parts/supplies.

but you don't take *ALL* the leftover money home with you.

no, what you do is, you write yourself a salary, and you put the rest into a savings' account for the company.

and if you don't do that? you're a fucking moron and your business deserves to fail.

so its not like small business owners all over the country are taking home 100% of the net profits, then realizing they might not be able to hire more employees.

and for fuck's sake, if that *IS* what's happening? hey, here's a great idea. WRITE YOURSELF A $249k SALARY AND PUT THE REST INTO A RAINY DAY SAVINGS' ACCOUNT. simple as that. you avoid the big tax, you keep hiring employees.

the outrage over this income tax is an outrage because right-leaning rich assholes don't want to fund the cops and teachers in their community. they don't want to improve the roads and bridges. they're fucking selfish. which is fair. fine. whatever. its a free country, and people have the right to be selfish. I don't wanna be forced to volunteer, because I'm selfish. so whatever.

but the talking points, are utter bullshit dude. small business owners' payroll accounts, and personal checking accounts, are two very very very separate things. Obama plans to tax their wallets.... not their LLC's payroll's account.
yeah, and business owners NEVER fund their business expansions with their own personal savings. that's never, ever, ever happened in the history of anything, fucking ever. yeah, you got me.
:rolleyes:

[burnt]

Cops and teachers! And single moms! Haha.

Forget shit like million dollar pay automated toilets and 60 million dollar salmon-etched concrete to "beautify" highway overpasses. No, no... we're talking about CHILDREN!

Fuck children. I chose not to have children, the only people who should pay for public schools are those who made the decision to procreate.

Burnt, would you have a problem if the goverment decided to take 75% of the gross income of those earning over 250k/year?

75% is insane. totally unfair.

but a boost from 33% to 36% - a boost of 3 measly percentage points ... thats pretty fucking selfish to be whining about. and its either retarded or a downright lie, to claim that its going to result in layoffs and fewer jobs.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/29441906

The top two federal income tax brackets would rise to 36 percent and 39.6 percent from 33 percent and 35 percent, respectively. This would affect married couples who earn more than $250,000 in gross income, and singles who earn more than $200,000, according to Mr. Stretch of Deloitte.
.
.
.
Here’s what would happen to a married couple in New York with two children under the age of 17, a $300,000 household income and itemized deductions of $75,000 ($36,000 in mortgage interest, $6,000 in charitable contributions, $18,000 in state income taxes and $15,000 in property taxes).

Under the current tax system, they would owe $56,400 in federal taxes, which is the amount they pay because their circumstances force them to pay the alternative minimum tax.

Higher-income individuals generally need to run two calculations when they are doing their federal taxes, one under the regular tax system and another using the A.M.T.

The A.M.T. does not allow several deductions like property taxes and state income taxes. Taxpayers pay whichever bill is higher.

The couple’s total federal tax bill under the existing, regular tax system would have been $48,300, $8,100 less than the A.M.T. tax due.

That difference would shrink to $5,800 under President Obama’s system, according to Deloitte.

so if you really read the bill instead of listening to morons like Joe the Plumber and Karl Rove attempting to summarize the bill for you - you'll see that - for people who earn well over $100k/year, but well under $1m/year - the extra money paid in taxes is pretty negligible and there's still plenty of loopholes to avoid paying your fair share.

but for those earning over $1m/year in personal income - well, they're going to have to cough up more taxes. boo fucking hoo...

[burnt]

Roddimus the only reason you're debating this is because you income taxes are evil and should all go away. right?

so fine - I'm bigoted and distrust richies. you're bigoted and distrust everyone at the IRS. whatever.

you still can't point to a single small business owner who will legitimately have to lay off workers because of this, and whose business wasn't already circling the drain anyway because of our fucked economy.

its a retarded talking point. come on man. you're smarter than this.

[seattle science]

75% is insane. totally unfair.



Unfair? Why?

[Roddimus]

Roddimus the only reason you're debating this is because you income taxes are evil and should all go away. right?

so fine - I'm bigoted and distrust richies. you're bigoted and distrust everyone at the IRS. whatever.
i definitely don't like the IRS, but my distrust is pointed squarely at the government. if you can show me one real reason why i should trust the government to spend the people's money better than the people themselves, i'd be willing to rethink my "bigotry."
you still can't point to a single small business owner who will legitimately have to lay off workers because of this, and whose business wasn't already circling the drain anyway because of our fucked economy.

its a retarded talking point. come on man. you're smarter than this.
an old family friend of mine runs a tutoring business who was going to hire a new tutor but is now holding off because he's unsure what his tax situation will be going forward. and it's not just a 3% increase that's stopping him, it's also the potential of more taxes to come. it's hard to plan your medium to long term finances if you're unsure what the rules are going to be going forward.
given that the government is currently hellbent on wasting money on anything that poses the slightest problem, i think he's right to be cautious.

[Roddimus]

Unfair? Why?
because %36 is fair. duh.
didn't you hear? the richies deserve it. so shut up.

[burnt]

aaaaahahaha, a tutor?? a fucking TUTOR!???!!

what is that, $12/hour for 2 hours a week? ya I tutored in college, too, and the only expenses it covered was my weed money.

come on bro, be serious. where's the plumbing business that has to fire a $65,000/year plumber, because the owner is forced to pay an extra $3500 in personal income taxes. where's the accounting firm thats telling the poor intern they won't be hiring him on for an $80,000/year book-keeping gig, because the owner has to pay an extra $4200 in personal income taxes. come on dude, get real here.

[Roddimus]

aaaaahahaha, a tutor?? a fucking TUTOR!???!!

what is that, $12/hour for 2 hours a week? ya I tutored in college, too, and the only expenses it covered was my weed money.

come on bro, be serious. where's the plumbing business that has to fire a $65,000/year plumber, because the owner is forced to pay an extra $3500 in personal income taxes. where's the accounting firm thats telling the poor intern they won't be hiring him on for an $80,000/year book-keeping gig, because the owner has to pay an extra $4200 in personal income taxes. come on dude, get real here.
it's a good thing your limited experience has allowed you to jump to such wild conclusions.
:rolleyes:
he employs full time tutors and since he makes much more than 250K, he's losing much more than $4000 a year.
secondly, i didn't realize that it was OK to lose certain jobs but not OK to lose others. can you please break down your rubric for acceptable job losses vs. unacceptable job losses?

[Cethe]

a turoing business owner makes more then a combined $250k a year? sorry, i don't buy it.
lemme guess his wife is a lawyer or doctor?

or better yet...WaMU exec....lulz.

[Roddimus]

a turoing business owner makes more then a combined $250k a year? sorry, i don't buy it.
lemme guess his wife is a lawyer or doctor?

or better yet...WaMU exec....lulz.
nope, his wife is a part time corrections officer and gardener. he lives in wilsonville and works around lake oswego. he gets some pretty high end clients.

[Cethe]

i guess dude....i mean is he like some competitor with sylvan or sum shit?


i'm curious though, how does it really matter that much to you if the "richies" are getting taxed more? they are getting taxed less (maybe) then if there was a flat rate tax (a simpler system, imo).
and anyone here even CLOSE to that tax bracket?
i know ONE couple that's even close and both were (until recently) expedia managers now, just one is. and they are still under the $250K combined (barely, but still under)

[Roddimus]

i guess dude....i mean is he like some competitor with sylvan or sum shit?


i'm curious though, how does it really matter that much to you if the "richies" are getting taxed more? they are getting taxed less (maybe) then if there was a flat rate tax (a simpler system, imo).
and anyone here even CLOSE to that tax bracket?
i know ONE couple that's even close and both were (until recently) expedia managers now, just one is. and they are still under the $250K combined (barely, but still under)
it matters on both a moral and practical level to me.
morally speaking it's wrong to take an portion of a person's personal income, no matter how rich or poor they are.
practically speaking, absent the advent of a revolutionary industry or bubble mania, higher taxes always lead to a stifled and stagnated economy.

[Cethe]

do you mean no taxes at all?

how exactly would basic infrastructure be taken care of? who would pay for roads & such?

privatize everything? and you'd have to have a corporate type pass to drive the roads? and private cops patrolling the streets?
or when you house burns down & the private fire dept shows up, they give you a bill too?

i dunno, i'm not big on "over gov" as such. but there's a few basics i don't mind paying for.

[burnt]

or, conversely, we could tell the richies that the free ride they got under the Bush administration is over, that they have to cough up the statements from their top secret Swiss bank accounts to the IRS and pay their fair share of back taxes if they owe any (plus penalties) and that - moving forward - they'll be paying an extra couple thousand a year.

let's see - no taxes at all and a completely unregulated free market providing all public services, or - keeping the system we have now in place and taxing 2 or 3% of Americans an extra 2 or 3% on their personal income taxes....

hhhhhmmmmmmm..... bigger, more powerful mercenary armies like Blackwater representing America overseas by murdering more civilians.... orrrr....

cutting back on Blackwater and making sure *REAL* soldiers get adequate body armor by taking an extra couple thousand from guys like Bill Gates, who don't even mind getting taxed harder in the first place.


hmmmmmm.... hhhhhmmmmmmmm...
:rolleyes:

[Roddimus]

do you mean no taxes at all?

how exactly would basic infrastructure be taken care of? who would pay for roads & such?

privatize everything? and you'd have to have a corporate type pass to drive the roads? and private cops patrolling the streets?
or when you house burns down & the private fire dept shows up, they give you a bill too?

i dunno, i'm not big on "over gov" as such. but there's a few basics i don't mind paying for.
i explained this on the previous page. our country was able to fund public services and national defense just fine before the income tax was put into effect during WW2.
we can fund the government just fine with excise taxes, uniform tariffs, property taxes and sales taxes. those are all indirect taxes that an individual can avoid if they so choose. but to tax a person's earnings directly and against their will is wrong and unnecessary.
in reality the income tax really doesn't go to any services. the revenue from the federal income tax only covers the interest payments on the national debt. it's just a tool that the government uses to ensure more loans.

[Cedwyn]

Why are you still working at McDonalds trying to support 2 kids?
because not everybody can be an engineer, lawyer or day trader, einstein. we only need so many of them, anyway. it's just not possible for everyone to be at the top of the earnings ladder. duh. some people only have the mental faculty for jobs like mcdonalds. whatever happened to valuing an honest day's work? sneering at and passing judgment on minimum wage workers is egregiously pernicious:

when you devalue labor, you corrode the work ethic.

i mean, if you're a loser cuz you pump gas and you're a loser cuz you're spanging/on welfare/whatever doesn't involve working, where's the incentive to pursue work?

[burnt]

nope, his wife is a part time corrections officer and gardener. he lives in wilsonville and works around lake oswego. he gets some pretty high end clients.

snickers...
seriously this is hilarious. what does he do, teach the fresh-outta-high-school Blazers rookies how to read?

"high end clients" - lolz, dude, I think the precious free market you cling to so tenaciously will continue to survive just like it always has, even if the "high end tutoring in Lake Oswego" industry suffers a major hit.

I ask for a legitimate business and Roddimus comes back with a professional keynote speaker. fucking hilarity..

[Roddimus]

snickers...
seriously this is hilarious. what does he do, teach the fresh-outta-high-school Blazers rookies how to read?

"high end clients" - lolz, dude, I think the precious free market you cling to so tenaciously will continue to survive just like it always has, even if the "high end tutoring in Lake Oswego" industry suffers a major hit.

I ask for a legitimate business and Roddimus comes back with a professional keynote speaker. fucking hilarity..
i give burnt a man running a business that employs people and has the potential to employ more, and burnt...acts like a brat and calls him a keynote speaker?
sounds about right to me.

[burnt]

so because your homeboy runs a million dollar business tutoring people at I'm guessing at least $100/hour... and he took home $250k last year... and Obama wants another what, $2200 of his taxes....

he can't hire another tutor??

lol. - I think the rest of the free market will adjust to this just fine, dude.

something tells me your homeboy won't starve, either.

and the kid he was gonna hire, well, he'll have to count his losses and keep looking elsewhere..... just like I'm doing.... just like about 10% of every other Oregonian is doing.

*****
lets turn this in on its head. your homeboy keeps his tax money, and hires his buddy's son. meanwhile, Clackamas County continues to lose out on cops, teachers and firemen. the key word there is "teachers" and "cops"

you do realize that in about 15 years, the protege he hired.... you do realize that kid won't have much of a customer base, anyway - right?

[Roddimus]

lets turn this in on its head. your homeboy keeps his tax money, and hires his buddy's son. meanwhile, Clackamas County continues to lose out on cops, teachers and firemen. the key word there is "teachers" and "cops"

you do realize that in about 15 years, the protege he hired.... you do realize that kid won't have much of a customer base, anyway - right?
since when does not raising his federal income taxes = destroying local services? all these tax hikes are going to end up covering is the interest on the loans the fed is making to pay for the bailouts and inefficient make work programs (most of which won't even come into effect until next year btw).
and since when are local police and firemen funded with federal taxes? and why the hell should they be? can't local taxes cover those services, like they always have?

[burnt]

I guess Phil Gramm was right. we really are a nation of whiners. and the richer you are, the whinier you get.

baaawwwwww, don't charge me more taaaaax-zeeeezzzzz.... or ... or ... or I WON'T HIRE ANYBODY ANYMORE AND I'M GONNA TAKE MY BALL AND GO HOME!!

lol..

[tr0llaccount]

I guess Phil Gramm was right. we really are a nation of whiners. and the richer you are, the whinier you get.

baaawwwwww, don't charge me more taaaaax-zeeeezzzzz.... or ... or ... or I WON'T HIRE ANYBODY ANYMORE AND I'M GONNA TAKE MY BALL AND GO HOME!!

lol..

well, it's either that or "waaaaaaah, you're not paying for my stuff!!"

[Roddimus]

I guess Phil Gramm was right. we really are a nation of whiners. and the richer you are, the whinier you get.

baaawwwwww, don't charge me more taaaaax-zeeeezzzzz.... or ... or ... or I WON'T HIRE ANYBODY ANYMORE AND I'M GONNA TAKE MY BALL AND GO HOME!!

lol..
this coming from the guy who whined for--and got--the biggest piece of government cheese ever cut.

[burnt]

well Roddimus, its been a long waste of time because apparently you and I feel very differently about this.

so I'll just leave you with this.

I opposed the pre-emptive strike against Iraq, but at the end of the day, it fucking happened, and there was nothing I could do to stop it. the best thing I could do as a constituent and voter, was trainspot the invation and call my politicians to task whenever fuckups happened in Iraq.

but I couldn't stop the invasion.

I opposed the bailouts, but again - they fucking happened. and sure enough, I voted out the senators and congressmen who voted for the bailouts, but - they happened.

******
you opposed the stimulus bill. and made some great arguments. but it fucking happened.

you apparently oppose raising taxes ever so slightly for the very very wealthy. during an economic crisis. why you oppose this I still don't get, other than the fact that you hate all taxes (join the fucking club btw).

but at the end of the day?

its - going to - fucking happen.

so have fun yelling at the wind, dude. I'm outty.

[TeknoAXE]

because not everybody can be an engineer, lawyer or day trader, einstein. we only need so many of them, anyway. it's just not possible for everyone to be at the top of the earnings ladder. duh. some people only have the mental faculty for jobs like mcdonalds. whatever happened to valuing an honest day's work? sneering at and passing judgment on minimum wage workers is egregiously pernicious:

when you devalue labor, you corrode the work ethic.

i mean, if you're a loser cuz you pump gas and you're a loser cuz you're spanging/on welfare/whatever doesn't involve working, where's the incentive to pursue work?

If you spend all your life behind the cash register or grill of a fast food restaurant, you're doing something wrong. Plus, you're also plugging up the job system so the younger kids can make their start in the workplace. No, not everyone's going to be an engineer, but you're saying the only thing else people have is minimum wage jobs. That's wrong. If you stay long enough at a fast food restaurant, then you really should think about management or franchise owning.

Every system has its own form of leveling up or ladder to bigger and better things. If you have two kids to support and youre content on staying the low level grunt, then you're thinking is all wrong. It's lazy and counterproductive.

[Roddimus]

well Roddimus, its been a long waste of time because apparently you and I feel very differently about this.

so I'll just leave you with this.

I opposed the pre-emptive strike against Iraq, but at the end of the day, it fucking happened, and there was nothing I could do to stop it. the best thing I could do as a constituent and voter, was trainspot the invation and call my politicians to task whenever fuckups happened in Iraq.

but I couldn't stop the invasion.

I opposed the bailouts, but again - they fucking happened. and sure enough, I voted out the senators and congressmen who voted for the bailouts, but - they happened.

******
you opposed the stimulus bill. and made some great arguments. but it fucking happened.
you apparently oppose raising taxes ever so slightly for the very very wealthy. during an economic crisis. why you oppose this I still don't get, other than the fact that you hate all taxes (join the fucking club btw).

but at the end of the day?

its - going to - fucking happen.

so have fun yelling at the wind, dude. I'm outty.
once again, after pages of pointed arguing, burnt's resorted to the 'ol "well it's gonna happen, argument over" line.
way to repeat your favorite non-point cop-out.

[Boyd Main]

President Barack Obama's tax proposal which promises to increase taxes for those families with incomes of $250,000 or more -- has some Americans brainstorming ways to decrease their pay, even if it's just by a dollar.

A 63-year-old attorney based in Lafayette, La., who asked not to be named, told ABCNews.com that she plans to cut back on her business to get her annual income under the quarter million mark should the Obama tax plan be passed by Congress and become law.

"We are going to try to figure out how to make our income $249,999.00," she said.

"We have to find a way out where we can make just what we need to just under the line so we can benefit from Obama's tax plan," she added. "Why kill yourself working if you're going to give it all away to people who aren't working as hard?"

The attorney says that in order to decrease her income she'll have to let go of clients, some of whom she's been counseling for more than a decade.

"This means I'll have to tell some of my clients we can't help them and being more selective in general about who we help," she said. "I hate to do it."
http://abcnews.go.com/print?id=6975547

How someone can be that stupid and still earn over a quarter of a million dollars a year is beyond me. Talk about cutting off your toes to spite your face.

[tr0llaccount]

How someone can be that stupid and still earn over a quarter of a million dollars a year is beyond me. Talk about cutting off your toes to spite your face.

lol .

[HexRei]

http://abcnews.go.com/print?id=6975547

How someone can be that stupid and still earn over a quarter of a million dollars a year is beyond me. Talk about cutting off your toes to spite your face.

yeah, unless she makes $251,000 a year or something, she's just talking trash to demonstrate a point. She's not going to follow through with that.

[B_tech]

and the richer you are, the whinier you get.

I thought it was "the old you get, the more you bitch about shit"?

[seattle science]

Haha. Burnt, man, yeah that was some ironic shit there. The mass collective of whining was like the catalyst that caused me to move away from the Democratic party a decade ago. From laws requiring helmets for sledding, to global warming apocolyptic scenarios, to social programs, to the neutering of language. You're right, the whining is fucking annoying.

[Cethe]

i explained this on the previous page. our country was able to fund public services and national defense just fine before the income tax was put into effect during WW2.
we can fund the government just fine with excise taxes, uniform tariffs, property taxes and sales taxes. those are all indirect taxes that an individual can avoid if they so choose. but to tax a person's earnings directly and against their will is wrong and unnecessary.
in reality the income tax really doesn't go to any services. the revenue from the federal income tax only covers the interest payments on the national debt. it's just a tool that the government uses to ensure more loans.



that makes sense to a degree. but then why have it in the first place. if things were fine before that?
or was it more warmongering and higher gov pay that drove that?

anyhoot...i basically agree with your stance. if basic services are provided via other taxes and the means to support those basic services are taken care of i don't see the need for much more government then that, imo. but that seems to spark another debate.

[Cedwyn]

in reality the income tax really doesn't go to any services. the revenue from the federal income tax only covers the interest payments on the national debt. it's just a tool that the government uses to ensure more loans.
except the amendment establishing the income tax predates the establishment of the Fed?

:confused:

If you spend all your life behind the cash register or grill of a fast food restaurant, you're doing something wrong. Plus, you're also plugging up the job system so the younger kids can make their start in the workplace. No, not everyone's going to be an engineer, but you're saying the only thing else people have is minimum wage jobs. That's wrong. If you stay long enough at a fast food restaurant, then you really should think about management or franchise owning.

Every system has its own form of leveling up or ladder to bigger and better things. If you have two kids to support and youre content on staying the low level grunt, then you're thinking is all wrong. It's lazy and counterproductive.
get real. not everyone has the capacity to make those advancements. what the hell? even retail management might pay a whopping 30k after a few years.

[Mayo Finch]

I tried to track down someone that I know that makes $250,000 a year. It turns out that I don't know anyone that does. I asked a few other people if they knew anyone that makes over $250K. Some people thought they knew someone but it turns out, they just know someone that has accumulated some personal wealth, nobody that actually makes that amount of money every year.

So who are the 1,324,000 people that reported incomes above $250,000?

It's more likely that they would buy a Rolex than to go out and start hiring folks with the $15,000 they saved.

[TeknoAXE]

get real. not everyone has the capacity to make those advancements. what the hell? even retail management might pay a whopping 30k after a few years.

So then the question is, again, why would you hole up in a McDonalds at minimum wage? You just suggested an alternative job that pays more.

[TeknoAXE]

I guess if you don't have the capacity to progress (aka, you don't want to do the work), there's more than one way to skin a cat. You could always just move to places that are cheaper to live in. There's tons of midwestern states that you could easily just ride on through. Even in Washington, there's places like...oh you know....places beyond Kingston...Aberdeeeeeeeeeen....Montecino...you know, those places.

[TeknoAXE]

that makes sense to a degree. but then why have it in the first place. if things were fine before that?
or was it more warmongering and higher gov pay that drove that?

anyhoot...i basically agree with your stance. if basic services are provided via other taxes and the means to support those basic services are taken care of i don't see the need for much more government then that, imo. but that seems to spark another debate.

We paid for wars before without the income tax. The problem was a certain person with the initials of FDR...and that wasn't nearly as witty as I thought it would be.

[St. Earl]

shouldn't the topic of welfare for the rich, and things like bogus farm subsidies be in this conversation?
sorry if i missed it , i haven't read all the posts.

[Roddimus]

Haha. Burnt, man, yeah that was some ironic shit there.
yep, especially since the mass whining of people wanting the government to fix everything and give them free jobs is what is being used to justify these tax increases.
but no, the people wanting to keep their personal income, they're the whiners here.

[Cedwyn]

I guess if you don't have the capacity to progress (aka, you don't want to do the work), there's more than one way to skin a cat. You could always just move to places that are cheaper to live in. There's tons of midwestern states that you could easily just ride on through. Even in Washington, there's places like...oh you know....places beyond Kingston...Aberdeeeeeeeeeen....Montecino...you know, those places.
could you be anymore willfully obtuse? advancement options are not just a function of being willing to put in the work. you have to have the capacity to advance as well. and d00d - even at college, one is surrounded by a lot of goddamn dumb people. oh wait...do you mean to suggest that college is feasible for everyone as well?

[Roddimus]

except the amendment establishing the income tax predates the establishment of the Fed?
by 11 measly months.
besides, congress never started using the income tax until we entered the world wars, and they never consistently enforced it until WW2. sort of convenient that we implemented them both right before 1914, huh?

[Roddimus]

that makes sense to a degree. but then why have it in the first place. if things were fine before that?
or was it more warmongering and higher gov pay that drove that?
pretty much. government always wants to get bigger and gain more influence over the population. implementing a variable income tax was a sure fire way to do that.
fun fact, when the income tax was first being debated in 1912 and 1913, many people were suggesting it be capped at 5% (most initial suggestions were for a 1% or 2% tax). however at the time a 5% income tax was considered horrendously high by most people, and they worried that setting a limit would give the government too much wiggle room to hit that unthinkably high limit.

[Boyd Main]

... people wanting the government to fix everything and give them free jobs ...

If by fix everything, you mean provide essential services like, oh, healthcare, then yes, I'm a guilty whiner as charged. Because that is what the extra revenue from this repeal of Bush's tax cuts for the $250,000+ marginal bracket is being earmarked for. Healthcare. Sounds reasonable to me.

[Roddimus]

If by fix everything, you mean provide essential services like, oh, healthcare, then yes, I'm a guilty whiner as charged. Because that is what the extra revenue from this repeal of Bush's tax cuts for the $250,000+ marginal bracket is being earmarked for. Healthcare. Sounds reasonable to me.
earmarked, haahaaa, yeah, "earmarked." if we didn't have 11 trillion dollars in nation debt and an additional 2 trillion in current account deficits, i might be inclined to buy that.
the only thing this tax increase will be actually do is cover the increase in interest payments our government will be paying to the chinese, saudis and federal reserve. if you honestly think a dime of our income taxes actually goes to paying for public services, you really should take a look at our ballooning national debt and the costs related to servicing it. the federal reserve does MUCH more to fund our government through perpetual interest-only loans than we do through income taxes.
besides, the whiners i was referring to were the ones who want the government to fix the banks and provide make-work jobs (both of which will do more to stagnate our economy's slump than turn it around).

[Mayo Finch]

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v139/mayofinch/Fy2008spendingbycategory.png

[Boyd Main]

Hey Roddimus, There is something you've said maybe in other threads or earlier in this one about periods of true economic growth and periods of fake or bubble growth. Can you remind me of what particular time periods you were talking about (apart from the obviously bubble growth of the last 6 years or so)?

[B_tech]

There was the mid 90s... that 'tech bubble' was all fake growth.

[Boyd Main]

I guess I should come clean. The reason I ask is that I'm pretty sure the last real period of true economic growth, or at least the most notable in the last century, occurred in the post-war period of the 50s and 60s when America was actually making and exporting things. Shiny metallic streamlined things.

I stumbled across this interesting graphic earlier:
http://www.truthandpolitics.org/top-rates-graph.php (http://www.truthandpolitics.org/top-rates.php)

And then I read this:
absent the advent of a revolutionary industry or bubble mania, higher taxes always lead to a stifled and stagnated economy.

And I scratched my head. Because all that doesn't seem to add up.

[Roddimus]

And I scratched my head. Because all that doesn't seem to add up.
why not? we developed revolutionary car, steel and nuclear energy industries during the 50s and first few years of the 60s. we rebuilt the post war world and were paid handsomely to do so. we were the factory of the world and had the largest savings and productive base on the globe. like i said, absent a situation such as that, higher taxes only lead to economic stagnation, especially during times of declining GDP.
taxes were raised during the depression too. many economists agree doing so helped draw out what would have been a brief, albeit sharp, contraction into a decade long depression.
increasing taxing and government spending during times of economic contraction almost always leads to further problems.

[Boyd Main]

taxes were raised during the depression too. many economists agree doing so helped draw out what would have been a brief, albeit sharp, contraction into a decade long depression.
increasing taxing and government spending during times of economic contraction almost always leads to further problems.

Is that the one example? One point doesn't equal a trend.

Whatever the context of the growth of the 50s and 60s, it is still remarkable that all that growth happened, America rebuilt the world, with the highest marginal tax rate being over 90%!!!. It kind of puts pay to the idea that people wont work hard if they are taxed too much.

Or perhaps business owners saw that if they paid themselves too much (and I'm sure this was an era when the gap between the salaries of the shop floor and the boardroom was an order of magnitude lower than it is now) it would be wasted money. So instead of ridiculous salaries and bonuses, they plugged all the company profits back into growing the company, and therefore the economy. Interesting idea.

Maybe the best thing that Obama could do would be to push for a 90% tax on personal income over $500,000?

Look, I can be an economist too. You just have to have a hunch and a good rationalization.

[TeknoAXE]

could you be anymore willfully obtuse? advancement options are not just a function of being willing to put in the work. you have to have the capacity to advance as well. and d00d - even at college, one is surrounded by a lot of goddamn dumb people. oh wait...do you mean to suggest that college is feasible for everyone as well?

Maybe you could help your argument a little more by defining what you mean by a lack of capacity. If you want to be paid more than minimum wage, then there a MILLION ways to skin this particular cat. Are you saying that there's a certain breed of human that's superior to other breeds in that, really, the inferior breed has only the capability to keep a minimum wage job? That's kind of an ugly statement, you know.

We hold these truths to be self evident that all men are created equal. That they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

No where in that or the surrounding paragraphs does it say "unless the guy lacks capacity; then we must prop him up by the gains of someone else." If you make below a certain amount of income, you don't even pay taxes--as a matter of fact, some people get to receive tax money a -la exemptions that have them pay taxes in reverse.

But as far as I'm concerned, the American dream is still dependent on what you put into it, not the handouts you can get through socialist policies. That's why it's kind of ridiculous that those who've slogged it through and made it to or past the 250k mark are getting punished for their hard work while those who stay at the bottom--they actually get rewarded for staying at the bottom? Those minimum wage jobs are supposed to be a start to go forward, not to stay there.

I'm willing to compromise on that one too. I'd say cut the welfare/social security policies in half to go towards college grants. That's a better use of money than keeping people thinking they should just skate by. You don't have to be an engineer. You could be a chef, a businessman, a doctor, a nurse, a vet, a cop, a detective, a dentist, a hospitality manager, a pharmacist, a metallurgist, a furniture maker, a psychologist, a mechanic....fuck dude! The door isn't shut!

[Cedwyn]

yep, especially since the mass whining of people wanting the government to fix everything and give them free jobs is what is being used to justify these tax increases.
ok...i give up. what's a "free job"?

We paid for wars before without the income tax. The problem was a certain person with the initials of FDR...and that wasn't nearly as witty as I thought it would be.
Lincoln imposed an income tax, you know, in an effort to pay for the civil war.

oh, and you got me, too - what, pray tell, did FDR do?

[TeknoAXE]

ok...i give up. what's a "free job"?

oh, and you got me, too - what, pray tell, did FDR do?

Well, we can start with things like the gold recall, the bank holiday, raising taxes to 70%+....you know. that stuff...None of that shit worked. 1938 rolls around and the United States was still in the depression. It's a good thing we had a war to boost our confidence and reinstate a sense of competition (war).

[Roddimus]

Is that the one example? One point doesn't equal a trend.

Whatever the context of the growth of the 50s and 60s, it is still remarkable that all that growth happened, America rebuilt the world, with the highest marginal tax rate being over 90%!!!. It kind of puts pay to the idea that people wont work hard if they are taxed too much.
maybe i should have said "absent robust productive capacity" (ie- revolutionary industry)?
eitherway, when a nation with a) the world's largest savings and b) the world's largest productive capacity, is being paid to rebuild said entire world, you're going to have massive economic growth no matter how high the income tax rate spikes. yes, america was taxed heavily during the 50s, but our economy was so "in demand" and our savings were so incredibly robust that we could afford it.
right now our economy is so incredibly fragile, so devoid of both savings and productive capacity, that raising taxes will do much more to compound our economic problem than improve it.

[Roddimus]

ok...i give up. what's a "free job"?

one that wouldn't exist otherwise and does nothing to contribute to our productive capacity?

[Cedwyn]

Well, we can start with things like the gold recall, the bank holiday, raising taxes to 70%+....you know. that stuff...None of that shit worked. 1938 rolls around and the United States was still in the depression. It's a good thing we had a war to boost our confidence and reinstate a sense of competition (war).
and what do you think "war" is if not government spending? your tax dollars at work. interesting that you focus on 1938, though:

http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=learning_from_the_new_deals_mista kes

The most important thing to know about Roosevelt's economics is that, despite claims to the contrary, the economy recovered during the New Deal. During Roosevelt's first two terms, the U.S. economy grew at average annual growth rates of 9 percent to 10 percent, with the exception of the recession year of 1937-1938...

Excepting 1937-1938, unemployment fell each year of Roosevelt's first two terms. In part, the jobs came from Washington, which directly employed as many as 3.6 million people to build roads, bridges, ports, airports, stadiums, and schools -- as well as, of course, to paint murals and stage plays. But new jobs also came from the private sector, where manufacturing work increased apace.

This basic fact is clear -- unless you quote only the unemployment rate for the recession year 1938


one that wouldn't exist otherwise and does nothing to contribute to our productive capacity?
building infrastructure isn't productive? subsidizing alternative energy development doesn't expand our productive capacity? the stipulation that all steel used must be made in the U.S.A. does not contribute to our productive capacity?

[TeknoAXE]

and what do you think "war" is if not government spending? your tax dollars at work. interesting that you focus on 1938, though:

Eh? Bad news, Ced. WWII didn't start for us until 1939. I was focusing on the GREAT DEPRESSION and the results of the New Deal. Synopsis: The New Deal didn't work. Worked less than fail. And the reason why unemployment went back to it did in 1938 is because all those government jobs created by the New Deal FAILED to create jobs in the private sector. It just got people used to sucking on the government's tit.

[burnt]

sorry, but what does all this anti-FDR rhetoric have to do with forcing the top 5% wealthiest Americans (who got us into our current economic mess into the first place) to pay an extra measly $4000 or so a year but that's some kind of "bad idea" because they're threatening to fire minimum wage workers if the law goes into effect... um, what does ancient FDR policies have to do with those pricks again?

put it into perspective. FDR's elevated taxes - arguably - stifled private sector growth in order to pay for unprecedented projects like the Yellowstone, Rushmore, the entire freeway system and the Hoover Dam.

Obama's elevated taxes barely fucking touch the private sector. I've already broken it down. its about $4000 a year. unless you're making well over $1 million every year in *PERSONAL* income, its about $4000 a year.

thats not a new warehouse. thats not eleventeen fast food clerks. thats a fucking jet ski. thats cutting back on your coke habit by about 2 eightballs a month. thats all. big fucking whoop.

BUT! - it certainly adds up, and - as Roddimus pointed out - does some great work to kill the defecit that the upper 5% helped make when they fucked us by selling houses to (as Rick Santelli so kindly put it) "losers" who can't afford homes... and by offshoring all the decent engineering and manufacturing jobs to poisonous imbecile inbreds in China and India.

so I'm sorry, what does FDR's " " " failed " " " :rolleyes: policies in the year 1938..... have to do with a measly $4000 a year for a measly 5% of Americans , in the year 2009 again?

those 5% have already failed us with their own unregulated policies. its perfectly reasonable to demand they pay down the debt they helped create, and to demand they pay off the war debt created by wars they so loudly advocated.

[seattle science]

Burnt, why stop at a measly $4,000? Seriously, why not double that figure, nay, triple it? They can afford it, so fuck'em. Take 50%, shit, take 75%. Problems solved, right? What stops us from doing that?

[burnt]

sooooo... you don't want to raise taxes on the top 5% - to fund the war they wanted and economic mess they created - by a measly 2% .... because you're afraid its a slippery slope?

taxes rise and fall and rise and fall all the time, dooder.

[Roddimus]

The most important thing to know about Roosevelt's economics is that, despite claims to the contrary, the economy recovered during the New Deal. During Roosevelt's first two terms, the U.S. economy grew at average annual growth rates of 9 percent to 10 percent, with the exception of the recession year of 1937-1938...

Excepting 1937-1938, unemployment fell each year of Roosevelt's first two terms. In part, the jobs came from Washington, which directly employed as many as 3.6 million people to build roads, bridges, ports, airports, stadiums, and schools -- as well as, of course, to paint murals and stage plays. But new jobs also came from the private sector, where manufacturing work increased apace.

This basic fact is clear -- unless you quote only the unemployment rate for the recession year 1938
that sure is a nice way of cherry picking.
you know why there was a "recession" in 1938? because the new deal did NOTHING to increase our nation's productivity. putting people to work on roads and schools, while noble in intent, did nothing to improve our productive capacity. in fact, it detracted from it immensely, which is why we experienced a severe "recession" in '38.
building infrastructure isn't productive?
nope. building infrastructure is the result of production, not the cause of it.
subsidizing alternative energy development doesn't expand our productive capacity?
not when most of those alternative energies cost more than they save. unless you and obama know of some secret revolutionary energy source that will get those subsidies. but if such a thing does exist i find it hard to believe it wouldn't have private investors foaming at the mouth.
the stipulation that all steel used must be made in the U.S.A. does not contribute to our productive capacity?
nope again. since the government, not private industries and individuals, are the ones paying for the steel, you're only spending money on temporary projects, not increasing overall production.

[seattle science]

sooooo... you don't want to raise taxes on the top 5% - to fund the war they wanted and economic mess they created - by a measly 2% .... because you're afraid its a slippery slope?

taxes rise and fall and rise and fall all the time, dooder.

Man, those questions are serious. Why don't we at the very least make it a 10% hike? Talk about solving more problems.

And as far as where the blame goes for this mess, it probably rests on the shoulders of a whole range of people. From the lenders to the braindead morons who signed their name on a mortgage they had no business having.

[burnt]

naw I think 2-3% is just fine.

for now, at least. =)

[Roddimus]

sorry, but what does all this anti-FDR rhetoric have to do with forcing the top 5% wealthiest Americans (who got us into our current economic mess into the first place)
yeah, ALL of them. EVERY LAST ONE OF THEM!!!
BUT! - it certainly adds up, and - as Roddimus pointed out - does some great work to kill the defecit that the upper 5% helped make when they fucked us by selling houses to (as Rick Santelli so kindly put it) "losers" who can't afford homes...
yeah, ALL of them. EVERY LAST ONE OF THEM!!!
those 5% have already failed us with their own unregulated policies. its perfectly reasonable to demand they pay down the debt they helped create, and to demand they pay off the war debt created by wars they so loudly advocated.
yeah, FUCKING ALL of them. EVERY FUCKING LAST FUCKING ONE OF FUCKING THEM!!!

[burnt]

putting people to work .. on .. schools, .. , did nothing to improve our productive capacity.

improving our schools did nothing to improve our productive capacity??

hold on, hold on, wait a minute, wait a minute...

IMPROVING OUR SCHOOLS DID NOTHING TO IMPROVE OUR PRODUCTIVE CAPACITY??!!!!!???!!

bwaaaaaaahahahahahahahahaha.......

oh man... oh man...

hey, uh - why don't you tell that to your richie buddy who's so butthurt about the tax hike? =)

I mean, by your logic, fuck 'im anyway, right? its not like he's doing any long term "improvement to his community's productive capacity" by elevating the education of his clients and their families or anything... right?

lol...

lolololol...

[seattle science]

naw I think 2-3% is just fine.

for now, at least. =)

Haha, but why?!

[burnt]

Haha, but why?!

uh ... because its a nice, low figure... targetting a really small percentage of the populace... who can't point to any severe health or wellness issues created by the tax hike... and who already have a negative perception right now, anyway...

so ... um, because 2-3% tax hike on the wealthiest 5% would probably pass through congress pretty quickly, get implemented pretty quickly, and put money back into the skyrocketing interest rates and suffering public sector pretty quickly?

raise the tax rate any higher, or the number of people affected by the tax hike - and you raise the level of rhetoric in D.C. - which is already too high anyway. which just means more politicians talk shit on Sunday morning talk shows while our debt climbs and our forests burn because we can't afford anymore firefighters.

but a nice, low figure for the tax hike, targeting a really small percentage of people who - come on, can afford it anyway - and who - come on, there's a lot of people who are pretty fucking pissed off at them right now, I mean, they really do have the reputation of the "cadillac driving welfare queens" that Reagan ranted against.... shiiiii, broseph, how can something like that *NOT* sail right through congress?

[Roddimus]

improving our schools did nothing to improve our productive capacity??

hold on, hold on, wait a minute, wait a minute...

IMPROVING OUR SCHOOLS DID NOTHING TO IMPROVE OUR PRODUCTIVE CAPACITY??!!!!!???!!
nope. look up what productive capacity means before replying please.

[burnt]

Haha, but why?!

I mean, in all fairness dude, if AIG hadn't gotten a million dollar massage on tax money a week after they got their bailout, .... this tax hike might not have the momentum is has.

or a big, noisy conglomerate of "richies" had hit the airwaves and the streets openly denouncing the million dollar massages, and even going so far as to initiate pro bono lawsuits against AIG to get that money back or at the very least prevent the executive Christmas bonuses....... if shit last winter had played out differently, this bill might not have the momentum it has.

but I think its pretty safe to say the stereotype has been cast, and that because of that, (and the desperate need for money), the "richies" are probably gonna get stuck with this one. =)

*****
especially when the only significant arguments from the "riches" that I've heard in any mainstream media is either:
"YOU BETTER NOT OR WE WON'T GIVE ANY OF YOU ANY MORE JOBS!!"
(to which level-headed people chuckle and reply "lol, ya you will, because you can still afford it, and besides if you fire too many of us YOUR STOCKS WILL CONTINUE TO PLUMMET!"

or "ITS NOT FAIR YOUR BEING DISCRIMINATING!!"
(to which level-headed people just chuckle and say ... well, they just chuckle...)

[burnt]

nope. look up what productive capacity means before replying please.

Productive capacity is a term used to define maximum possible output of an economy. According to UNCTAD, no agreed-upon definition exists. UNCTAD itself proposes: "the productive resources, entrepreneurial capabilities and production linkages which together determine the capacity of a country to produce goods and services." The term ‘productive capacity’ is also used in binary economics to mean income-generating capacity be it of a factory, land, patent or the labour skills of an individual.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Productive_capacity

*****
soooooooo.... 'splain to me again how improving education does "nothing to improve the productive capacity" of America and her businesses?

cuuuuuuzzz... when I look at that graph you posted up yesterday, it looks to *ME* like ... about uh... 18 years after 1938, we had a whole lot of smartypants engineers making kickass cars way better than the rest of the dumdums in the world were making at that time? which... um... made us rich??

like I said dude.

lol.

[seattle science]

especially when the only significant arguments from the "riches" that I've heard in any mainstream media is either:
"YOU BETTER NOT OR WE WON'T GIVE ANY OF YOU ANY MORE JOBS!!"
(to which level-headed people chuckle and reply "lol, ya you will, because you can still afford it, and besides if you fire too many of us YOUR STOCKS WILL CONTINUE TO PLUMMET!"



What about the argument that the redistribution of wealth is just a principle that some just don't agree with? I mean, you have to believe (in very small part), that it's a scary idea when you think about it. Otherwise you would support a 20%-50% rate hike on the richies, as I suggest, no? Talk about getting all the money you need in a snap.

Is a 2-3% hike on the richies the most you would support? Not a 10% hike, even though it would be over 3 times as efficient?

[seattle science]

soooooooo.... 'splain to me again how improving education does "nothing to improve the productive capacity" of America and her businesses?



"Improve education" = throw more money at it?

[Roddimus]

cuuuuuuzzz... when I look at that graph you posted up yesterday, it looks to *ME* like ... about uh... 18 years after 1938, we had a whole lot of smartypants engineers making kickass cars way better than the rest of the dumdums in the world were making at that time? which... um... made us rich??

yeah, and we only had to endure 20 years of economic ruin after 1929 before a world wrecked by war put those skills in demand.
personally i don't see the value in perpetuating 20 years of economic depression just to put the cart before the horse.

[burnt]

"Improve education" = throw more money at it?

um, no? no "improve education" = give schools back the money that Bush's and the GOP's legislation took away over the last 8 years.

yeah, and we only had to endure 20 years of economic ruin after 1929 before a world wrecked by war put those skills in demand.
personally i don't see the value in perpetuating 20 years of economic depression just to put the cart before the horse.

dude, it doesn't necessarily have to take 20 years. for tits sake man, there are people just *inches* away from their bachelors or masters degrees *RIGHT NOW* .... who have to drop out of college ... because they can't get a Pell Grant or a Perkins Loan, and/or because their GI Bill doesn't cover the cost of college, not even community college.

there are college kids *RIGHT NOW* dropping out because they can't afford to eat and they're tired of waiting in line at the soup kitchen or trying to hustle a box of food from Food Not Bombs.

there are high school seniors - a significant percentage, even a majority percentage in many communities - *RIGHT NOW* - with no hopes of going to college because there's just no funding.

it doesn't necessarily have to take 20 years. the ability to transfer knowledge, more knowledge, faster, to a wider audience ... has existed for about 20 years now. they didn't have that shit in 1938.

*****
fix the schools right now, and put moms and dads back to work right now, and I think you'd see our economy bounce back a fuck of a lot faster than if we just sit back and hope AIG starts doing the right thing.

[Roddimus]

yeah yeah, wishful thinking and trust in the government will save the economy, yeah yeah.

[burnt]

oh, and for the record - just so we're clear - an improved education in Washington state would be equally economically productive, as finding an untapped oil reserve in the middle of Eastern Washington.

education *IS* a "productive capacity"

if you don't believe me, you can ask your homeboy in Lake Oswego... or maybe run it by Paul Allen or Bill Gates?

[Roddimus]

education *IS* a "productive capacity"
maybe if you're willing to wait a decade or two to actually see that productive capacity take hold.

[seattle science]

The way to "fix education" is to provide more financial aid? Don't you think the problem exists on a bit more of a fundamental level than just providing more free money for college? Teacher and parent accountability for education throughout a kid's life probably have a lot more to do with why we have a squadron of idiots out there riding D's through highschool, having 2 kids before they know how to feed and provide healthcare for them, and then asking for assistance from the government. If you worked hard in highschool and got decent grades, you're going to get financial aid, and you're going to go to college. Community/state/private, any of the above. Deserve the shit, then ask for money.

[burnt]

The way to "fix education" is to provide more financial aid? Don't you think the problem exists on a bit more of a fundamental level than just providing more free money for college? Teacher and parent accountability for education throughout a kid's life probably have a lot more to do with why we have a squadron of idiots out there riding D's through highschool, having 2 kids before they know how to feed and provide healthcare for them, and then asking for assistance from the government. If you worked hard in highschool and got decent grades, you're going to get financial aid, and you're going to go to college. Community/state/private, any of the above. Deserve the shit, then ask for money.

lol, lemme get this straight....

you're denouncing a 2-3% tax hike for the wealthiest 5% of Americans, because even though it'd be used to help fund and thereby improve education, it could infringe on those taxpayers' rights......

so instead, you advocate a system of ensuring that people meet some unspecified criteria before having children, and you advocate some unspecified parental training and oversight committee.... because - that *DOESN'T* infringe on any, like, *HUMAN* rights?

lol, fuckin hell man... you wanna talk about a slippery slope... - I mean, sure, sure, I hear you, get your shit together once you have babies, and fuckin man up and be a hands-on mother or father. sure. but for tits sake man, really? isn't that the kind of shit that commies in China do?

"how about instead of taking $4000 out of the pockets of people earning a quarter million bucks every year to fix education, we enact a law that says if you're a loser you have to get an abortion..." - come on, you're way smarter than that dude...

plus, no matter how you slice it or dice it - your idea is gonna cost a bunch of money to codify and implement.

better idea - take $4000 a year from a few hundred thousand millionaires to improve and upgrade our schools because they can afford it anyway, *AND*, hire a couple of school and teacher oversight resources with that extra cash. fair enough compromise? because I'm pretty sure thats already written in the earmarks. =)

[seattle science]

lol, lemme get this straight....

you're denouncing a 2-3% tax hike for the wealthiest 5% of Americans, because even though it'd be used to help fund and thereby improve education, it could infringe on those taxpayers' rights......

so instead, you advocate a system of ensuring that people meet some unspecified criteria before having children, and you advocate some unspecified parental training and oversight committee.... because - that *DOESN'T* infringe on any, like, *HUMAN* rights?



Haha you definitely do need to get it straight, as that is definitely not what I'm advocating, and I am not quite sure where you came up with that. OBVS what I'm advocating is that people should understand that we need to take responsibility for our choices. Have all the kids you want, but if you can barely afford to start your family yet you do so anyway, don't be mad because I have a jet ski and you have an '87 Escort.

People having kids they can't afford is the cause of all our problems, in my opinion. And I think you should only have one kid if you earn over 60K, and then one more for each 20K more. I would never force that on anyone, though, as then I would be no better than those who advocate forcing one group to unfairly provide a larger percentage than another group. You're right about that.

[burnt]

um.

ok, ya thats all fine and everything? but - do you *have* kids? if not, have you walked around a grade school recently? (I'm assuming not you don't strike me as the pedobear type kekeke..)

dude, there are a lot of responsible parents still, in fact, I'd go so far as to say the majority of them are fairly engaged in their kids' education and ability to succeed in social circles. parent-teacher conferences still take place, and they measurements they use to rate success and isolate problem areas have - in fact - dramatically improved from when I was in grade school...

all of that aside?

Bush and the GOP de-funded the schools. they became significantly more crowded starting in about 2003/2004. many of them shut down. college kids can't afford college anymore and the loans and grants are all dried up.

so - legitimate requests for hands-on quality parenting and teaching aside.... um, the brick and mortar buildings need to be improved, and we need more of them, and we need more teachers. I mean, thats still just a fact, and a major concern for all parents - regardless of whether they own a crappy 87 Escort, or a 2009 Suburban with a trailer for their 2 jetskis.

[seattle science]

um.

ok, ya thats all fine and everything? but - do you *have* kids? if not, have you walked around a grade school recently? (I'm assuming not you don't strike me as the pedobear type kekeke..)

dude, there are a lot of responsible parents still, in fact, I'd go so far as to say the majority of them are fairly engaged in their kids' education and ability to succeed in social circles. parent-teacher conferences still take place, and they measurements they use to rate success and isolate problem areas have - in fact - dramatically improved from when I was in grade school...

all of that aside?

Bush and the GOP de-funded the schools. they became significantly more crowded starting in about 2003/2004. many of them shut down. college kids can't afford college anymore and the loans and grants are all dried up.

so - legitimate requests for hands-on quality parenting and teaching aside.... um, the brick and mortar buildings need to be improved, and we need more of them, and we need more teachers. I mean, thats still just a fact, and a major concern for all parents - regardless of whether they own a crappy 87 Escort, or a 2009 Suburban with a trailer for their 2 jetskis.

My mom is an elementary school principal here in western Washington. Has been for 18 years. Here's how it actually works: her school is brand new and well funded, but is in the less wealthy part of town. She spends 11 hours a day dealing with deadbeat parents, who have absolutely no business having children in the first place. She gets home tired and discouraged, because she just had to find someone to pick up the two sibblings who weren't sure if their aunt or dad's friend was going to pick them up from school, while pops is away at his new girlfriend's house and Mom is working up the street at the taqueria.

She sees it all the time. Take 75% of the income of the richies and it ain't going to "fix" a goddamn thing.

And then there are the parents who have one child attending school, actually care about their education, and annoy my mom in another way: by being overly involved! (not a bad thing). They will probably be rewarded for their efforts, i.e. their involvement will pay off. This behavior should be encouraged.

Responsibility and accountability are, in my opinion, better ways to encourage behavior changes than just throwing money at something.

[burnt]

sure, sure, I know some lousy parents too, but - she's not hurting for more teachers that she can't afford to hire?

she doesn't have over-crowded classrooms, and she doesn't have to deal with student transportation issues for kids who live well over 45 blocks away because the school 3 blocks away from those kids got shut down a year and a half ago?

I dunno - I can definitely tell you that that's a major concern here in Portland. and my understanding is that its of even greater concern in the midwest.

.....
$4000 here, $4000 there, just tiny little chippings away at the upper 5% - who, as I've pointed out, most of them agree its a reasonable request anyway - and bada bing, bada boom, your mom's got 7 new interns or TAs, a new computer system, some decent security, and a couple of new oversight staffers putting CPS all up in those deadbeat parents' business and scaring them straight. not to mention, a reduced workload because she's got a brand new colleague on the other side of town.

*****
that's just the education. we haven't even begun to address the monies that would go *back into* medicaid, the VA, the USFS... Bush and the GOP really took a fat chunk of money out of the treasury and gave it to some pretty crappy no-bid companies that they used to run. its a crying fucking shame, but its what happened. we've *GOT* to re-fund that basic infrastructural stuff. education. law enforcement. public works monitoring. putting out forest fires. making sure veterans get quality healthcare. making sure retired old farts get quality healthcare.

who's gonna pay for that shit. me? lol, I'm unemployed dude - like 2 million other people over the last year and a half. but Phil Knight? well shit, he's got the cash and from what I understand he thinks its a brilliant idea for him and everyone else at his pay scale to pay for it.

[seattle science]

If we just need to get the cash to fix everything, I'll ask again: Why not take a hell of a lot more than $4,000? What's the reason you wouldn't support a 20% hike on the richies? Don't you think that would solve problems a lot better than a measly 2-3% hike?

[Boyd Main]

If we just need to get the cash to fix everything, I'll ask again: Why not take a hell of a lot more than $4,000? What's the reason you wouldn't support a 20% hike on the richies? Don't you think that would solve problems a lot better than a measly 2-3% hike?

I endorse more than a 20% hike. In fact I want to see the highest marginal tax rate, say for personal income over $1,000,000, go up to 90% again. And here's why:

It would overnight eliminate ridiculous salaries and bonuses (we might lose some exec talent to overseas jobs, but how much difference can there be among those suits, right?), so that companies would be able to instead reinvest those funds into company growth, increasing capacity and/or workforce. It would also greatly reduce the amount of 'easy money' out in the market itching for a bet. To someone who's making $30mill a year, it's really no great deal to invest $15m in a risky investment and lose it. If money is 'worth' more to individuals, overall investment risk would go down, a good thing seeing as how all our current woes can be traced back to bubbles caused by a lack of scepticism about investments. There are probably more reasons on the supply side (the taxpayer side) that I haven't thought through yet, but I'm kind of liking this idea.

And on the demand side, just imagine how quickly the national debt could be paid down, how sparkly the schools will be, and how soon we will be energy independent and carbon neutral.

Oh another benefit just came to me - it would totally piss off all the ultra-rich and they would stop giving money to at least one of the political parties. Finally there would be true choice in the two party system, with the Dems not beholden to the richies.

Oh man, I'm having a ball with this idea. How do I become an economist? I want the credentials to start shopping this idea around.

[seattle science]

Hey... thanks for the honesty, Boyd. Haha. Very Machiavellian.

I'm sayin, though, if the ends justfy the means, I've got an even better idea: We seize, liquidate, and distribute all property and assets of those earning more than 250k a year to anyone who meets the following qualifications: no college education; earns less than 30k a year; and has 2.5 or more children. If we get enough money we might actually be able to turn the former lower middle class citizens into overnight richies themselves. Then we can take their shit away from them, and so on.

But seriously, it would probably be easier to just institute a federal minimum wage of 55k a year.

[burnt]

SS - short answer?

no - because it would create gridlock.
a measly $2-3% tax hike for *only* the upper 5% ? - well, there's enough animosity, they're enough of a minority, and its *SUCH* a tiny amount... that its sure to pass. right away. with very little protests from people who "matter". ;)

anymore than that? more taxation, and/or on a greater percentage of Americans? you'd have gridlock. you'd have legitimate protests. and your mom is annoyed with her fucking job a little more because shit gets stagnated while politicians grandstand on behalf of rich assholes who hate grade schoolers like Donald fucking Trump.

[seattle science]

SS - short answer?

no - because it would create gridlock.
a measly $2-3% tax hike for *only* the upper 5% ? - well, there's enough animosity, they're enough of a minority, and its *SUCH* a tiny amount... that its sure to pass. right away. with very little protests from people who "matter". ;)

anymore than that? more taxation, and/or on a greater percentage of Americans? you'd have gridlock. you'd have legitimate protests. and your mom is annoyed with her fucking job a little more because shit gets stagnated while politicians grandstand on behalf of rich assholes who hate grade schoolers like Donald fucking Trump.

Man... I disagree. I think you'd be far more successful in taking 10 times what is currently on the table. Dems are in control, no? So why not? Think of all the freakin' money you could get! I mean, once you start telling people how much money we'll get out of this deal, you'll have zero problem passing it. Basically, while we're at it, let's take'em for all their worth.

[Cedwyn]

not when most of those alternative energies cost more than they save. unless you and obama know of some secret revolutionary energy source that will get those subsidies. but if such a thing does exist i find it hard to believe it wouldn't have private investors foaming at the mouth.
do you have any idea how much we take for granted today originated from government research/sponsorship? come on, man! actually, you just exposed one of capitalism's fatal flaws, writ large: greed does not always inspire the correct or necessary action. and whether it's an immediate money maker or not, there is a moral, ecological and national security imperative to get the !@#$%& off of fossil fuels. if the idiots in the business sector are too busy chasing next quarter's gross margin to get visionary on this, someone has to. which is precisely why, in theory any way, we have government. precisely because, all too often, people cannot be trusted to do the right thing. see: my sig.

[Cedwyn]

Maybe you could help your argument a little more by defining what you mean by a lack of capacity. If you want to be paid more than minimum wage, then there a MILLION ways to skin this particular cat. Are you saying that there's a certain breed of human that's superior to other breeds in that, really, the inferior breed has only the capability to keep a minimum wage job? That's kind of an ugly statement, you know.
okay, fine. you win! everybody on the planet is rocket-science material. wheee! now: just how many rocket scientists does one society need? that good ol' free market mantra "supply and demand" applies to labor, you know - even the high paid stuff. and there is only so much demand for any one profession; not everyone can have a top-rung job. dig?

We hold these truths to be self evident that all men are created equal. That they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

No where in that or the surrounding paragraphs does it say "unless the guy lacks capacity; then we must prop him up by the gains of someone else."
LOL

here's something else not mentioned in that or the surrounding paragraphs: slavery!

but you're right; mentally disabled people should just....ummm...do what exactly, dude?

If you make below a certain amount of income, you don't even pay taxes--as a matter of fact, some people get to receive tax money a -la exemptions that have them pay taxes in reverse.

[QUOTE=TeknoAXE;2384360]But as far as I'm concerned, the American dream is still dependent on what you put into it, not the handouts you can get through socialist policies. That's why it's kind of ridiculous that those who've slogged it through and made it to or past the 250k mark are getting punished for their hard work while those who stay at the bottom--they actually get rewarded for staying at the bottom? Those minimum wage jobs are supposed to be a start to go forward, not to stay there.

I'm willing to compromise on that one too. I'd say cut the welfare/social security policies in half to go towards college grants. That's a better use of money than keeping people thinking they should just skate by. You don't have to be an engineer.

You could be a chef, a businessman, a doctor, a nurse, a vet, a cop, a detective, a dentist, a hospitality manager, a pharmacist, a metallurgist, a furniture maker, a psychologist, a mechanic....fuck dude! The door isn't shut!
oh come on - half that list are the equivalent of engineers by every metric. wtf? as for the rest, those all require some other specialty skill set, or years and years of "paying dues." i mean, sure it's possible. anything's possible, but you keep willfully missing the point here: every single one of those jobs you listed requires an expensive education and/or serious time commitment, like roughly a decade. get real.

[TeknoAXE]

I knew Ced was a communist :P.

[TeknoAXE]

okay, fine. you win! everybody on the planet is rocket-science material. wheee! now: just how many rocket scientists does one society need? that good ol' free market mantra "supply and demand" applies to labor, you know - even the high paid stuff. and there is only so much demand for any one profession; not everyone can have a top-rung job. dig?

You don't need to be a rocket scientist to extend yourself beyond McDonalds! Yes, you have to WORK, but damn, I guess if you're allergic to working, then that would paint you as lazy, wouldn't it?


LOL

here's something else not mentioned in that or the surrounding paragraphs: slavery!

Well, I guess Abraham Lincoln was full of shit, then, when he referred to this document, wasn't he? The point was that that was the direction we set our nation to go. The concept that we have the potential to succeed where we put our efforts in.

but you're right; mentally disabled people should just....ummm...do what exactly, dude?
Are you lumping the majority of the population in this group? Did I really need to specify that--yes! What I really meant was for those who are not mentally disabled should be able to extend themselves beyond minimum wage? Holy shit, girl, did you fail out of college already?

oh come on - half that list are the equivalent of engineers by every metric. wtf? as for the rest, those all require some other specialty skill set, or years and years of "paying dues." i mean, sure it's possible. anything's possible, but you keep willfully missing the point here: every single one of those jobs you listed requires an expensive education and/or serious time commitment, like roughly a decade. get real.

Ya, hence, you put in the work to define your success. And equivalence to Engineering? By who's measure? What the hell, Ced? You sound like "damn that's too hard...I guess I just won't try." The fact is hard work is supposed to reap the rewards. NOT burger flipping. If you don't take initiative, then that's your own fault.

[Roddimus]

do you have any idea how much we take for granted today originated from government research/sponsorship?
well, there is the computer and internet, i can give you that much. but those were more or less accidental and took over 50 years to finally come to full fruition.
come on, man! actually, you just exposed one of capitalism's fatal flaws, writ large: greed does not always inspire the correct or necessary action. and whether it's an immediate money maker or not, there is a moral, ecological and national security imperative to get the !@#$%& off of fossil fuels.[/I]
does the correct or necessary action include wasting money?
i'm all for getting off fossil fuels, but most of the technologies the government wants to pour money into are almost all money losers. i don't see the value in expanding technologies that even the people developing them agree will cost us more than they save.

[Cedwyn]

hahaha! i just love the way you refuse to address the supply and demand question and keep pretending there are some magical infinite number of high-paying jobs to be had, if only people would work hard enough to get them! anybody not making 50k a year is just lazy, by god!

you're hysterical!

Well, I guess Abraham Lincoln was full of shit, then, when he referred to this document, wasn't he? The point was that that was the direction we set our nation to go. The concept that we have the potential to succeed where we put our efforts in.
that's not what the declaration of independence was about at all. it had nothing to do with succeeding through one's efforts. LOL

it's just damn funny that you quote that passage to make your case while completely ignoring its inherent irony on the race question.


Are you lumping the majority of the population in this group? Did I really need to specify that--yes! What I really meant was for those who are not mentally disabled should be able to extend themselves beyond minimum wage? Holy shit, girl, did you fail out of college already?
yes; got my degree years ago, thanks. i was responding to your unintentionally ironic quote about what the declaration of independence did and did not say, namely that "No where in that or the surrounding paragraphs does it say "unless the guy lacks capacity; then we must prop him up by the gains of someone else."

context, man, context! so tell us: if someone does lack capacity, like a mentally disabled person, are they a shiftless mooch for requiring public assistance? be careful with absolute statements. just sayin'...


And equivalence to Engineering? By who's measure? What the hell, Ced? You sound like "damn that's too hard...I guess I just won't try." The fact is hard work is supposed to reap the rewards. NOT burger flipping. If you don't take initiative, then that's your own fault.
you miss the point entirely, perhaps intently. that point was: all the jobs you listed that people could do require education or time investment. i.e., opportunities not available to everyone. not everybody (e.g., a single mom) has the time and money to go to school, or the opportunity to put in years at the same job. your daughter was sick too many times and since you're just a waitress with no sick days/other benefits, you just missed too many shifts and they have to replace you.

quit pretending that jobs grow on trees and the only limit to success is how hard one works. it's 90% luck and opportunity, dude. and far too many people have far too few opportunities.

as for equivalent to engineering, fuck yeah being a vet , doctor, dentist or a pharmacist is absolutely equivalent to engineering. hell, those are all harder by a mile. you you can get an engineering degree in 4 years. any of the rest of those require at least 7. and don't even try to come back and pretend that just because engineers study diff EQs and what not that it's "harder." you couldn't be a vet and most dentists would make lousy engineers. and that's part of the point - there are different types of intelligences. not everyone is built for the 9-5 model. dig?

[burnt]

hahaha, you guys are arguing about who's better to develop and implement alternative transportation and energy. big government, or big business.

lol, guys, they'll both fail, and you wanna know why? because the key word there is "big".

they're in place. they're set. they do one thing and they do it well and "change" is very scary to them, and would definitely initiate a turf war, where "competitiveness" for key leadership positions would cause departments and leaders to shit all over each other and sabotage each other, thereby sabotaging and stagnating the project.

big government, *AND* big business know that something's got to give... but they just gotta get past this rough patch right now. or, if there's no rough patches, they just don't wanna muddy up the water right now. they know something's eventually going to have to change, but first they gotta deliver a clean Q1 2009 report for their investors - or their constituents.

so big oil, and big oil oversight committees will never get as eager and as excited about alternative energy R&D, as some freshmen team assembled by mandate. now, who's going to put together the mandate?

possibly Richard Branson. more likely, government.

this is why big businesses like IBM and Microsoft were incapable of addressing and repairing the Y2K bug. and this is why pre-existing government agencies were incapable of addressing and repairing the Y2K bug. but rather a small-ish consulting firm called Gartner addressed the bug, while simultaneously building up their name and ushering in a new era of server/network administrators who had to learn things quickly on the job rather than attend college. they did it from charitable contribution, and on the government's dime, but they played by their own rules and they followed their own leaders.

this is why big businesses like GM were incapable of putting a man on the moon, and why the government chose not to ask the US Army to put a man on the moon. but rather they built a brand new agency, ushering in a new era of science and technology. and again, they did it with charitable contribution, and on the government's dime, but they played by their own rules and they created and followed their own agency leaders.

the next great thing, when it comes to alternative energy R&D and implementation - is not going to come to us on a silver platter from Enron or from GM... and with as big and bloated and political as NASA has become, its not going to come to us on a silver platter from big pre-existing government agencies either.

what we need is a brand new team of experts, working on a specific mandate, with no pre-existing interdepartmental animosities, and with no generals or executives stepping on each others' dicks in an attempt to make themselves look like the big fucking hero.

[burnt]

I knew Ced was a communist :P.

agreed 100%. OP is totally gay.

[seattle science]

But government is to be trusted?

[Roddimus]

hahaha, you guys are arguing about who's better to develop and implement alternative transportation and energy. big government, or big business.
howabout just business?
pretty much all of big business depends on big government to even be big business. get the government out of business' business and big business probably won't have much business.

[Boyd Main]

does the correct or necessary action include wasting money?
i'm all for getting off fossil fuels, but most of the technologies the government wants to pour money into are almost all money losers. i don't see the value in expanding technologies that even the people developing them agree will cost us more than they save.

Come on Rodd, at least have the decency to quote all of what she said. You left out the part about short vs long term vision. So while these technologies might have a hard time standing up a business case right now, when energy has gone cheap cheap cheap (and venture capital is almost non-existent - http://marketplace.publicradio.org/display/web/2009/02/25/pm_green_finance). But to entities capable of taking the long view, ie. government, these kind of investments are certainly the best course of action. They will become profitable (oil will only last so long). Also, and this is where the market absolutely fails, they are entirely necessary to mitigate environmental disaster. The market, venture capitalists, investors - none of entities can or do give a shit about taking a loss now for the greater future good. What you call 'wasting money' is actually an investment in the future.

[Roddimus]

The market, venture capitalists, investors - none of entities can or do give a shit about taking a loss now for the greater future good. What you call 'wasting money' is actually an investment in the future.
maybe we just have different views on what an "investment" is? to me an investment is something that at least has a clear potential of a return. investors accept current losses for future gains all the time. if you can please show me this clear potential for future gains, i might be inclined to view them as viable investments.

[Boyd Main]

maybe we just have different views on what an "investment" is? to me an investment is something that at least has a clear potential of a return. investors accept current losses for future gains all the time. if you can please show me this clear potential for future gains, i might be inclined to view them as viable investments.

And herein lies the crux - how long until the future?

Different entities have the ability, or actually, the mandate, to take different views on that. A floor trader might see the future as later this afternoon. A commodities trader might see the future as two weeks from now. A venture capitalist or a fund manager might see the future as two years from now. Who can view the future as twenty years from now?

Sure, you could say that there's no reason that private investment can't, but the simple answer to that is that it doesn't. Why? Perhaps private money is cannot tolerate the risks inherent in taking that long view. Perhaps the competitive nature of the market in general drives near-sightedness. Whatever the reason, the fact is that the market fails at taking a long view.

So... either you say that there is no need to take the long view or you get behind an entity than can take it, and you support them taking it. What will it be?

ETA - the long term potential for future gains that you ask to see is self evident if you accept that oil is running out.

Also - you seem to be sidestepping the question of negative externalities. Do you think that the role of government should include weighing and attempting to mitigate the intangible, or at least currently unmonetized, costs of carbon pollution? What is your opinion on carbon monetization?

[Roddimus]

And herein lies the crux - how long until the future?

Different entities have the ability, or actually, the mandate, to take different views on that. A floor trader might see the future as later this afternoon. A commodities trader might see the future as two weeks from now. A venture capitalist or a fund manager might see the future as two years from now. Who can view the future as twenty years from now?
there are investors who have very long time horizons as well, provided they have some assurance that their investment can generate a return over that timespan. again, please provide me with this assurance and i'd be willing to rethink these investments. i don't feel very comfortable accepting this whole "just pour money into it and hope that's all it takes to make them economically viable 20 years from now" line. i need some specifics.
So... either you say that there is no need to take the long view or you get behind an entity than can take it, and you support them taking it.
i actually don't think our government CAN afford to take that long term view, even if the technology was viable. at this point all it can do is print the money it needs to spend, what with it being 12 trillion dollars in debt and running a 2 trillion dollar current account deficit. but all printing money can do is spur crippling inflation, further compounding our economic problem.
What is your opinion on carbon monetization?
that it's a power grab. i used to be sold on the global warming line, but lately with the rest of the solar system also experiencing global warming, i'm inclined to believe it has more to do with the sun than our CO2 emissions. i'm all for pollution controls, but to tax people for their "carbon footprint" is dubious at best.

[Ultradella]

Who can view the future as twenty years from now?

a parent.

ps.how does the government measure income anyway?

[TeknoAXE]

hahaha! i just love the way you refuse to address the supply and demand question and keep pretending there are some magical infinite number of high-paying jobs to be had, if only people would work hard enough to get them! anybody not making 50k a year is just lazy, by god!

you're hysterical!

Dude, I already addressed this issue a few times over. For one, I'm not talking about making it over a certain mark of payscale. I'm talking about not staying at rock bottom for the rest of your life. You CAN progress to different levels in whatever field you choose--even McDonalds or restaurants. What's that line Obama says a lot? Yes, we can! Well go do it then!

that's not what the declaration of independence was about at all. it had nothing to do with succeeding through one's efforts. LOL

...life, liberty, and the PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS!

How do you miss that?

it's just damn funny that you quote that passage to make your case while completely ignoring its inherent irony on the race question.

I focus on the fundamentals of that document. It's the principles behind this document that finally led to the abolition of slavery, women's rights and desegregation. That document means more NOW and should be considered more crucial NOW as people try to push bigger government upon us and take away our freedoms as a WHOLE.

context, man, context! so tell us: if someone does lack capacity, like a mentally disabled person, are they a shiftless mooch for requiring public assistance? be careful with absolute statements. just sayin'...

..because handicaps are the one place that I will agree with you and you KNOW you didn't even need to say that.

you miss the point entirely, perhaps intently. that point was: all the jobs you listed that people could do require education or time investment. i.e., opportunities not available to everyone. not everybody (e.g., a single mom) has the time and money to go to school, or the opportunity to put in years at the same job. your daughter was sick too many times and since you're just a waitress with no sick days/other benefits, you just missed too many shifts and they have to replace you.

And that's where other parent is supposed to come in. That's where the law is supposed to step in. If one parent has full custody of the kids, then the other has the legal obligation to AT LEAST support the kids in expenses. It's so crazy what people will do to get out of paying child support--I know of one who literally quit his job to not make those payments. He then petitioned the courts that he would be better suited to have custody of the kids because he would have them full time and live on government assistance. What kind of fucked up logic is that? And there-in the government tit has gotten people keen to the idea of NOT working for a paycheck and instead living on welfare programs.

quit pretending that jobs grow on trees and the only limit to success is how hard one works. it's 90% luck and opportunity, dude. and far too many people have far too few opportunities.

I'm glad you brought this up, Ced, because you know what? The United States is literally FIENDING for engineering jobs. The Power Companies have all but exhausted their short supply of old engineers who are about to retire. They need Engineers BAD. The USA, in general, NEEDS more engineers. That's why the SMART grant came about two years ago, because people looked at the situation and said, "man, have a really small amount of engineers graduating from our colleges".

You know what's funny? People have made such a big stink about how the last administration tried to stem the flow of illegal aliens into the country. Yet, no one seems to be raising questions about the stimulus package plans to limit immigration for those who want to school in the USA and/or work in the USA in technical jobs, such as engineering. It's so fucking assed backwards. If you want to really let United States competitiveness really flip on its ass and die, you do exactly what this stimulus package is proposing to do. You cut off what is a huge chunk of your intellectual base which is immigration of the legal form.

So we're going to ease up on those illegal alien types because, obviously, we don't need to be so harsh on them. Those poor illegal aliens! But those people who applied through the legal means and want to actually contribute great things to society--those people, ya, we don't want so much of them.

as for equivalent to engineering, fuck yeah being a vet , doctor, dentist or a pharmacist is absolutely equivalent to engineering. hell, those are all harder by a mile. you you can get an engineering degree in 4 years. any of the rest of those require at least 7. and don't even try to come back and pretend that just because engineers study diff EQs and what not that it's "harder." you couldn't be a vet and most dentists would make lousy engineers. and that's part of the point - there are different types of intelligences. not everyone is built for the 9-5 model. dig?

Time requirements do not equal difficulty in the curriculum. And if you're still trying to say that it's too much time to devote to studies, I don't want to hear it. I had to rebuild my math skills that I forgot when I was in the Army. It took me a total of 6 years to get all the classes I felt I needed and I was required to graduate. I say total because, in the middle of it all, I was deployed to Saudi Arabia, and my plans to graduate got set back by TWO YEARS! Eight years, and I did it. I didn't lose focus, and I didn't quit. I'm not a freaking genius either; it took a damn sight of work to make it all go down.

[burnt]

its true, the whole time I worked at adult & family services in Newport, I never met any 30 something single dads in need of public assistance... well... at least, nobody there with any *REAL* grit... I mean amirite amirite?







and honestly, I blame society and big government. because the whole welfare system I worked for was a 100% failure and nobody bettered themselves - neither on the client side, nor the casemanager side - because everybody who's broke is a loser, and all bureaucrats are shady and lazy.



:rolleyes: