Hammer down on the elite!!!

Anything that doesn't fit into the subject of other forums goes here. Guns, drugs, religion, politics whatever. No flames!

Moderator: Chris Slack

User avatar
soundguy
Posts: 3480
Joined: Sat Oct 27, 2001 10:00 pm
Location: Woodinville, WA
Contact:

Post by soundguy » Fri Feb 13, 2009 1:57 am

DeathFrogg wrote:Oh, so you're making tens of millions a year? I didn't realize you were so wealthy.

Neither you, nor anyone you know will be in that tax bracket, ever. That tax rate should be for the people who "work" a few days a month, inherited their money, and play the stock markets like some kind of game.
Wow. I thought *I* was the oldest guy on this forum, but if you think a few million a year is even remotely a big deal any more, you must be about 80 and screaming at kids to get off your lawn. This is Western Washington, remember? Every 3rd person is a Microsoft Millionaire. The median price for a house in Woodinville, for example, is $750,000. I can see a place worth $2.5m from my deck and I live in Kenmore, which isn't exactly Medina or Mercer Island. (and for the record, I know a few people in both places who ARE in the top tax brackets and think my little half-acre in suburbia is "cute" and "a good start")

DeathFrogg wrote: I havent seen a penny increase in my wages in 15 years and my taxes are UP.
That's no one's fault but YOURS. After 2 or 3 years in a dead-end job you should have made other plans. (been there myself several times and NEVER put up with that shit for more than a couple) You're not a stupid guy by any means. In 15 years you could have gotten at least a Bachelor's degree in something that would have led to a job with some kind of advancement potential. I went back to school for a year at age 45 while working 3 jobs (ON CRUTCHES because of a shattered ankle) and then started my own business. It took a few years to get rolling, but I gross 7 figures now, mainly because I work 14-18 hours a day, 365 days a year. Why the fuck should I have to shoulder an obscenely high tax burden because I spent the last decade educating myself and working 10 times harder & smarter than the people at the bottom of the food chain?
[b]Patrick[/b]

[i][url]http://www.themothership.net[/url][/i] Domain Registration, website Hosting, Video Services
[i][url]http://www.marshallstack.com[/url][/i] Erotic Photography
[i][url]http://www.mothershipvideo.com[/url][/i] Video pre/post production


User avatar
LIVE FO RETSINIM
Posts: 4819
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2001 10:00 pm

Post by LIVE FO RETSINIM » Fri Feb 13, 2009 4:43 am

DeathFrogg wrote:. My bank charges me $7 a month just to keep an account there. I havent seen a penny increase in my wages in 15 years and my taxes are UP. .
Now wait a minute here. Is no one else troubled by these statements? You have been working at the same job for 15 years and never received any increase in wage??? Are you serious? You stay at a bank that charges you $7 a month???? Wow.

Not like I ever read through your long winded posts before, but after those statements, I have to question your intelligence and competence in the world. I mean, we all know you are pretty out there, but after this… 15 years?? That is some insane shit.
[b]R.I.P. Chelsie[/b]

[b]JJGC [/b] [SIZE="6"]4[/SIZE] [b]LIFE[/b]

Hard work never killed nobody, but I ain't taking no chances.



[URL=http://www.myspace.com/vulgarizer]
[img]http://i295.photobucket.com/albums/mm123/jankins13/H-N.jpg[/img][/URL]


[URL=http://www.myspace.com/analjudicator]
[img]http://c2.ac-images.myspacecdn.com/images02/72/l_5cca553825c945b796eb9cfb39a0e4dd.jpg[/img][/URL]

User avatar
Blonde leading the blonde
Posts: 1970
Joined: Fri May 24, 2002 10:00 pm
Location: Petting Zoo
Contact:

Post by Blonde leading the blonde » Fri Feb 13, 2009 11:52 am

4G wrote:If you make 25k and pay 20% in taxes and I make 100k and pay 20% in taxes, I am still paying a lot more than you are. (5k vs 20k) so it isn't like a flat tax means I pay the same amount, just the same percentage. So more of my money goes to things like schools and roads and everything else you use and enjoy.
Yes, it's true that an equal percentage equals more actual dollars for the person making more. But there are also some numbers that don't go up, or more to the point don't have to go up. For example. If you are looking for a place to live for one person, and you look at houses, apartments, roommate situations, etc. Depending on the area in which you live, there is a minimum you HAVE to have in order to have a roof over your head. The person making $25K per year uses more of their $25K towards "must have" expenses and the person making $100K per year *could* live on that same amount, if they so chose. So, in my mind, a sliding scale that goes up to a sort of baseline "must have" income level, followed by a flat percentage outside of that makes sense. That doesn't mean you hammer folks who are gazillionaires, but it does mean that you don't try to have folks who are barely keeping a roof over their heads and food in their tummies bearing the larger portion of the burden for public infrastructure.
4G wrote:I am sure I will be corrected if I am wrong, but I beleive I read a little while back that the top 10% of the earners pay over 60% of the taxes. So not sure I agree with what you are saying.
I think you'll find this is smoke and mirrors. We've artificially inflated the percentage that people are *supposed* to pay, and then instituted so many potential tax shelters and write offs that the more you make the more likely you are to pay a lower percentage of your income in taxes than someone who doesn't make enough money to do that. The middle class, and particularly the upper middle class, gets hit the hardest as near as I can tell. They make enough to have the higher percentage tax bracket, but not enough to invest in exotic tax shelters. This is where it gets weird. Pat mentioned something about a millionaire not being all that rich anymore, and he's right. That's barely upper class anymore.

Let's go back to the $100K/year person. OK, so that person is paying X% in taxes, and that percentage is not only higher than the $25K/year person's is, but the total dollars are higher, too, owing to the nature of math and percentages. Now, really, that's a lot of money, if you stare at your paycheck the way I do. I can write off my mortgage interest, charity contributions, and a couple other things, but my taxes aren't so complicated that turbo tax can't handle them. Now let's look at Bill Gates. Not the richest man in the world, but certainly not scraping. Bill's income is way more than our $100K/year persons is, and his % is higher, too. But Bill has enough money that he can have off-shore accounts, exotic investments, his very own charity, etc. Our $100K/year person could probably open an offshore account, but is unlikely to even think on that level, and certainly could not run a full-blown charity organization off that kind of money. So the person making $100K/year has relatively few shelters, and is expected to bear the burden of our infrastructure, basically, because Uncle Bill has no good reason to pay more than he is required to pay, and our $25K/year person, just doesn't make enough. Congratulations -- you have achieved the American Dream, now fork 1/3 of it over.

Now, when I am Supreme Empress of the Universe, that will change. That % of pay won't keep going up much over about $50K/person/year. It'll stay relatively low. Our most basic tax deductions -- student loans, charity, tithing, home loans, etc. -- those stay, but with a little restructuring so that people who want to tithe to a charity instead of their church aren't punished for not being a member of organized religion, and the tax credit that is given to the company or person who produces the fletching for children's arrows, but not adults arrows, and not children's arrow heads, that's history.

Make sense?
[img]http://23.floweringnightshade.com/shade/images/VernTinkStar.jpg[/img]

[font="Arial Narrow"]It's not who you are, it's what you wear. I mean, who cares who you are?[/font]

[url=http://www.myspace.com/theblondeleadingtheblonde][font="Arial"][SIZE="2"]100,000 Lemmings Can't Be Wrong![/SIZE][/font][/url]

User avatar
4G
Posts: 2335
Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2001 10:00 pm
Location: WA
Contact:

Post by 4G » Fri Feb 13, 2009 2:20 pm

Blonde leading the blonde wrote:The person making $25K per year uses more of their $25K towards "must have" expenses and the person making $100K per year *could* live on that same amount, if they so chose.
So by punishing the person for success that helps the person making 25k how? The same could go for a person making 15k, should the person making 25k have to live the same lifestyle because they have more money for non-essentials? Should someone making 30k have to pay more because the person making 25k has more of their income going to essentials?

People who earn more also spend more into the economy. The person making 100k may buy a bigger house, a new car, a plasma TV, go out to dinner or whatever they want to do with the money. You start taking it all away in taxes that spending goes away. Considering at a 20% tax the person making 100k pays as much as 4 people who make 25k is already a pretty big contribution in my opinion.

Also the whole point of a flat tax is to eliminate the IRS, no filings, no breaks, no credits etc. There would not be any need.
[url]http://www.myspace.com/clawmusic[/url]

User avatar
derek666
Posts: 1216
Joined: Sun Aug 08, 2004 12:57 am
Contact:

Post by derek666 » Fri Feb 13, 2009 3:09 pm

LIVE FO RETSINIM wrote:Now wait a minute here. Is no one else troubled by these statements? You have been working at the same job for 15 years and never received any increase in wage??? Are you serious? You stay at a bank that charges you $7 a month???? Wow.

Not like I ever read through your long winded posts before, but after those statements, I have to question your intelligence and competence in the world. I mean, we all know you are pretty out there, but after this… 15 years?? That is some insane shit.
100% in agreement with this. I was going to say something but figured he would just go off on some psychotic tirade again. It makes absolutely no sense to me that anyone would wanna stay employed at the same place and not get a wage increase or have to pay for a bank account!! Ridiculous!! For fuck sakes, how the hell can you live without a raise in that damn long?? The cost of living has skyrocketed.


User avatar
Blonde leading the blonde
Posts: 1970
Joined: Fri May 24, 2002 10:00 pm
Location: Petting Zoo
Contact:

Post by Blonde leading the blonde » Fri Feb 13, 2009 4:49 pm

4G wrote:So by punishing the person for success that helps the person making 25k how? The same could go for a person making 15k, should the person making 25k have to live the same lifestyle because they have more money for non-essentials? Should someone making 30k have to pay more because the person making 25k has more of their income going to essentials?

People who earn more also spend more into the economy. The person making 100k may buy a bigger house, a new car, a plasma TV, go out to dinner or whatever they want to do with the money. You start taking it all away in taxes that spending goes away. Considering at a 20% tax the person making 100k pays as much as 4 people who make 25k is already a pretty big contribution in my opinion.

Also the whole point of a flat tax is to eliminate the IRS, no filings, no breaks, no credits etc. There would not be any need.
It's not a punishment, it is simply the way it is. The person making more is making a choice to spend more. They have options. They can survive on less, if they want to, if they choose to -- the person who makes less has less, or no, choice. If I lost my job today and had to accept a job that pays half what I make now, I could still live on that money. No, I would not be going out to buy a plasma TV, but then, I don't really need one, do I? I might want one, but I don't need it. What I do need is shelter, food, warmth, and health care. Everything else is a choice you make. Well, and for some people, even those are choices.

You might feel that, as a result of how hard you work or your level of education that you *deserve* more, but the fact is, you still can't turn it into a basic survival need, no matter how hard you argue. You choose that lifestyle. You choose your wants. You choose your consumer spending -- and borrowing. You choose that enormous house. You choose the plasma TV.

To some degree, the choices are logical and normal. Precious few people who make $100K/year are going to choose to live in a bedroom in someone else's house and really, nobody expects them to. But let's go up to that ultra rich level again -- the gazillionaires, the elite. How many of them really and truly couldn't do without the jet, the yacht, the 6 extra houses, etc.? Truly. How many would perish if they lost that kind of stuff? Did they work hard to get there? Some of them did. Should they be "punished" for being rich? No - the vast majority of the population of the country covets their lifestyle. But, if they had to forego that 7th luxury house so that public school kids in their area can get a good enough education to be able to compete in a global market, how likely is to to have a real and serious impact on their day to day life, they way it would on the kids with their education? No really think about how much ACTUAL impact it's going to have on them?

It is, unquestionably, in a capitalist society, VERY unpopular to point out that nobody really *needs* as much crap as we spend our entire lives trying to amass. It is even more unpopular to point out that every time you amass more crap, you're making a choice that has real potential to impact others, albeit indirectly. If you have the ability and the opportunity to do something for the country that provided the freedom and ability for you to have the things you have, by simply paying the same percentage of your income as the middle-tax-bracket citizens do, and if you choose to fight tooth and nail against doing that... sorry, that pisses me off.

You mentioned at the end of your post a flat tax. I actually don't support a truly flat tax, but a comparable system is actually what I would suggest. We might almost be arguing the same thing, though, if I'm reading you right -- but from opposite view points. In my perfect world, the extremely low-income folks would have a lesser percentage taken, and there would be tax incentives for a few things, with the biggest chunk being charity organizations that neither you nor your immediate family owns/operates. But in my perfect world, the person who makes 9 figures pays the same percentage of their income as someone who only makes 6 figures. You don't artificially raise the percentage and then give it back in a way that only allows the truly ultra rich to capitalize on it -- that's just stupid. But you also don't lower it just because the final number looks shockingly large for those very few. Make sense?
[img]http://23.floweringnightshade.com/shade/images/VernTinkStar.jpg[/img]

[font="Arial Narrow"]It's not who you are, it's what you wear. I mean, who cares who you are?[/font]

[url=http://www.myspace.com/theblondeleadingtheblonde][font="Arial"][SIZE="2"]100,000 Lemmings Can't Be Wrong![/SIZE][/font][/url]

User avatar
4G
Posts: 2335
Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2001 10:00 pm
Location: WA
Contact:

Post by 4G » Fri Feb 13, 2009 9:26 pm

Blonde leading the blonde wrote:It's not a punishment, it is simply the way it is. The person making more is making a choice to spend more. They have options. They can survive on less, if they want to, if they choose to -- the person who makes less has less, or no, choice. If I lost my job today and had to accept a job that pays half what I make now, I could still live on that money. No, I would not be going out to buy a plasma TV, but then, I don't really need one, do I? I might want one, but I don't need it. What I do need is shelter, food, warmth, and health care. Everything else is a choice you make. Well, and for some people, even those are choices.

You might feel that, as a result of how hard you work or your level of education that you *deserve* more, but the fact is, you still can't turn it into a basic survival need, no matter how hard you argue. You choose that lifestyle. You choose your wants. You choose your consumer spending -- and borrowing. You choose that enormous house. You choose the plasma TV.

To some degree, the choices are logical and normal. Precious few people who make $100K/year are going to choose to live in a bedroom in someone else's house and really, nobody expects them to. But let's go up to that ultra rich level again -- the gazillionaires, the elite. How many of them really and truly couldn't do without the jet, the yacht, the 6 extra houses, etc.? Truly. How many would perish if they lost that kind of stuff? Did they work hard to get there? Some of them did. Should they be "punished" for being rich? No - the vast majority of the population of the country covets their lifestyle. But, if they had to forego that 7th luxury house so that public school kids in their area can get a good enough education to be able to compete in a global market, how likely is to to have a real and serious impact on their day to day life, they way it would on the kids with their education? No really think about how much ACTUAL impact it's going to have on them?

It is, unquestionably, in a capitalist society, VERY unpopular to point out that nobody really *needs* as much crap as we spend our entire lives trying to amass. It is even more unpopular to point out that every time you amass more crap, you're making a choice that has real potential to impact others, albeit indirectly. If you have the ability and the opportunity to do something for the country that provided the freedom and ability for you to have the things you have, by simply paying the same percentage of your income as the middle-tax-bracket citizens do, and if you choose to fight tooth and nail against doing that... sorry, that pisses me off.

You mentioned at the end of your post a flat tax. I actually don't support a truly flat tax, but a comparable system is actually what I would suggest. We might almost be arguing the same thing, though, if I'm reading you right -- but from opposite view points. In my perfect world, the extremely low-income folks would have a lesser percentage taken, and there would be tax incentives for a few things, with the biggest chunk being charity organizations that neither you nor your immediate family owns/operates. But in my perfect world, the person who makes 9 figures pays the same percentage of their income as someone who only makes 6 figures. You don't artificially raise the percentage and then give it back in a way that only allows the truly ultra rich to capitalize on it -- that's just stupid. But you also don't lower it just because the final number looks shockingly large for those very few. Make sense?
I understand you, just disagree. Because people have more money then they don't deserve to keep it. Sorry, I will never support this argument. I have done the 2 jobs to get through college in my 20's to get where I am now. And because I spent over a decade busting my ass off to have a better life for me and my family, I don't think that anyone has the right to take it away because I make more.

I also support a wife and 3 kids, but may make more than a single person. How do supporting 5 people figure into your ideals? Your system would tax me higher because I make more, but in reality a single person who makes half of what I do is doing as well or possibly better.

If someone creates their own company and it makes a gazillion dollars, good for them. They should pay like the rest of us, no more no less.

In addition, most flat tax proposals that are even worth a dam don't have the lowest income paying any taxes at all. I would be fine with that too.
[url]http://www.myspace.com/clawmusic[/url]

User avatar
Blonde leading the blonde
Posts: 1970
Joined: Fri May 24, 2002 10:00 pm
Location: Petting Zoo
Contact:

Post by Blonde leading the blonde » Sat Feb 14, 2009 12:37 pm

4G wrote:How do supporting 5 people figure into your ideals?
5 people? Probably very much the way you'd like it to. Now, if you told me that you were supporting a wife and 9 children, I'd likely lean in confidentially and tell you "you know, they know what causes that, now." People who breed out of control are and should remain free to make that choice, but after 5 or 6 kids, I'm sorry, barring one whopper of a multiple birth, that's just what it is -- another choice and in my view it's not unlike choosing to buy a boat, except it's alive and therefore the general expectation is that it will constitute a tax deduction or welfare raise, depending upon the person. I think precious few families hit that size in this day and age with responsible, educated, people at the helm who are willing and able to support such a family, and, well, yeah, it's another foaming at the mouth subject for me. But in my view, there's also no legislatable cure for it that would ever be OK, so it just is what it is. And yeah, a family your size is still reasonable and responsible, but that makes sense because so are you. Government, taxes, friends, family and neighbors -- we all have a huge responsibility to pitch in and help where there are children involved, and this is a big portion of what I think those infrastructure dollars should go towards.
[img]http://23.floweringnightshade.com/shade/images/VernTinkStar.jpg[/img]

[font="Arial Narrow"]It's not who you are, it's what you wear. I mean, who cares who you are?[/font]

[url=http://www.myspace.com/theblondeleadingtheblonde][font="Arial"][SIZE="2"]100,000 Lemmings Can't Be Wrong![/SIZE][/font][/url]

User avatar
4G
Posts: 2335
Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2001 10:00 pm
Location: WA
Contact:

Post by 4G » Sat Feb 14, 2009 2:34 pm

Blonde leading the blonde wrote:5 people? Probably very much the way you'd like it to. Now, if you told me that you were supporting a wife and 9 children, I'd likely lean in confidentially and tell you "you know, they know what causes that, now." People who breed out of control are and should remain free to make that choice, but after 5 or 6 kids, I'm sorry, barring one whopper of a multiple birth, that's just what it is -- another choice and in my view it's not unlike choosing to buy a boat, except it's alive and therefore the general expectation is that it will constitute a tax deduction or welfare raise, depending upon the person. I think precious few families hit that size in this day and age with responsible, educated, people at the helm who are willing and able to support such a family, and, well, yeah, it's another foaming at the mouth subject for me. But in my view, there's also no legislatable cure for it that would ever be OK, so it just is what it is. And yeah, a family your size is still reasonable and responsible, but that makes sense because so are you. Government, taxes, friends, family and neighbors -- we all have a huge responsibility to pitch in and help where there are children involved, and this is a big portion of what I think those infrastructure dollars should go towards.
When I say 5 I am including me, my wife and 3 kids. Not 5 kids. If someone can afford to raise 12 kids it should be their choice though.
[url]http://www.myspace.com/clawmusic[/url]

User avatar
Blonde leading the blonde
Posts: 1970
Joined: Fri May 24, 2002 10:00 pm
Location: Petting Zoo
Contact:

Post by Blonde leading the blonde » Sat Feb 14, 2009 4:43 pm

4G wrote:When I say 5 I am including me, my wife and 3 kids. Not 5 kids. If someone can afford to raise 12 kids it should be their choice though.
Yep, I got that. 3 kids is still reasonable, at 5 or 6 it starts to be iffy. And if they can afford to raise 12 kids, well, they should be smart enough to know that the world is overpopulated, and they'd best make up for contributing to that, IMO, by not just being able to afford it, but by taking the time and energy to do a good job of it. I think that it is rare anymore for a family to have that many kids and do both. That and the overpopulation thing is what makes me foam at the mouth on this topic, but there's no way to legislate intelligence AND personal responsibility, so I fume impotently.
[img]http://23.floweringnightshade.com/shade/images/VernTinkStar.jpg[/img]

[font="Arial Narrow"]It's not who you are, it's what you wear. I mean, who cares who you are?[/font]

[url=http://www.myspace.com/theblondeleadingtheblonde][font="Arial"][SIZE="2"]100,000 Lemmings Can't Be Wrong![/SIZE][/font][/url]

User avatar
The Green Manalishi
Posts: 157
Joined: Thu Aug 14, 2008 7:25 pm
Location: Seattle Baye-be

Post by The Green Manalishi » Sat Feb 14, 2009 8:32 pm

To the Blonde leading the Blonde:

Your 4:49pm post today, nicely said.

Happy Valentine's Day :D
"Ideas, who knows where they frickin' come from".
"Issac Newton invented gravity because some asshole hit him in the head with an apple."

-"Christafah" Moltisanti -Soprano's


:devildoll
[url]http://www.myspace.com/puppyuppers[/url]


Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest