Pages: 1 2 3 4

 

2011-04-21 00:52:07
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6925|USA

AussieReaper wrote:

lowing wrote:

Didn't ask about taxes......I asked who you went to ask for a job? was it the poor, or the rich?
That is such a stupid argument. You don't go looking through the wanted ads and ask your employer how much money they make. And working for a small business you can be paid more than working for a large one. This has nothing to do with Reagan anyway. Since we're talking about Reaganomics. You know, tax policy...?

lowing wrote:

You really gotta link me to a source that explains how the majority of the tax revenue for the US is paid by poor people..
Serious? The majority of tax revenue in the US is collected from the top 1% because they are taxed at a higher rate. But they should be since they have all the income. The top 1% control about 40% of all wealth in the US and should be taxed accordingly.

lowing wrote:

I am glad GE keeps their money, everyone on the planet tries to find ways to pay less taxes...LEt me guess, you try to find ways to pay more taxes right?
GE more than just kept their money. They got $3bn of tax payer money given to them. Since they are so good at keeping profits offshore...

lowing wrote:

Plenty of money coming in for the govt. to do what it is supposed to do...manage the infrastructure of a nation. I am not interested in paying more taxes or for corporations to pay more taxes for the sole purpose of wealth redistribution. Sorry.
But you're in a huge defecit right now. The US has had to increase the debt ceiling limit because of this. How are you even arguing that there is plenty of money coming in for the government when they are in such a mess that a government shutdown was threatened?

You need to raise taxes now or continue to go into defecit.
1. the question goes toward your attitude about the "evil rich"

2. You said the rich pay no taxes and the poor pay the most taxes....link please.

3. Good, then GE can continue to fund growth and R and D and employ people.

4. Because the govt. wastes a lot of money and funds bullshit programs that produce nothing, that is how. They have plenty of money coming in, they are not managing it.

Aussie is one of those that believes that "a nation can tax itself into prosperity". Terrific.

Last edited by lowing (2011-04-21 00:58:54)

2011-04-21 00:57:13
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,816|6380|eXtreme to the maX

Spark wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

Jay wrote:

Shit, but now prices have risen because people have more money to spend.
So we should keep people poor so the rich can buy stuff for a lower price?
OK.
um

you have completely missed the point

not that galt's model is exactly flawless, but yeah.

Galt wrote:

They didn't just take that money and spend it on price controlled food, they went out and bought tv's, cars, and other consumer goods with the money.
Which raises the standard of living for everyone, especially those people selling said goods.

He's griping about inflation really, which tends to destroy the wealth of the rich.
Fuck Israel
2011-04-21 06:18:33
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5632|London, England

AussieReaper wrote:

So what do you suggest happen with the US economy as it currently sits? Cut taxes for the richest some more? Cause they invest, right? Is your plan to just keep cutting taxes, because they aren't exactly paying much as it is... and that wonderful investment isn't going to help when it's just as easy to invest into another country. Since you know, that's what they do.

Wheras, if you cut taxes for the middle income earners, they spend that money. Into products. Goods and services. Which creates an increase in demand for the companies selling afforementioned goods and services. Who in turn make profit due to the demand. Which is just as good as investment. The two are not mutually exclusive. And when a company turns a profit, omg guess what happens, you'll see greater investment.

And if the middle are earning more, they spend more. And invest more.

If the rich are earning more, what happens, they invest in corporations that are interested in shareholders only because that's the only reason the rich invested in the first place. For greater share prices. None of which helps anyone other than the richest 1%.

Of course this is just a bleeding heart liberal point of view...
Most of the 'middle' in this country don't pay income taxes Aussie. Really, get off the cock of the 'middle class'. I know you're a foreigner but it's just a code word for union workers. The middle class does not support the burden of taxation by any means and any attempt to shine a light on them that says they do is just false propaganda.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
2011-04-21 06:57:37
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5632|London, England

AussieReaper wrote:

lowing wrote:

I guess Aussie, you are one of those few people that ask the poor for a job then?..and not the "evil rich"
The poor pay taxes. The rich don't. The rich companies don't either.

G.E. paid no taxes on $5.1 billion in profits
As Washington worries about the United States' growing deficit problem, there's mounting evidence the government is failing to collect taxes from wealthy individuals and corporations. A piece in today's New York Times by David Kocieniewski outlines how G.E. skirted paying any taxes on $5.1 billion in profits in 2010--in addition to claiming a $3.2 billion tax credit.

The main reason G.E. is so adept at avoiding paying taxes, Kocieniewski writes, is because it's compiled an all-star team of in-house tax professionals plucked from the Internal Revenue Service, the Treasury Department, and "virtually all the tax-writing committees in Congress."

G.E.-- whose slogan is "Imagination at Work"-- has in-house, Kocieniewski writes, what is considered by many to be the best tax law firm in the world. Their secret to success is a familiar one, though G.E. appears to have perfected it: "fierce lobbying for tax breaks and innovative accounting that enables it to concentrate its profits offshore."
http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_thelookou … in-profits

You want to avoid paying taxes? Just have to lobby your way through and then concentrate profits offshore.

Ah, the system works.


(oh and that $3.2 billion tax credit should come in handy). Who's money was that again? Oh yeah, the tax payers! lol
In 2007, the people in the top 5% paid over 50% of the total income taxes.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f9/Distribution_of_U.S._Federal_Taxes_2000.JPG

But I'm glad to see that you feel my money is best spent elsewhere. Between myself and my fiancee we'll make over $200k this year. Does that mean we should be punished for our success by paying a higher percentage of our income in taxes? It's not like I grew up with a silver spoon in my mouth. I grew up poor, worked my ass off, joined the army to pay for college, fought in a war not of my own choosing, and then chose the hardest degree possible because I knew it would pay well when I graduated. Why do you feel I deserve to be punished with higher taxes?
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
2011-04-21 06:58:29
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5632|London, England

Spark wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

Jay wrote:

Shit, but now prices have risen because people have more money to spend.
So we should keep people poor so the rich can buy stuff for a lower price?
OK.
um

you have completely missed the point

not that galt's model is exactly flawless, but yeah.
He does that on purpose.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
2011-04-21 07:01:55
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5632|London, England

Dilbert_X wrote:

Spark wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:


So we should keep people poor so the rich can buy stuff for a lower price?
OK.
um

you have completely missed the point

not that galt's model is exactly flawless, but yeah.

Galt wrote:

They didn't just take that money and spend it on price controlled food, they went out and bought tv's, cars, and other consumer goods with the money.
Which raises the standard of living for everyone, especially those people selling said goods.

He's griping about inflation really, which tends to destroy the wealth of the rich.
It raises the cost of living for those that were directly above the poverty line, probably struggling, but getting by. You dump a whole new set of people into their income bracket and they suddenly become worse off than they were originally because the cost of everything has gone up.

The rich don't worry about inflation. They have investments that keep pace with or better inflation. It's the people at the very bottom that feel it the most. The guys that struggle to buy a tank of gas or put food on the table. The offshoot of welfare payments is that the guy I'm talking about... when his pride gives out, he's going on the dole too because what's the point of working your tale off when you can sit on your couch, make babies, and collect a check? That doesn't happen very often just because pride is a very strong factor, but it does happen, and when it does, he usually takes his friends with him.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
2011-04-21 14:36:16
Monkey Spanker
Show it to the nice monkey.
+284|6526|England
Just found this lol
https://i.imgur.com/0fwpx.jpg
Quote of the year so far "Fifa 11 on the other hand... shiny things for mongos "-mtb0minime
https://bf3s.com/sigs/f30415b2d1cff840176cce816dc76d89a7929bb0.png
2011-04-21 16:28:40
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,816|6380|eXtreme to the maX

Jay wrote:

It raises the cost of living for those that were directly above the poverty line, probably struggling, but getting by. You dump a whole new set of people into their income bracket and they suddenly become worse off than they were originally because the cost of everything has gone up.
You can argue it either way, they pay less tax so the effect of -marginally - rising prices is neutral, demand increases so economies of scale improve, volumes increase so distributors can make more money on thinner margins, skewing the labour market to many low paid jobs instead of a few high paid jobs helps, fewer people are on subsistence so they don't need to support each other, and their local economy improves - the difference between one or two people in a four person household working is immense.

Its much more complex than 'tax rich = bad'

Last edited by Dilbert_X (2011-04-21 16:29:45)

Fuck Israel
2011-04-21 16:41:32
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5632|London, England

Dilbert_X wrote:

Jay wrote:

It raises the cost of living for those that were directly above the poverty line, probably struggling, but getting by. You dump a whole new set of people into their income bracket and they suddenly become worse off than they were originally because the cost of everything has gone up.
You can argue it either way, they pay less tax so the effect of -marginally - rising prices is neutral, demand increases so economies of scale improve, volumes increase so distributors can make more money on thinner margins, skewing the labour market to many low paid jobs instead of a few high paid jobs helps, fewer people are on subsistence so they don't need to support each other, and their local economy improves - the difference between one or two people in a four person household working is immense.

Its much more complex than 'tax rich = bad'
I did say I was making a ridiculously simplified contrast.

Anyway, the primary difference between the two is sustainability. Because you keep forcing the poverty  line up, you constantly need to raise taxes to pay for new subsidies. On a long enough timeline you end up with a completely fucked up version of communism (or more precisely: slavery).
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
2011-04-21 17:41:49
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,816|6380|eXtreme to the maX
No you don't, as the standard of living improves fewer people are below the poverty line. They earn more, the economy expands, subisidies can be removed, everyone is better off.
I thought that was the basis of capitalism.

The problem is when people expect subsidies when they're out of poverty.

I don't understand why you're arguing this when you were happy to take a taxpayer funded govt job with cushy benefits when it suited you.
Fuck Israel
2011-04-21 19:58:25
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5632|London, England

Dilbert_X wrote:

No you don't, as the standard of living improves fewer people are below the poverty line. They earn more, the economy expands, subisidies can be removed, everyone is better off.
I thought that was the basis of capitalism.

The problem is when people expect subsidies when they're out of poverty.

I don't understand why you're arguing this when you were happy to take a taxpayer funded govt job with cushy benefits when it suited you.
That government job was just that, a job. It wasn't welfare. Don't try to paint me with the same brush as lowing. I think even the most staunch liberal can understand the necessity of having people serve in the national defense forces.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
2011-04-21 20:06:41
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,816|6380|eXtreme to the maX
National Defence or Foreign Attack?

The bottom line is your bloated military is just dole and pork-barreling by another name.
That you were happy to take the govt dollar speaks for itself, so much for you personal 'pride' eh?

Last edited by Dilbert_X (2011-04-21 20:07:19)

Fuck Israel
2011-04-21 20:08:47
Stingray24
Proud member of the vast right-wing conspiracy
+1,060|6719|The Land of Scott Walker

Dilbert_X wrote:

... subisidies can be removed ...
Will never happen once they are in place.  Just look at what happens when adjustments to Social Security are suggested.
2011-04-21 20:13:00
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5632|London, England

Dilbert_X wrote:

National Defence or Foreign Attack?

The bottom line is your bloated military is just dole and pork-barreling by another name.
That you were happy to take the govt dollar speaks for itself, so much for you personal 'pride' eh?
lol. whatever you say man.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
2011-04-21 20:27:56
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,816|6380|eXtreme to the maX
I don't get it, you and lowing wail about govt workers taking taxpayer dollars and cushy benefits yet you're both happy to do it yourselves.
Explain.
Fuck Israel
2011-04-21 20:34:29
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5632|London, England

Dilbert_X wrote:

I don't get it, you and lowing wail about govt workers taking taxpayer dollars and cushy benefits yet you're both happy to do it yourselves.
Explain.
So you don't think your country should be able to defend itself? Who should be asked to do it? If you're going to call volunteers freeloaders then surely you agree with a draft? I don't blame postal workers for performing the job they do even though they fall under the government. I don't fault garbage collectors or plowmen or the guy that makes sure the sewers are working properly. Same shit.

There's nothing wrong with serving in the military Dilbert. They all perform a necessary task.

I bitch about unionized government workers, not government workers in general. I don't believe that collective bargaining and government can mix. Apparently I'm not alone:

Franklin Delano Roosevelt wrote:

“All Government employees should realize that the process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service. It has its distinct and insurmountable limitations when applied to public personnel management. The very nature and purposes of Government make it impossible for administrative officials to represent fully or to bind the employer in mutual discussions with Government employee organizations. The employer is the whole people, who speak by means of laws enacted by their representatives in Congress.”
and again

Franklin Delano Roosevelt wrote:

“Since their own services have to do with the functioning of the Government, a strike of public employees manifests nothing less than an intent on their part to prevent or obstruct the operations of Government until their demands are satisfied. Such action, looking toward the paralysis of Government by those who have sworn to support it, is unthinkable and intolerable.”
And yes, I do believe that many government workers are overpaid for the tasks they perform because of it.

Last edited by Jay (2011-04-21 20:36:00)

"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
2011-04-21 20:49:59
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,816|6380|eXtreme to the maX
Re FDR, thats simply totalitarianism.

How else do you negotiate with the govt except through collective bargaining?
Fuck Israel
2011-04-21 20:56:24
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5632|London, England

Dilbert_X wrote:

Re FDR, thats simply totalitarianism.

How else do you negotiate with the govt except through collective bargaining?
Individual bargaining like you do in any non-union job? There were a lot of things I disliked about working for the government and the thing that irked me the most was the concept of pay scales that you find in any union environment. I'm sorry, but I want the ability to negotiate my own salary, not have it dictated to me by the amount of time that I have in service. I don't want my rank dictated by time in service either. Pay me based on the job I perform, not the insignia on my collar. I'd always been a hard worker but I just stopped trying or caring after I watched people pull in the same paycheck as me every two weeks while doing a fraction of the work.

I'm not anti-union because I read about it in a book. I'm anti-union because I experienced its soul crushing grip first hand. Anyone who would allow someone else to set his worth without his own input is less than human in my eyes. I will never submit to any job where a pay scale or collective bargaining is involved again.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
2011-04-21 21:23:26
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,816|6380|eXtreme to the maX
How would a govt dept, or any company, conduct individual negotiations with thousands or hundreds of thousands of individuals?
You want a ten minute coffee break, Joe wants fifteen, Sanchez wants an hour, Duwayne is going to call in sick anyway, repeat 100,000 times.
You want a 5% this year, Joe wants 6%, Sanchez wants 4% and an extra weeks leave, Duwayne is suing for harassment, repeat 100,000 times.

Any organisation with more than 100 or so employees has pay scales and promotion paths based in part on time of service, thats just the way it is. Other systems are open to abuse, nepotism and corruption and are a dog to administer.

I was in a union briefly, and it was shit, but they have their uses one of which is saving management time in negotiation.
Fuck Israel
2011-04-21 21:28:54
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5632|London, England

Dilbert_X wrote:

How would a govt dept, or any company, conduct individual negotiations with thousands or hundreds of thousands of individuals?
You want a ten minute coffee break, Joe wants fifteen, Sanchez wants an hour, Duwayne is going to call in sick anyway, repeat 100,000 times.
You want a 5% this year, Joe wants 6%, Sanchez wants 4% and an extra weeks leave, Duwayne is suing for harassment, repeat 100,000 times.

Any organisation with more than 100 or so employees has pay scales and promotion paths based in part on time of service, thats just the way it is. Other systems are open to abuse, nepotism and corruption and are a dog to administer.

I was in a union briefly, and it was shit, but they have their uses one of which is saving management time in negotiation.
No, they don't Dilbert. Maybe it works like that in Oz, but over here, people in a corporate environment negotiate with their boss. Even companies with tens of thousands of employees. Pay scales apply only to unions.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
2011-04-22 00:31:37
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6925|USA

Jay wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

No you don't, as the standard of living improves fewer people are below the poverty line. They earn more, the economy expands, subisidies can be removed, everyone is better off.
I thought that was the basis of capitalism.

The problem is when people expect subsidies when they're out of poverty.

I don't understand why you're arguing this when you were happy to take a taxpayer funded govt job with cushy benefits when it suited you.
That government job was just that, a job. It wasn't welfare. Don't try to paint me with the same brush as lowing. I think even the most staunch liberal can understand the necessity of having people serve in the national defense forces.
WHAT IS THIS!!?? gotta love a hypocrite.
http://forums.bf2s.com/viewtopic.php?pi … 3#p3489773

that whooshing noise you hear is Jay's credibility flying out the window with a rush of hypocrisy blowing in to fill the void.

Last edited by lowing (2011-04-22 02:21:27)

2011-04-22 00:35:57
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6925|USA

Dilbert_X wrote:

I don't get it, you and lowing wail about govt workers taking taxpayer dollars and cushy benefits yet you're both happy to do it yourselves.
Explain.
I never wailed about someone working for the govt. Dilbert. Not once. You and even Jay tried to paint anyone that did work for the govt. and collecting a paycheck for their efforts as being the exact same thing as someone not working at all and sucking up welfare. and here it comes to pass Jay worked for the govt.? No wonder you didn't want to answer if you have ever worked for a company that held govt. contracts, or worked for the govt. itself, when you tried to claim I was on welfare for working for a company that supported the govt.

Last edited by lowing (2011-04-22 01:05:15)

2011-04-22 03:57:42
13/f/taiwan
Member
+940|5973
So how about that Reagan fella?

Last edited by 13/f/taiwan (2011-04-22 03:57:59)

2011-04-22 04:17:08
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6925|USA

13/f/taiwan wrote:

So how about that Reagan fella?
I dunno I was waiting for someone to tell me something other than "he is shitty", as to why they think he sucked as a president.
2011-04-22 04:18:38
11 Bravo
Banned
+965|5511|Cleveland, Ohio
i am split on him tbh.  i think he once said you are poor because you want to be or something like that and that pissed me off.  but then again he fired all the air traffic controllers and that was cool.

 

Pages: 1 2 3 4

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard