Pages: 1 2 3

 

2008-06-13 19:58:07
FallenMorgan
Member
+53|5924|Glendale, CA
http://www.americanaatbrand.com/

Today I went to get a book on C++ with my dad.  We went to Barnes & Noble, somewhere, but it turned out that the store moved to the Americana at Brand.  We go in, and we were both brought face to face with absolutely sickening decadence.  The area with escalators has a little grand piano and fancy chairs for people to sit down in, the place had a little trolley type thing, it was annoying.  It made me want to take a can of spraypaint and spray communistic phrases and symbols in the parking garage.

It made me 50% more socialist.  Honestly, I don't mind if people use their personal money to buy a yacht or something, but when you spend, possibly, taxpayer money to create such a decadent vile place, it's sickening.  Sure, I like Paris Hilton, but other than her, I despise the upper class - I don't despise them specifically, but I despise upscale society.  I really do not like it.

Burbank and Glendale are becoming sort of like miniature Beverly Hills'.  Well...atleast they're not becoming like South-Central LA...but neither one of them is good.  I'd hope that La Crescenta doesn't suffer the same fate, being turned into a decadent rich fuckerville.

I wrote a blog about it.  By the way, I hope Joseph McCarthy is burning in hell right now.
2008-06-13 20:08:10
S.Lythberg
Mastermind
+429|6456|Chicago, IL
If I earn millions, i can spend it however the hell I want.

The waste of some people is absolutely staggering though, I can sympathize with both sides of this issue.  I've been on food stamps, and I've lived in a $700,000 house, so I've had experience on both sides as well.  The issue at hand is why some of our countries richest citizens feel the need to separate themselves from the very society that made them rich, and waste their money on goods that are priced absurdly high for only a small gain in quality.

As for the concept of socialism, My last paycheck had 23% of my gross pay taken for taxes, and seeing that is absolutely infuriating, I spent hours doing physical work in searing heat at minimum wage, and get my money sent to programs I will not benefit from and do not support...

Why don't you get off your high horse and get a job, and see how fun it is to have your wages garnished...

maybe then you will reconsider...
2008-06-13 20:15:35
FallenMorgan
Member
+53|5924|Glendale, CA

S.Lythberg wrote:

If I earn millions, i can spend it however the hell I want.

The waste of some people is absolutely staggering though, I can sympathize with both sides of this issue.  I've been on food stamps, and I've lived in a $700,000 house, so I've had experience on both sides as well.  The issue at hand is why some of our countries richest citizens feel the need to separate themselves from the very society that made them rich, and waste their money on goods that are priced absurdly high for only a small gain in quality.

As for the concept of socialism, My last paycheck had 23% of my gross pay taken for taxes, and seeing that is absolutely infuriating, I spent hours doing physical work in searing heat at minimum wage, and get my money sent to programs I will not benefit from and do not support...

Why don't you get off your high horse and get a job, and see how fun it is to have your wages garnished...

maybe then you will reconsider...
More taxes should be put on the rich, not those who have minimun wage, I mean, less.

Last edited by FallenMorgan (2008-06-13 20:18:03)

2008-06-13 20:17:42
ATG
Banned
+5,233|6539|Global Command

FallenMorgan wrote:

Here’s a good reason as to why upscale society makes me sick. In the middle of Glendale, on Brand Boulevard, there’s a big shopping plaza called the “Americana.”
As somebody living in the 7th largest economy in the world ( kalifornia ) you sound like a typical Nimby; you like the good economy, but dislike the decadent shopping centers.


FallenMorgan wrote:

It made me 50% more socialist.  Honestly, I don't mind if people use their personal money to buy a yacht or something, but when you spend, possibly, taxpayer money to create such a decadent vile place, it's sickening.  Sure, I like Paris Hilton, but other than her, I despise the upper class - I don't despise them specifically, but I despise upscale society.  I really do not like it.
It didn't make you anything. I peg you as somebody young, not from an affluent family ( by Glendale standards anyway ) who is jealous of those with money. You feel a anger you don't understand, and blame it on successful people and a evil capitalistic system. Provide one scintilla of evidence tax money built that shopping center, and I'll show you millions in sales tax, payroll tax, property tax, parking fines, business licenses.

FallenMorgan wrote:

I'd hope that La Crescenta doesn't suffer the same fate, being turned into a decadent rich fuckerville.
Despite the median home valley of La Crescenta it's basically a city of rundown 30 year old houses with a few McMansions thrown in, I wouldn't worry, now as for your blog;

FallenMorgan wrote:

Rent is $1000 or so dollars a month, and after bills and all that, our expenses are tight, but it’s not like we have to collect cans to pay for insulin or something.
Therein lies the seed of your anger. You're young and the budget is tight, spent your energy creating wealth and stop wasting energy writing about those that do. May I suggest that you learn from them?
2008-06-13 20:26:16
S.Lythberg
Mastermind
+429|6456|Chicago, IL

FallenMorgan wrote:

S.Lythberg wrote:

If I earn millions, i can spend it however the hell I want.

The waste of some people is absolutely staggering though, I can sympathize with both sides of this issue.  I've been on food stamps, and I've lived in a $700,000 house, so I've had experience on both sides as well.  The issue at hand is why some of our countries richest citizens feel the need to separate themselves from the very society that made them rich, and waste their money on goods that are priced absurdly high for only a small gain in quality.

As for the concept of socialism, My last paycheck had 23% of my gross pay taken for taxes, and seeing that is absolutely infuriating, I spent hours doing physical work in searing heat at minimum wage, and get my money sent to programs I will not benefit from and do not support...

Why don't you get off your high horse and get a job, and see how fun it is to have your wages garnished...

maybe then you will reconsider...
More taxes should be put on the rich, not those who have minimun wage, I mean, less.
why don't you try to get rich, rather then try to get their money?

it's not that hard...

There was a dateline special a few years back titled greed, that was centered on the rich, their money, and how they felt about the wealth dispairity.  I suggest you watch it, it explains a lot of the fallacies routinely propagated by socialist types.
2008-06-13 20:56:11
mikkel
Member
+383|6611

FallenMorgan wrote:

S.Lythberg wrote:

If I earn millions, i can spend it however the hell I want.

The waste of some people is absolutely staggering though, I can sympathize with both sides of this issue.  I've been on food stamps, and I've lived in a $700,000 house, so I've had experience on both sides as well.  The issue at hand is why some of our countries richest citizens feel the need to separate themselves from the very society that made them rich, and waste their money on goods that are priced absurdly high for only a small gain in quality.

As for the concept of socialism, My last paycheck had 23% of my gross pay taken for taxes, and seeing that is absolutely infuriating, I spent hours doing physical work in searing heat at minimum wage, and get my money sent to programs I will not benefit from and do not support...

Why don't you get off your high horse and get a job, and see how fun it is to have your wages garnished...

maybe then you will reconsider...
More taxes should be put on the rich, not those who have minimun wage, I mean, less.
Tell me, in a single paragraph, why the rich should be taxed more than the poor.
2008-06-13 21:02:55
SenorToenails
Veritas et Scientia
+444|6140|North Tonawanda, NY

FallenMorgan wrote:

More taxes should be put on the rich, not those who have minimun wage, I mean, less.
There are high taxes on the rich.  In fact, the bottom 50% of all those who pay taxes only comprise ~3% of all federal tax collected.

Raise the taxes indeed.    The top 1% of the country (income-wise) pays ~40% of all federal income tax collected.  The top 25% pays 85% of all federal income taxes.

Source.

Last edited by SenorToenails (2008-06-13 21:03:35)

2008-06-13 21:07:53
SpIk3y
Minister of Silly Walks
+67|6149|New Jersey
Many (not all) rich people worked their asses off to get to where they are.  They shouldn't be taxed extra simply because they are more successful than others.  They should be allowed to profit from their success however they see fit.
2008-06-13 21:09:37
FallenMorgan
Member
+53|5924|Glendale, CA

mikkel wrote:

FallenMorgan wrote:

S.Lythberg wrote:

If I earn millions, i can spend it however the hell I want.

The waste of some people is absolutely staggering though, I can sympathize with both sides of this issue.  I've been on food stamps, and I've lived in a $700,000 house, so I've had experience on both sides as well.  The issue at hand is why some of our countries richest citizens feel the need to separate themselves from the very society that made them rich, and waste their money on goods that are priced absurdly high for only a small gain in quality.

As for the concept of socialism, My last paycheck had 23% of my gross pay taken for taxes, and seeing that is absolutely infuriating, I spent hours doing physical work in searing heat at minimum wage, and get my money sent to programs I will not benefit from and do not support...

Why don't you get off your high horse and get a job, and see how fun it is to have your wages garnished...

maybe then you will reconsider...
More taxes should be put on the rich, not those who have minimun wage, I mean, less.
Tell me, in a single paragraph, why the rich should be taxed more than the poor.
Because they can afford to pay them.  I'm not saying make the rich pay for everything, I'm saying make taxes higher for the rich and lower for the poor.  In order to agree you have to look at it from the perspective of someone who doesn't have all their crap.
2008-06-13 21:11:55
S.Lythberg
Mastermind
+429|6456|Chicago, IL

FallenMorgan wrote:

mikkel wrote:

FallenMorgan wrote:

More taxes should be put on the rich, not those who have minimun wage, I mean, less.
Tell me, in a single paragraph, why the rich should be taxed more than the poor.
Because they can afford to pay them.  I'm not saying make the rich pay for everything, I'm saying make taxes higher for the rich and lower for the poor.  In order to agree you have to look at it from the perspective of someone who doesn't have all their crap.
In case you missed my previous post, my family has been on food stamps in the past...

They (usually) put in decades of education and decades of hard work to get that money, what gives you the right to take it and give it so some dumb fuck who couldn't finish high school?

Last edited by S.Lythberg (2008-06-13 21:12:14)

2008-06-13 21:15:24
(T)eflon(S)hadow
R.I.P. Neda
+456|6839|Grapevine, TX

ATG wrote:

FallenMorgan wrote:

Here’s a good reason as to why upscale society makes me sick. In the middle of Glendale, on Brand Boulevard, there’s a big shopping plaza called the “Americana.”
As somebody living in the 7th largest economy in the world ( kalifornia ) you sound like a typical Nimby; you like the good economy, but dislike the decadent shopping centers.


FallenMorgan wrote:

It made me 50% more socialist.  Honestly, I don't mind if people use their personal money to buy a yacht or something, but when you spend, possibly, taxpayer money to create such a decadent vile place, it's sickening.  Sure, I like Paris Hilton, but other than her, I despise the upper class - I don't despise them specifically, but I despise upscale society.  I really do not like it.
It didn't make you anything. I peg you as somebody young, not from an affluent family ( by Glendale standards anyway ) who is jealous of those with money. You feel a anger you don't understand, and blame it on successful people and a evil capitalistic system. Provide one scintilla of evidence tax money built that shopping center, and I'll show you millions in sales tax, payroll tax, property tax, parking fines, business licenses.

FallenMorgan wrote:

I'd hope that La Crescenta doesn't suffer the same fate, being turned into a decadent rich fuckerville.
Despite the median home valley of La Crescenta it's basically a city of rundown 30 year old houses with a few McMansions thrown in, I wouldn't worry, now as for your blog;

FallenMorgan wrote:

Rent is $1000 or so dollars a month, and after bills and all that, our expenses are tight, but it’s not like we have to collect cans to pay for insulin or something.
Therein lies the seed of your anger. You're young and the budget is tight, spent your energy creating wealth and stop wasting energy writing about those that do. May I suggest that you learn from them?
+1 nice reply... Listen to this man FallenMorgan. These are some words you migh want to reply too...  like you're Blog.
2008-06-13 21:22:57
SenorToenails
Veritas et Scientia
+444|6140|North Tonawanda, NY

FallenMorgan wrote:

Because they can afford to pay them.  I'm not saying make the rich pay for everything, I'm saying make taxes higher for the rich and lower for the poor.
The 'rich' do pay a LOT more than the poor.  There are quite a few poor people who don't pay taxes.

FallenMorgan wrote:

In order to agree you have to look at it from the perspective of someone who doesn't have all their crap.
Or look at it from the perspective of those who earned their fortunes.  That goes both ways, champ.
2008-06-13 21:59:54
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6415|North Carolina

FallenMorgan wrote:

http://www.americanaatbrand.com/

Today I went to get a book on C++ with my dad.  We went to Barnes & Noble, somewhere, but it turned out that the store moved to the Americana at Brand.  We go in, and we were both brought face to face with absolutely sickening decadence.  The area with escalators has a little grand piano and fancy chairs for people to sit down in, the place had a little trolley type thing, it was annoying.  It made me want to take a can of spraypaint and spray communistic phrases and symbols in the parking garage.

It made me 50% more socialist.  Honestly, I don't mind if people use their personal money to buy a yacht or something, but when you spend, possibly, taxpayer money to create such a decadent vile place, it's sickening.  Sure, I like Paris Hilton, but other than her, I despise the upper class - I don't despise them specifically, but I despise upscale society.  I really do not like it.

Burbank and Glendale are becoming sort of like miniature Beverly Hills'.  Well...atleast they're not becoming like South-Central LA...but neither one of them is good.  I'd hope that La Crescenta doesn't suffer the same fate, being turned into a decadent rich fuckerville.

I wrote a blog about it.  By the way, I hope Joseph McCarthy is burning in hell right now.
Let me get this straight.  A few weeks ago, you said you were Libertarian.  That's about as capitalistic as you can get.

You're also a fan of Paris Hilton.  Paris is kind of like a summer breeze -- warm and moist on everyone, but I digress....

The point is, it would appear that you're surrounded by materialism at its height -- I mean, hell, you're in California for fuck sake.  Materialism can be sickening, but I'm not sure why it bothers you to the extent that it does.  I'd rather rich people buy shit than spend their time fucking with the rest of us (like they often do through politics).
2008-06-13 22:06:20
argo4
Stand and Deliver
+86|5943|United States

pierro wrote:

mikkel wrote:

Tell me, in a single paragraph, why the rich should be taxed more than the poor.
-The marginal utility of money is inversely proportional to how much money you already have…so you should move the resource to where it would be most allocatively efficient…here’s what I mean…

There are two things you can do with money…spend it or save it:

- In terms of saving it someone on welfare or someone like me is on par with Bill Gates or Warren Buffet because although Gates and Buffet are masters of investment all I’d need to do is drop the money into my local bank and it will be given to people just as smart as them to invest. Thus at an investment level it is equal

-In terms of spending…how much of a difference would it be to give ten thousand dollars of spending money to Bill Gates or to Fallenmorgan? Bill Gates wouldn’t care Fallenmorgan would be ecstatic...so obviously in terms of spending its utility is far greater for the poor.
So overall its better to give money to the poor than the rich because when it comes to savings they are on par and when it comes to spending its utility is far greater for the poor. When you tax less on the poor and more on the rich you are doing the equivalent.


-If that argument is as clear as it could be, try looking at it like this…imagine I gave you the choice between a 100% chance at 10 million or a 50% change at 100 million…which would you take? If you’re the normal American citizen i.e. no chance at making millions you would choose the first whereas if you have a couple of million you would choose the second. What this illustrates is that your first 10 million is more valuable than the subsequent 90 million…thus proving the above thesis

Of course the above is more of a theoretical reasoning for a progressive taxation system…taking it too far and socializing too much leads to a lack of incentives and a stifling of investment and is therefore unsustainable (see France). In short, a balance should be struck between making the median citizen better off (giving more to the poor) and making it sustainable (giving incentives to investors and entrepreneurs). Even if others can obscenely large slices of the pie…the pie is getting bigger and it is to the benefit of all (if done right)…personally I think the fact that economists are arguing over whether the median American citizen is better off now than they were in the 70s is indicative of the fact that America is not perfectly balanced and should move to share the wealth slightly more equitably.
you are a  college professor aren't you? That's some really good analysis
2008-06-13 22:09:07
SenorToenails
Veritas et Scientia
+444|6140|North Tonawanda, NY

pierro wrote:

mikkel wrote:

Tell me, in a single paragraph, why the rich should be taxed more than the poor.
-The marginal utility of money is inversely proportional to how much money you already have…so you should move the resource to where it would be most allocatively efficient…here’s what I mean…

There are two things you can do with money…spend it or save it:

- In terms of saving it someone on welfare or someone like me is on par with Bill Gates or Warren Buffet because although Gates and Buffet are masters of investment all I’d need to do is drop the money into my local bank and it will be given to people just as smart as them to invest. Thus at an investment level it is equal

-In terms of spending…how much of a difference would it be to give ten thousand dollars of spending money to Bill Gates or to Fallenmorgan? Bill Gates wouldn’t care Fallenmorgan would be ecstatic...so obviously in terms of spending its utility is far greater for the poor.
So overall its better to give money to the poor than the rich because when it comes to savings they are on par and when it comes to spending its utility is far greater for the poor. When you tax less on the poor and more on the rich you are doing the equivalent.


-If that argument is as clear as it could be, try looking at it like this…imagine I gave you the choice between a 100% chance at 10 million or a 50% change at 100 million…which would you take? If you’re the normal American citizen i.e. no chance at making millions you would choose the first whereas if you have a couple of million you would choose the second. What this illustrates is that your first 10 million is more valuable than the subsequent 90 million…thus proving the above thesis

Of course the above is more of a theoretical reasoning for a progressive taxation system…taking it too far and socializing too much leads to a lack of incentives and a stifling of investment and is therefore unsustainable (see France). In short, a balance should be struck between making the median citizen better off (giving more to the poor) and making it sustainable (giving incentives to investors and entrepreneurs). Even if others can obscenely large slices of the pie…the pie is getting bigger and it is to the benefit of all (if done right)…personally I think the fact that economists are arguing over whether the median American citizen is better off now than they were in the 70s is indicative of the fact that America is not perfectly balanced and should move to share the wealth slightly more equitably.
It's obvious that large sums of money mean more to people who have very little compared to those who have a lot, but that doesn't justify taking money from those who earned it and giving it to those who didn't.

Where is the incentive to create something new and earn your own fortune when someone else can do it, and you profit from them?  Redistributing wealth based on 'well, they have less' is a pretty terrible idea.
2008-06-13 22:11:53
HurricaИe
Banned
+877|5971|Washington DC
I'd rather live in a rich upscale area than in some shitty ghetto area.
2008-06-13 22:17:39
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6415|North Carolina

SenorToenails wrote:

It's obvious that large sums of money mean more to people who have very little compared to those who have a lot, but that doesn't justify taking money from those who earned it and giving it to those who didn't.

Where is the incentive to create something new and earn your own fortune when someone else can do it, and you profit from them?  Redistributing wealth based on 'well, they have less' is a pretty terrible idea.
I can see where you're coming from, but there are obviously still incentives to gain wealth.  For example, the top tax rate in 1980 was 70%.  That's pretty excessive, but that didn't stop people from innovating.

EDIT: Also, the more money you have, the more ways you have to avoid taxes (deductions and such).

Last edited by Turquoise (2008-06-13 22:18:49)

2008-06-13 22:22:07
SenorToenails
Veritas et Scientia
+444|6140|North Tonawanda, NY

Turquoise wrote:

I can see where you're coming from, but there are obviously still incentives to gain wealth.  For example, the top tax rate in 1980 was 70%.  That's pretty excessive, but that didn't stop people from innovating.
And the lower tax bracket was probably still next to nothing...so that changes nothing in his scenario.  The point is, the poor don't pay the bulk of taxes...which is what Morgan seems to think (or something).

That post was a response to pierro who suggested redistributing wealth somewhat.  In 1980, they didn't tax the rich 70% and give it to the poor.

Turquoise wrote:

EDIT: Also, the more money you have, the more ways you have to avoid taxes (deductions and such).
And you still pay more than the poor people.  See my post earlier in the thread.
2008-06-13 22:22:26
mikkel
Member
+383|6611

FallenMorgan wrote:

mikkel wrote:

FallenMorgan wrote:

More taxes should be put on the rich, not those who have minimun wage, I mean, less.
Tell me, in a single paragraph, why the rich should be taxed more than the poor.
Because they can afford to pay them.  I'm not saying make the rich pay for everything, I'm saying make taxes higher for the rich and lower for the poor.  In order to agree you have to look at it from the perspective of someone who doesn't have all their crap.
Because they can afford to pay them? You're seriously supporting the idea of forced appropriation of assets because the owner can cope with the loss? I'm sure there are a lot of things that you could do without, too. Would it be okay for the government to take that away from you simply because it's a luxury?

What lands in my account every month is 49% of what I make before taxes. Know what that's used to fund? The people on perpetual welfare destroying themselves with cheap alcohol on a square near where I live. I cringe whenever the thought occurs to me. Don't tell me it's fine that I'm forced to support that sort of bullshit.

If you're opposed to massive accumulation of wealth, then why are you advocating federally administered punishment of success? Socialism is not the answer to capitalism gone wrong.

pierro wrote:

mikkel wrote:

Tell me, in a single paragraph, why the rich should be taxed more than the poor.
-The marginal utility of money is inversely proportional to how much money you already have…so you should move the resource to where it would be most allocatively efficient
I, for one, do not welcome our communistic overlords. Last time I checked, we were still human beings - not machines. We need something to strive for. You can't stive for having the rewards of your success given to someone who just didn't feel like putting in the same kind of effort that you did.

Last edited by mikkel (2008-06-13 22:27:17)

2008-06-13 22:30:09
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6415|North Carolina

SenorToenails wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

I can see where you're coming from, but there are obviously still incentives to gain wealth.  For example, the top tax rate in 1980 was 70%.  That's pretty excessive, but that didn't stop people from innovating.
And the lower tax bracket was probably still next to nothing...so that changes nothing in his scenario.  The point is, the poor don't pay the bulk of taxes...which is what Morgan seems to think (or something).

That post was a response to pierro who suggested redistributing wealth somewhat.  In 1980, they didn't tax the rich 70% and give it to the poor.
Considering how much of the budget was spent on Social Security, you really could say that it was actually.

I'm not a big fan of SS or welfare though, so I know where you're coming from.
2008-06-13 22:31:39
S.Lythberg
Mastermind
+429|6456|Chicago, IL
the money that comes out of my pay goes towards a free lunch that poorer students throw away because the food is not up to their standards (I have personally observed this, I'm not generalizing).

A rich man can do more for the economy and the poor by keeping, and investing, his money than the poor men could ever do spending it on cheap commodities and a wasteful lifestyle.
2008-06-13 22:32:27
SenorToenails
Veritas et Scientia
+444|6140|North Tonawanda, NY

Turquoise wrote:

Considering how much of the budget was spent on Social Security, you really could say that it was actually.
Shit.  I guess I didn't consider that.  It's unfortunate, really.

Turquoise wrote:

I'm not a big fan of SS or welfare though, so I know where you're coming from.
We have something in common!  Screw SS and welfare.
2008-06-13 22:34:30
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6415|North Carolina

SenorToenails wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Considering how much of the budget was spent on Social Security, you really could say that it was actually.
Shit.  I guess I didn't consider that.  It's unfortunate, really.

Turquoise wrote:

I'm not a big fan of SS or welfare though, so I know where you're coming from.
We have something in common!  Screw SS and welfare.
I've recently decided that we should replace welfare and SS with socialized medicine.  It would simplify things.  We could also abolish the income tax and replace it with the fair tax.  We just need to cut a lot of other things out of the budget.
2008-06-13 22:54:20
SenorToenails
Veritas et Scientia
+444|6140|North Tonawanda, NY

pierro wrote:

-While I agree with you (partly) in spirit…things wouldn’t end well if you chose not to redistribute wealth in some forms. The best example I can give for that is the public school system. If there were no wealth redistribution, a large percentage of children would not be able to afford primary or secondary schools. Even if they could, their quality of education would be abysmal. I do not think I have to explain the host of negatives that would accompany this.
I suppose I don't look at the public school system as redistribution of wealth, as it is not taking money from the rich and giving it to the poor.  It merely taxes to fund a public service, which I don't see as much different from building roads and managing air traffic.

Do you consider every service the government provides as a redistribution of wealth?
2008-06-13 23:08:20
FallenMorgan
Member
+53|5924|Glendale, CA
I don't support redistribution of wealth in a pure communistic form.  The Republicans and others would like to give the rich tax cuts and the like.

 

Pages: 1 2 3

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2024 Jeff Minard