the top 20% of Americans control over 80% of the wealth. The botton 80%(losers/underachievers) jerk each other off for the remaining scraps. And the gap is widening. the only people building wealth are already loaded. and what does lowing think happens to all this entitlement cash? it gets pumped back into the economy and funnelled back into the pockets of the top 20%. poor people aren't climbing the social ladder with their social security and disability checks.
then I suggest the poor people get off their ass and do something other than wait for Obama to send the checks.Reciprocity wrote:
the top 20% of Americans control over 80% of the wealth. The botton 80%(losers/underachievers) jerk each other off for the remaining scraps. And the gap is widening. the only people building wealth are already loaded. and what does lowing think happens to all this entitlement cash? it gets pumped back into the economy and funnelled back into the pockets of the top 20%. poor people aren't climbing the social ladder with their social security and disability checks.
Or wait for their union to negotiate their worth straight out of the market and forcing companies to seek employee elsewhere.
Last edited by lowing (2009-09-30 19:57:22)
I lol'd.
So because my parents are wealthy, I'm wealthy too? Bullshit. If I make it into the "top 20%", it's because I earned it. You slacked off during highschool and never made it to college? That's your fault.
And please, don't tell me how 80% of the population can't afford to go to college. The community college here is piss cheap and gives a great stepping stone into a real university. Student loans, govmt loans, scholarships, FASFA, "equal opportunities"... there's so much aide available, it's nuts.
So because my parents are wealthy, I'm wealthy too? Bullshit. If I make it into the "top 20%", it's because I earned it. You slacked off during highschool and never made it to college? That's your fault.
And please, don't tell me how 80% of the population can't afford to go to college. The community college here is piss cheap and gives a great stepping stone into a real university. Student loans, govmt loans, scholarships, FASFA, "equal opportunities"... there's so much aide available, it's nuts.
I didn't mean that in a literal sense. I meant that 47% of the nation using the roads, being rewarded with a strong national defense, justice system etc and not paying a dime for it is ridiculous. How a progressive tax system could ever be considered 'fair' boggles my mind. To me 'fair' means everyone is treated equal and a flat tax fits that definition for me.Dilbert_X wrote:
Thats not the same as a flat tax, thats paying for what you use, which benefits the rich and loads the poor much more in fact.You live in this country? Pay your share.
"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
-Frederick Bastiat
No. The top 20% earn 52.4% of the income and pay 82.5% of the total taxes. Check my chart on the first page.Reciprocity wrote:
the top 20% of Americans control over 80% of the wealth. The botton 80%(losers/underachievers) jerk each other off for the remaining scraps. And the gap is widening. the only people building wealth are already loaded. and what does lowing think happens to all this entitlement cash? it gets pumped back into the economy and funnelled back into the pockets of the top 20%. poor people aren't climbing the social ladder with their social security and disability checks.
Last edited by JohnG@lt (2009-09-30 19:59:13)
"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
-Frederick Bastiat
like they waited for Jr. and Sr. bush to send checks, and ronald reagan, and gerald ford, and nixon and eisenhower? I'm so glad you've finally figured out the problem and found the solution.lowing wrote:
then I suggest the poor people get off their ass and do something other than wait for Obama to send the checks.Reciprocity wrote:
the top 20% of Americans control over 80% of the wealth. The botton 80%(losers/underachievers) jerk each other off for the remaining scraps. And the gap is widening. the only people building wealth are already loaded. and what does lowing think happens to all this entitlement cash? it gets pumped back into the economy and funnelled back into the pockets of the top 20%. poor people aren't climbing the social ladder with their social security and disability checks.
Well, I am not rich and I still say, keep your money and go build us a company to work for.Bevo wrote:
I lol'd.
So because my parents are wealthy, I'm wealthy too? Bullshit. If I make it into the "top 20%", it's because I earned it. You slacked off during highschool and never made it to college? That's your fault.
And please, don't tell me how 80% of the population can't afford to go to college. The community college here is piss cheap and gives a great stepping stone into a real university. Student loans, govmt loans, scholarships, FASFA, "equal opportunities"... there's so much aide available, it's nuts.
I dont give a fuck about your chart. And I'm not talking about just annual income. I'm talking about controlled wealth.JohnG@lt wrote:
No. The top 20% earn 52.4% of the income and pay 82.5% of the total taxes. Check my chart on the first page.Reciprocity wrote:
the top 20% of Americans control over 80% of the wealth. The botton 80%(losers/underachievers) jerk each other off for the remaining scraps. And the gap is widening. the only people building wealth are already loaded. and what does lowing think happens to all this entitlement cash? it gets pumped back into the economy and funnelled back into the pockets of the top 20%. poor people aren't climbing the social ladder with their social security and disability checks.
Yes Reciprocity there were lazy fuckers who were "entitled" during all those eras as well.Reciprocity wrote:
like they waited for Jr. and Sr. bush to send checks, and ronald reagan, and gerald ford, and nixon and eisenhower? I'm so glad you've finally figured out the problem and found the solution.lowing wrote:
then I suggest the poor people get off their ass and do something other than wait for Obama to send the checks.Reciprocity wrote:
the top 20% of Americans control over 80% of the wealth. The botton 80%(losers/underachievers) jerk each other off for the remaining scraps. And the gap is widening. the only people building wealth are already loaded. and what does lowing think happens to all this entitlement cash? it gets pumped back into the economy and funnelled back into the pockets of the top 20%. poor people aren't climbing the social ladder with their social security and disability checks.
So what's a fair tax rate in your eyes? Who should pay taxes and how should it be distributed?Reciprocity wrote:
I dont give a fuck about your chart. And I'm not talking about just annual income. I'm talking about controlled wealth.JohnG@lt wrote:
No. The top 20% earn 52.4% of the income and pay 82.5% of the total taxes. Check my chart on the first page.Reciprocity wrote:
the top 20% of Americans control over 80% of the wealth. The botton 80%(losers/underachievers) jerk each other off for the remaining scraps. And the gap is widening. the only people building wealth are already loaded. and what does lowing think happens to all this entitlement cash? it gets pumped back into the economy and funnelled back into the pockets of the top 20%. poor people aren't climbing the social ladder with their social security and disability checks.
"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
-Frederick Bastiat
Who exactly, other than the earners, do suggest control their wealth? Let me guess, govt. right?Reciprocity wrote:
I dont give a fuck about your chart. And I'm not talking about just annual income. I'm talking about controlled wealth.JohnG@lt wrote:
No. The top 20% earn 52.4% of the income and pay 82.5% of the total taxes. Check my chart on the first page.Reciprocity wrote:
the top 20% of Americans control over 80% of the wealth. The botton 80%(losers/underachievers) jerk each other off for the remaining scraps. And the gap is widening. the only people building wealth are already loaded. and what does lowing think happens to all this entitlement cash? it gets pumped back into the economy and funnelled back into the pockets of the top 20%. poor people aren't climbing the social ladder with their social security and disability checks.
But according to lowing 'fairness' shouldn't be part of the argument.To me 'fair' means everyone is treated equal and a flat tax fits that definition for me.
I don't see how a flat tax is any 'fairer' than a sliding scale, the rich still pay more tax than the poor.
The poor still pay less than their share for the services they use, the rich still pay more than the poor for services they probably don't use at all.
How about everyone just pays $20,000 a year to live in the US?
Or pay for the services you use, and a fixed sum for the army, police, govt etc.
Can't pay GTFO?
Last edited by Dilbert_X (2009-09-30 20:10:56)
Fuck Israel
There is a cool movie by Aaron Ruso about taxes
watch here
watch here
It's fairer because the proportion remains the same. I can live with my taxes going up if I know that it is hitting everyone equally. This will make my government think twice about increasing spending. When you can just pile on tax after tax onto 1% of the population there are almost no repercussions because they don't have the numbers to vote you out of office.Dilbert_X wrote:
But according to lowing 'fairness' shouldn't be part of the argument.To me 'fair' means everyone is treated equal and a flat tax fits that definition for me.
I don't see how a flat tax is any 'fairer' than a sliding scale, the rich still pay more tax than the poor.
The poor still pay less than their share for the services they use, the rich still pay more than the poor for services they probably don't use at all.
How about everyone just pays $20,000 a year to live in the US?
Or pay for the services you use, and a fixed sum for the army, police, govt etc.
Can't pay GTFO?
"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
-Frederick Bastiat
I will be. I'm majoring in engineering and I'll probably be getting a graduate degree in business. I don't want to work for anybody but me.lowing wrote:
Well, I am not rich and I still say, keep your money and go build us a company to work for.
I agree its fairer, and probably the least bad system, but fair it isn't.It's fairer because the proportion remains the same.
Personally I think taxes should be loaded on individuals and consumption, corporations less so.
People don't really need to be super-rich, but we do need companies to drive the economy.
If people want to keep their money they can plow it back into their companies, rather than just hoard it.
Last edited by Dilbert_X (2009-09-30 20:25:30)
Fuck Israel
Good plan, working for others leaves you jaded and bitter, like meI will be. I'm majoring in engineering and I'll probably be getting a graduate degree in business. I don't want to work for anybody but me.
Fuck Israel
I'm not suggesting any control of wealth. taxes could theoretically control wealth, but they don't. and I don't think they need to. when 20% of the population owns 80+% of the United States maybe they should be paying 80% of the taxes. Our military is defending more of their shit than mine or yours. Of course, that doesn't cover social programs, but the people who use social programs usually have no money anyways, and like I said before, all that money is pumped back into the economy anyways. It's all a big cycle, and the cycle doesn't hurt the wealthy.lowing wrote:
Who exactly, other than the earners, do suggest control their wealth? Let me guess, govt. right?
It's not like they keep it in a vault like Scrooge McDuck Whether it's in a bank, in a mutual fund, in stock or being dumped into a hole in the water otherwise known as a yacht, the money is not sitting idle collecting dust. Sure, they're profiting off of these things but they're also putting it in places where other people can use it. They also happen to be the biggest philanthropists in the world and many universities, opera houses and other cultural items would not exist without their donations. Sure, the disparity is on the ridiculous side but just be happy in the knowledge that their offspring will more than likely piss away everything in a few generations if that's your thing.Dilbert_X wrote:
I agree its fairer, and probably the least bad system, but fair it isn't.It's fairer because the proportion remains the same.
Personally I think taxes should be loaded on individuals and consumption, corporations less so.
People don't really need to be super-rich, but we do need companies to drive the economy.
If people want to keep their money they can plow it back into their companies.
I envy the rich. It's normal. But instead of trying to pull them down to my level like so many others do, I strive to reach that level on my own merits. To punish success in the way that a graduated income tax does goes against everything I've built my life upon.
"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
-Frederick Bastiat
Remind me never to get between you and a buffet line. Wow.Reciprocity wrote:
I'm not suggesting any control of wealth. taxes could theoretically control wealth, but they don't. and I don't think they need to. when 20% of the population owns 80+% of the United States maybe they should be paying 80% of the taxes. Our military is defending more of their shit than mine or yours. Of course, that doesn't cover social programs, but the people who use social programs usually have no money anyways, and like I said before, all that money is pumped back into the economy anyways. It's all a big cycle, and the cycle doesn't hurt the wealthy.lowing wrote:
Who exactly, other than the earners, do suggest control their wealth? Let me guess, govt. right?
"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
-Frederick Bastiat
Basically, this is the argument against the flat tax
I see nothingPug wrote:
Basically, this is the argument against the flat tax
"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
-Frederick Bastiat
If you lower taxes on the rich, then it has to be made up elsewhere. So the middle to low income earners are now taxed a greater proportion of their earnings.
That money they are now losing to tax dollars, is what used to be going to the rich, through the consumption of goods, and the use of services owned by the rich. And additionally lost through investment into those companies owned by the rich that the lower income earners would have been spending. Retirement funds, shares, etc
Some of you here are only seeing the single side of the argument that taking more from the rich is less job opportunity for the poor. It works both ways. Take more from the poor and the rich lose a significant amount of earning potential.
That money they are now losing to tax dollars, is what used to be going to the rich, through the consumption of goods, and the use of services owned by the rich. And additionally lost through investment into those companies owned by the rich that the lower income earners would have been spending. Retirement funds, shares, etc
Some of you here are only seeing the single side of the argument that taking more from the rich is less job opportunity for the poor. It works both ways. Take more from the poor and the rich lose a significant amount of earning potential.
Last edited by AussieReaper (2009-09-30 20:38:43)
directed at the OP, in case i'm confused per normal
Dammit, I agree with this.Dilbert_X wrote:
I agree its fairer, and probably the least bad system, but fair it isn't.It's fairer because the proportion remains the same.
Personally I think taxes should be loaded on individuals and consumption, corporations less so.
People don't really need to be super-rich, but we do need companies to drive the economy.
If people want to keep their money they can plow it back into their companies, rather than just hoard it.
I would think this would promote re-investment very well. I still believe the tax curve should be much more flat than it is. I will gladly pay more for that. Ideally, for me at least, I would rather see a drastic reduction of social services and flat/flatter tax rate. At least at the federal level. Let the states pick up the slack if there is any on the social side of things.
"The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation" - Barack Obama (a freshman senator from Illinios)