All "who the hell are you"s aside, I came across this article and thought it would make for a great discussion here.
Why we should help the rich
I figured I'd see an article like this on FoxNews. I'd love for the political heavys to weigh in. If anything it'll probably make for a good gbaji vs everyone thread.
Edited for Fail
Edited, Jan 23rd 2009 11:28am by JimmyJames
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- Trickle Down?
Trickle Down?Follow
Very interesting. You rarely see articles written in invisible ink anymore.
Or at all, really.
Or at all, really.
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.
One of the most promising debuts in a long time 
"I started out with nothin' and I still got most of it left" - Seasick Steve
That article was full of lies and slander. My retort:
QED
QED
Samira wrote:
Very interesting. You rarely see articles written in invisible ink anymore.
Or at all, really.
Or at all, really.
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
I thoroughly enjoyed reading that. Thank you for sharing.
lolforumfail
Since my link failed so miserably, the article is called "Why we should help the rich" and is located on money.cnn.com...
Since my link failed so miserably, the article is called "Why we should help the rich" and is located on money.cnn.com...
This thread has promise.
Last!
Last!
What's bred in the bone will not out of the flesh.
JimmyJames wrote:
All "who the hell are you"s aside, I came across this article and thought it would make for a great discussion here.
If you want a discussion then start one, dubmass. What are your views and opinions on the subject? Don't just throw a subject in the air and say 'discuss' because that's ***** stupid. Don't be a weenie, take a stand.
I'm not going to bother starting any kind of discussion about this as threads like that became far less entertaining after Virus got banned...I wish I hadn't helped petition for that...
Edited, Jan 23rd 2009 4:11pm by Driftwood
Edited, Jan 23rd 2009 4:11pm by Driftwood
10k before the site's inevitable death or bust
The World Is Not A Cold Dead Place.
The World Is Not A Cold Dead Place.
Alan Watts wrote:
I am omnipotent insofar as I am the Universe, but I am not an omnipotent in the role of Alan Watts, only cunning
Eske wrote:
I've always read Driftwood as the straight man in varus' double act. It helps if you read all of his posts in the voice of Droopy Dog.
Driftwood the Eccentric wrote:
I'm not going to bother starting any kind of discussion about this as threads like that became far less entertaining after Virus got banned...I wish I hadn't helped petition for that...
Edited, Jan 23rd 2009 4:11pm by Driftwood
Edited, Jan 23rd 2009 4:11pm by Driftwood
This is exactly the wrong attitude. You should be helping nurture the next Virus.
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.
Statistically, the writer is totally wrong. There is no correlation between the highest tax bracket and per capita GDP growth since the end of world war II. (Exact correlation coefficient is 0.07).
http://money.cnn.com/2009/01/20/news/economy/colvin_plutocratism.fortune/index.htm
It's from Fortune magazine.
It's written by this Jackass:
http://geoffcolvin.com/bio/
Who, incidentally, isn't an economist, he's GOP hack. The article is full of ******** suppositions that can be best called popular myths and worst called propaganda. The target audience of the article isn't anyone who has even a shred of understanding of the economic issues in play, the target audience of the article are idiots who believe things like tax cuts for the wealthy benefit the broad economy, regardless of the fact that it's been shown over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over that what tax cuts for the wealthy do is benefit the wealthy and increase the income gap between rich and poor.
There is nothing at all of interest offered in the article as the entire premise is build from the baldfaced lie that "Large corporations and the wealthy create jobs". They don't. The middle class spending money creates jobs. Demand drives the economy, not supply. Continuing to pretend the opposite is the case because you can convince people who don't understand the math is a giant waste of everyone's time.
Try again.
It's from Fortune magazine.
It's written by this Jackass:
http://geoffcolvin.com/bio/
Who, incidentally, isn't an economist, he's GOP hack. The article is full of ******** suppositions that can be best called popular myths and worst called propaganda. The target audience of the article isn't anyone who has even a shred of understanding of the economic issues in play, the target audience of the article are idiots who believe things like tax cuts for the wealthy benefit the broad economy, regardless of the fact that it's been shown over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over that what tax cuts for the wealthy do is benefit the wealthy and increase the income gap between rich and poor.
There is nothing at all of interest offered in the article as the entire premise is build from the baldfaced lie that "Large corporations and the wealthy create jobs". They don't. The middle class spending money creates jobs. Demand drives the economy, not supply. Continuing to pretend the opposite is the case because you can convince people who don't understand the math is a giant waste of everyone's time.
Try again.
Disclaimer:
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
I don't want tax cuts for the wealthy as far as rates go. But I wouldn't mind a CAP being put on the amount of tax paid by any individual in any one tax-year. A LARGE cap. But a cap none-the-less. A number at which we say: Thank you very much for contributing to your country, we don't need any more money from you this year.
Maybe $5 million. Or $10 million. Or $50 million. Treasury would be best at setting the amount, as they'd know what the country can afford, and what the super-rich are actually really paying as it is. I think the best feature of a tax cap would be that the super-rich might find it easier just to pay that capped amount, and not feel like they have to squirrel all they money away in tax avoidance schemes so that they don't lose all their hard earned money.
Maybe $5 million. Or $10 million. Or $50 million. Treasury would be best at setting the amount, as they'd know what the country can afford, and what the super-rich are actually really paying as it is. I think the best feature of a tax cap would be that the super-rich might find it easier just to pay that capped amount, and not feel like they have to squirrel all they money away in tax avoidance schemes so that they don't lose all their hard earned money.
Aripyanfar wrote:
I don't want tax cuts for the wealthy as far as rates go. But I wouldn't mind a CAP being put on the amount of tax paid by any individual in any one tax-year. A LARGE cap. But a cap none-the-less. A number at which we say: Thank you very much for contributing to your country, we don't need any more money from you this year.
Maybe $5 million. Or $10 million. Or $50 million. Treasury would be best at setting the amount, as they'd know what the country can afford, and what the super-rich are actually really paying as it is. I think the best feature of a tax cap would be that the super-rich might find it easier just to pay that capped amount, and not feel like they have to squirrel all they money away in tax avoidance schemes so that they don't lose all their hard earned money.
Maybe $5 million. Or $10 million. Or $50 million. Treasury would be best at setting the amount, as they'd know what the country can afford, and what the super-rich are actually really paying as it is. I think the best feature of a tax cap would be that the super-rich might find it easier just to pay that capped amount, and not feel like they have to squirrel all they money away in tax avoidance schemes so that they don't lose all their hard earned money.
A cap like that would cut tax revenue by an enormous amount. A single billionaire pays for a helluva lot of average-taxpayer-sized chunks.
trickybeck wrote:
Aripyanfar wrote:
I don't want tax cuts for the wealthy as far as rates go. But I wouldn't mind a CAP being put on the amount of tax paid by any individual in any one tax-year. A LARGE cap. But a cap none-the-less. A number at which we say: Thank you very much for contributing to your country, we don't need any more money from you this year.
Maybe $5 million. Or $10 million. Or $50 million. Treasury would be best at setting the amount, as they'd know what the country can afford, and what the super-rich are actually really paying as it is. I think the best feature of a tax cap would be that the super-rich might find it easier just to pay that capped amount, and not feel like they have to squirrel all they money away in tax avoidance schemes so that they don't lose all their hard earned money.
Maybe $5 million. Or $10 million. Or $50 million. Treasury would be best at setting the amount, as they'd know what the country can afford, and what the super-rich are actually really paying as it is. I think the best feature of a tax cap would be that the super-rich might find it easier just to pay that capped amount, and not feel like they have to squirrel all they money away in tax avoidance schemes so that they don't lose all their hard earned money.
A cap like that would cut tax revenue by an enormous amount. A single billionaire
Fixed, because we all know billionaires pay far less taxes than they should, thanks to loopholes and such.
So... how much do you have to earn, and how much do you have to pay in taxes, to not be a net drain on the system? What's the break even point? Anyone know? Bueller? Bueller?
I didn't think the corporate witch hunt that's been happening these past few months had left anybody who still believed in supply-side economics alive.
I expect that the oversight will be corrected in short order.
I expect that the oversight will be corrected in short order.
Jophiel wrote:
I managed to be both retarded and entertaining.
Deathwysh wrote:
So... how much do you have to earn, and how much do you have to pay in taxes, to not be a net drain on the system? What's the break even point? Anyone know? Bueller? Bueller?
It varies person to person.
A young man I work with, about 29 years old, has 8 or 9 kids. It's like... 3 are his, 3 are hers, and 2 or 3 are theirs.
He's a drain on the system even though he makes just as much as the single male working next to him. He pays nothing in taxes due to all the credits, and gets money back come tax day.
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
No, it doesn't vary from person to person. Its one pool of revenue, X number of revenue generators and Y amount of revenue consumers. Which generators the consumers are are consuming from makes no difference.
Aripyanfar wrote:
I don't want tax cuts for the wealthy as far as rates go. But I wouldn't mind a CAP being put on the amount of tax paid by any individual in any one tax-year. A LARGE cap. But a cap none-the-less. A number at which we say: Thank you very much for contributing to your country, we don't need any more money from you this year.
Maybe $5 million. Or $10 million. Or $50 million. Treasury would be best at setting the amount, as they'd know what the country can afford, and what the super-rich are actually really paying as it is. I think the best feature of a tax cap would be that the super-rich might find it easier just to pay that capped amount, and not feel like they have to squirrel all they money away in tax avoidance schemes so that they don't lose all their hard earned money.
Maybe $5 million. Or $10 million. Or $50 million. Treasury would be best at setting the amount, as they'd know what the country can afford, and what the super-rich are actually really paying as it is. I think the best feature of a tax cap would be that the super-rich might find it easier just to pay that capped amount, and not feel like they have to squirrel all they money away in tax avoidance schemes so that they don't lose all their hard earned money.
Put that swastika down, Ari.
Quote:
No, it doesn't vary from person to person. Its one pool of revenue, X number of revenue generators and Y amount of revenue consumers. Which generators the consumers are are consuming from makes no difference.
Wrong. If one consumes more than one gives, one is a net drain. The way you phrased the question is asking one to analyse a specific component of the social machine (one person's tax and how much they cost the state). Now, if we're talking about the amount one needs to be taxed to give more than the amount drained per person (an average) that would get you the answer you're looking for.
P.S. No, I don't know what it is. If you calculated it without taking the real value of work done within a company then I'd imagine the majority would pay less than the average cost in tax dollars of an American.
And the question remains.... does anyone know or know where to find out?
He pays nothing in taxes due to all the credits, and gets money back come tax day.
Wrong. Stop believing the other big lie that payroll taxes are somehow magic and don't count as taxes. Even if your co-worker falls at the exact best point for EIC, he's nowhere near a net gain.
I don't want tax cuts for the wealthy as far as rates go. But I wouldn't mind a CAP being put on the amount of tax paid by any individual in any one tax-year. A LARGE cap. But a cap none-the-less. A number at which we say: Thank you very much for contributing to your country, we don't need any more money from you this year.
Sure, the size of the current US Debt. This would encourage the very wealthy to use their significant political power to work towards lowering our debt obligations instead of the current situation of using the debt load for personal handouts and letting the middle class pay for it.
Maybe $5 million. Or $10 million. Or $50 million.
No.
Treasury would be best at setting the amount, as they'd know what the country can afford, and what the super-rich are actually really paying as it is. I think the best feature of a tax cap would be that the super-rich might find it easier just to pay that capped amount, and not feel like they have to squirrel all they money away in tax avoidance schemes so that they don't lose all their hard earned money.
It's not "hard earned" it's not even "earned" the vast majority of the time. The income streams of most wealthy people bears as much relation to the effort they expend as my balls do to Tony Blair.
Disclaimer:
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
Wrong. If one consumes more than one gives, one is a net drain. The way you phrased the question is asking one to analyse a specific component of the social machine (one person's tax and how much they cost the state). Now, if we're talking about the amount one needs to be taxed to give more than the amount drained per person (an average) that would get you the answer you're looking for.
The average US adult (with no children) uses about $76,000 in government services anally. If you pay less than that in total tax load, you are greatly benefiting from the federal tax system. If you have kids, that number is much, much, higher.
Disclaimer:
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
Quote:
The average US adult (with no children) uses about $76,000 in government services anally.
I'm not sure what to sphincter that!
"If you have selfish, ignorant citizens, you're gonna get selfish, ignorant leaders". Carlin.
Quote:
The average US adult (with no children) uses about $76,000 in government services anally.
You should stop using the mean value. If you absolutely have to, you'll have to discard Katie as an outlier to get a realistic average for the cost of **** services per person.
Recent Visitors: 346
All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (346)
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- Trickle Down?
© 2024 Fanbyte LLC