PDA

View Full Version : Coming soon! The biggest tax hike in history!



Milo Hobgoblin
06-07-2008, 02:26
For those of you that vote democrat.. Thanks!! Nice job fucking yourselves. Im sure the po' folk will thank you!!


Make no mistake: This tax hike is gargantuan. Simply by not making Bush's cuts permanent, taxes will rise by a minimum of $2.8 trillion between now and 2018.

On average, 116 million taxpayers will see a jump of $1,800 in their annual tax bill. Some 48 million married couples — the heart of the middle class that Democrats say they want to help — will be slapped with an average increase of $3,007. Even the elderly will take a hit — $2,181 on average.

But surely, you say, the poor will be spared. Sorry. As the White House has pointed out, a single parent with two kids making just $30,000 a year will get $1,600 tacked on to his or her tax bill if the Bush tax cuts are allowed to sunset in 2010.

Ironically, top earners would fare much better under the Democrats. They now pay about 60% of the total federal income tax; if the Bush tax cuts expire, they'll pay about 57%. Good for them, but bad for those, like the family of four with an income of $50,000, who'll see their taxes rise a whopping 191%.


The best part is the wealthy wikll pay even less towards the total revenue than before.. christ you all are some stupid mother fuckers.


This is supply-side economics in reverse — creating massive disincentives to work, save and invest, and shrinking the pie. This is the economy that Obama and his friends in charge of Congress will bring. No doubt it represents change. But as John McCain keeps asking, is it the right kind of change?


http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=297471548302770

Matriel
06-07-2008, 02:31
Woohoo, bring on the astroglide.

To Democrats, every day is April 15th amirite? :D

Death's Chill
06-07-2008, 02:32
So how is this bush's tax cut if it is increases the overall amount of money people pay?

And it's no surprise. It was only a matter of time before they sucked us dry, they need more loots to finance their world empire. ;)

Simmy
06-07-2008, 02:36
So how is this bush's tax cut if it is increases the overall amount of money people pay?

And it's no surprise. It was only a matter of time before they sucked us dry, they need more loots to finance their world empire. ;)

It says if the cuts aren't made permanent.

alfaroverall
06-07-2008, 02:40
So how is this bush's tax cut if it is increases the overall amount of money people pay?

And it's no surprise. It was only a matter of time before they sucked us dry, they need more loots to finance their world empire. ;)
1. What is this "us"? You're from Canada. If you're gonna refer to the US as "us", you're gonna need to be living and working here, and preferably get naturalized too.
2. lol @ reading comprehension.

Ungraylessness
06-07-2008, 02:41
We shouldn't have pissed of the government!

Arkir
06-07-2008, 02:41
I plan to leave the US as soon as it starts going down the shithole more than it already is. From the looks of it, I won't be here very long...

Skree

Kyur
06-07-2008, 02:42
Am I mistaken or doesnt America have a huge debt to pay off?

Wouldnt tax's going up make sence if they plan on EVER paying that debt off?

Shars
06-07-2008, 02:42
And......? Most of the world know that America has been digging themselves into a massive hole of debt for years. This is a poor attempt of the American government to regain some of the money that has been wasted on "The war on Terrorism".

Wtf was with the invasion of Iraq if America was serious on the war on terrorism they would have stomped out the talban (sp no idea how to spell it) year ago...

Ahh that my American rant done.

Long live the holy Canadian empire :lmao:

Jargo
06-07-2008, 02:43
For those of you that vote democrat.. Thanks!! Nice job fucking yourselves. Im sure the po' folk will thank you!!



The best part is the wealthy wikll pay even less towards the total revenue than before.. christ you all are some stupid mother fuckers.



http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=297471548302770

Keep the Neocons who have been doing such a fine job running our country into the ground in office or vote Democrat this election. Hmmmmm.

Kheiron
06-07-2008, 02:43
So how is this bush's tax cut if it is increases the overall amount of money people pay?

And it's no surprise. It was only a matter of time before they sucked us dry, they need more loots to finance their world empire. ;)

Read the post first. I heard it helps.

Democracy is just a dictatorship propelled by idiocy you know. I much prefer the militant variety, because at least then, it's obvious.

Skree

Vanno
06-07-2008, 02:44
The rich are not going to pay less taxes, in respect to how much taxes they already pay, they will just have a smaller percentage of total contribution. Everyone still pays more if the Bush cuts expire, which I wouldn't mind if the excess revenues would be used to pay off national debt. Of course, that isn't going to be the case.

alfaroverall
06-07-2008, 02:48
The rich are not going to pay less taxes, in respect to how much taxes they already pay, they will just have a smaller percentage of total contribution. Everyone still pays more if the Bush cuts expire, which I wouldn't mind if the excess revenues would be used to pay off national debt. Of course, that isn't going to be the case.
Tax hikes on this scale probably wouldn't even be enough to eliminate the annual deficit...

Helgeran
06-07-2008, 02:52
Looks like you guys are in for a slippery slope and that Obama will carry the dog head. I bet it'll be a hundred years till you see another black candidate if his economix are as the article says.

Death's Chill
06-07-2008, 02:53
1. What is this "us"? You're from Canada. If you're gonna refer to the US as "us", you're gonna need to be living and working here, and preferably get naturalized too.
2. lol @ reading comprehension.

Well I speak of myself as if I were in the US because that's where I'm going to be moving soon, hopefully. I don't know much about Canada, nor am I interested.

Also, I was just making fun of the words chosen, I understand it fine though. I can't have a little fun too? :(

Kheiron
06-07-2008, 02:55
Looks like you guys are in for a slippery slope and that Obama will carry the dog head. I bet it'll be a hundred years till you see another black candidate if his economix are as the article says.

Dont worry though, his income tax hike will be tempered by tax cuts on chicken, waffles and watermelon. So, things will even out for his primary demographic.

Seems to me you Americans are screwed either way. Ever thought of switching to communism?

Baralis
06-07-2008, 02:56
Am I mistaken or doesnt America have a huge debt to pay off?

Wouldnt tax's going up make sence if they plan on EVER paying that debt off?

A large tax hike isnt the answer. Cutting spending on all the stupid shit thats not needed that the government spends trillions on is the answer.


Skree

Kyur
06-07-2008, 02:58
If my lovely Canada was part of the U.S, I would move to Russia.


A large tax hike isnt the answer. Cutting spending on all the stupid shit thats not needed that the government spends trillions on is the answer.


The Army maby?

Personally, I think America needs to clue in and know that there is more pride in having no debt than having a Army that is 5 times stronger than any other army.

It's like my neighbor, he has like 5 credit cards maxed out, a huge debt, but hey.. he has a bigger house than me, and a boat and a better car.. so he seems to think he is more successful.. Give that a few years and we will see who is bankrupt and who isnt.

Simmy
06-07-2008, 02:58
A large tax hike isnt the answer. Cutting spending on all the stupid shit thats not needed that the government spends trillions on is the answer.


Skree

Ah hahahahahahahahhhaahhahaahhhahahaa

Like THATs gonna happen.

Dredread
06-07-2008, 03:05
I can't wait! This country was built from a revolution because of unfair taxes... Let's hope that this country continues to build on unfair taxes.. Mind Fuck?

alfaroverall
06-07-2008, 03:06
All you "we need to get rid of the debt"-sayers should realize that the debt is not expected by anyone to ever be paid off. Even those to whom it is owed. They just expect their interest payments. In addition, you should realize that there are entire countries whose economies revolve around these interest payments. Without them there would be poverty and/or anarchy for millions all around the world.

Yobaj
06-07-2008, 03:06
Keep the Neocons who have been doing such a fine job running our country into the ground in office or vote Democrat this election. Hmmmmm.
No you don't get it, they don't give shit about the american economy, they'r just earning money by buying their own shit to the army, with tax payers money. Heck, they wouldn't mind being in Iraq for years to come, the war industries are making huge profits!

No normal man would sign up fast food restaurants for army bases...

alfaroverall
06-07-2008, 03:06
Well I speak of myself as if I were in the US because that's where I'm going to be moving soon, hopefully. I don't know much about Canada, nor am I interested.
Then you don't get to say "us" yet.

Also, I was just making fun of the words chosen, I understand it fine though. I can't have a little fun too? :(
No.

Vanno
06-07-2008, 03:08
Tax hikes on this scale probably wouldn't even be enough to eliminate the annual deficit...

Good point, not at the rate the US government spends money.

Erroneous
06-07-2008, 03:15
The scariest situation is if the dems get a filibuster proof senate and that's a distinct possibility. Even in the worst case the states will still be the best place for an intelligent industrious person to live, but they should at least consider sucking at the teat at the massive welfare/regulatory state that will result.

Elemancer
06-07-2008, 03:24
The scariest situation is if the dems get a filibuster proof senate and that's a distinct possibility. Even in the worst case the states will still be the best place for an intelligent industrious person to live, but they should at least consider sucking at the teat at the massive welfare/regulatory state that will result.

Fuck this, I blame global warming!

Vanno
06-07-2008, 03:25
All you "we need to get rid of the debt"-sayers should realize that the debt is not expected by anyone to ever be paid off. Even those to whom it is owed. They just expect their interest payments. In addition, you should realize that there are entire countries whose economies revolve around these interest payments. Without them there would be poverty and/or anarchy for millions all around the world.

All of you "hey we just have to pay the interest" sayers should realize that the principal amount grows year after year, which makes interest payments higher every year as a portion of GDP. I've seen the rate of increase at about 7% from a couple different sources, roughly 2 times GDP growth rates.

The national debt is roughly 9trillion. GDP, in any given year is about 13 trillion. Now, I'm not sure what the interest rate is exactly on all that debt, but it should be obvious why this could be an issue.

A larger portion of the budget is required each year to finance debt, which can eventually turn into a death cycle of crowding out infrastructure investment and tax hikes.

Even Alan Greenspan thought buying down debt was a good fucking idea.

Elemancer
06-07-2008, 03:27
All of you "hey we just have to pay the interest" sayers should realize that the principal amount grows year after year, which makes interest payments higher every year as a portion of GDP. I've seen the rate of increase at about 7% from a couple different sources, roughly 2 times GDP growth rates. This means a larger portion of the budget is required each year to finance debt, which can eventually turn into a death cycle of crowding out infrastructure investment and tax hikes.

Even Alan Greenspan thought buying down debt was a good fucking idea.


First thing's first, stabilize the interest growth...

Helgeran
06-07-2008, 03:28
All you "we need to get rid of the debt"-sayers should realize that the debt is not expected by anyone to ever be paid off. Even those to whom it is owed. They just expect their interest payments. In addition, you should realize that there are entire countries whose economies revolve around these interest payments. Without them there would be poverty and/or anarchy for millions all around the world.
If you like giving people you don't know money just to make their lives better why aren't you socialist?

Simmy
06-07-2008, 03:29
All of you "hey we just have to pay the interest" sayers should realize that the principal amount grows year after year, which makes interest payments higher every year as a portion of GDP. I've seen the rate of increase at about 7% from a couple different sources, roughly 2 times GDP growth rates. This means a larger portion of the budget is required each year to finance debt, which can eventually turn into a death cycle of crowding out infrastructure investment and tax hikes.

Even Alan Greenspan thought buying down debt was a good fucking idea.

We should just invade the nations we owe money to, that'll solve the problem!

Traep
06-07-2008, 03:29
I can't wait! This country was built from a revolution because of unfair taxes... Let's hope that this country continues to build on unfair taxes.. Mind Fuck?

Actually it was more like taxation without representation. They weren't just crying about taxes being too high, they were crying about paying taxes and not having a say at all in how things are run. If you check out the Declaration of Independence they also list a shitload of other factors that contributed to their desire for revolution. These weren't petty little things either. I believe one of them mentions something about British soldiers burning down houses.


Anyway, I'm not going to pretend to be an expert on balancing a budget for the country so I can't really defend this one at all but I would like to see a take on it from a source that doesn't sound so ridiculously bias. For instance, Obama's plan involves middle class tax cuts (http://www.barackobama.com/issues/economy/#tax-relief) (you know, because cuts and increases don't have to be applied to everyone regardless of income) and yet this article seems to tie his plan in with this budget proposal. Also, the senior citizens thing.. I don't know what this bill really says about it but Obama has on numerous occasions talked about cutting taxes for elderly people making under a certain amount of money to $0.

But yeah, if someone has a link to a reaction from an objective economist I'd be pretty interested in checking it out.

Traep
06-07-2008, 03:31
We should just invade the nations we owe money to, that'll solve the problem!

I like to suggest this same solution for the illegal immigration problem. Why not just take over Mexico?

Joking of course.

Vanno
06-07-2008, 03:32
We should just invade the nations we owe money to, that'll solve the problem!

Or monetize it! YEEEEEHAW printing presses


First thing's first, stabilize the interest growth...

Which means stop adding to the principal amount.

Razel
06-07-2008, 03:32
Woohoo, bring on the astroglide.

To Democrats, every day is April 15th amirite? :D

Somehow i think thats just the beginning of what we will get hit with, they aren't even in office yet... Just wait till the national healthcare comes along... or any other bullshit they've dreamed up, not to mention the continued war and possible invasion of iran. Smaktacular times ahead imo.


Am I mistaken or doesnt America have a huge debt to pay off?

Wouldnt tax's going up make sence if they plan on EVER paying that debt off?

i read somewhere the other day social security and some other program... is gona cost us 103 trillion in debt in the next ten years or so... forget exact figures.

alfaroverall
06-07-2008, 03:33
All of you "hey we just have to pay the interest" sayers should realize that the principal amount grows year after year, which makes interest payments higher every year as a portion of GDP. I've seen the rate of increase at about 7% from a couple different sources, roughly 2 times GDP growth rates.

The national debt is roughly 9trillion. GDP, in any given year is about 13 trillion. Now, I'm not sure what the interest rate is exactly on all that debt, but it should be obvious why this could be an issue.

A larger portion of the budget is required each year to finance debt, which can eventually turn into a death cycle of crowding out infrastructure investment and tax hikes.

Even Alan Greenspan thought buying down debt was a good fucking idea.
I didn't say that paying the interest and continuously increasing the principal would be a good thing to do. I just said that no one expects the debt to actually get paid off, ever. If we simply eliminated the deficit and lived on a balanced budget with the interest payments we'd be just fine, and that's about all that anyone expects to ever happen.

If you like giving people you don't know money just to make their lives better why aren't you socialist?
Do you seriously think that having countries around the world simply collapse would be beneficial to the US economy? We buy things from those countries and sell things to them. They're part of how this economy works (or at least would in theory, now it's not working so well).

Erroneous
06-07-2008, 03:33
Or monetize it! YEEEEEHAW printing presses

I agree so much simpler. Improves our export sector and hastens the recovery in housing. Oh what's that screws over savers? The American Dream wasn't built on savings buddy.

Vanno
06-07-2008, 03:38
I agree so much simpler. Improves our export sector and hastens the recovery in housing. Oh what's that screws over savers? The American Dream wasn't built on savings buddy.

Walmarts would have to buy cheap American goods.

Razel
06-07-2008, 03:43
woops my bad... 99 Trillion was the figure. Heres the article
http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/Investing/ContrarianChronicles/TheFedEmbracesInflation.aspx

Gloomrender
06-07-2008, 03:44
Were gonna get canadian quality free healthcare though! Believe!

Razel
06-07-2008, 03:45
Were gonna get canadian quality free healthcare though! Believe!

I believe, obama and hitlery will sav-ed us all. :lmao::bang:

Erroneous
06-07-2008, 03:46
ANybody check the hourly earning portion of the report today? (http://biz.yahoo.com/c/e.html) Not only was the headline unemployment number bad, but earnings signal wage inflation.

Simmy
06-07-2008, 03:48
Were gonna get canadian quality free healthcare though! Believe!

Oh thank God. I cant wait to have to wait six hours before my serious injury/illness is looked at by a trained medical professional.

Vanno
06-07-2008, 04:04
I didn't say that paying the interest and continuously increasing the principal would be a good thing to do. I just said that no one expects the debt to actually get paid off, ever. If we simply eliminated the deficit and lived on a balanced budget with the interest payments we'd be just fine, and that's about all that anyone expects to ever happen.

Do you seriously think that having countries around the world simply collapse would be beneficial to the US economy? We buy things from those countries and sell things to them. They're part of how this economy works (or at least would in theory, now it's not working so well).

It is more than possible to reduce national debt (Clinton years anyone); consequently, it makes balancing the budget easier. I disagree that just balancing the budget would be fine. Roughly 18% of our GDP would just go towards financing debt; again this is money that could be spent otherwise, or even a tax break for the populace.

Your Armageddon scenario perplexes me. How would paying down debt ruin another country's Economy? If anything, it provides more money to them than they expected in year 0, which can be used for investments etc. Future revenues from financing can be replaced by future revenues from investment (which generally outpaces interest payments).

Secondly, no matter how much propaganda is thrown about, the US isn't the international Economy that everyone claims it is. The current account is something like -5% of GDP. Even if we bought into your doom scenario (which doesn't make any sense), at the worst, we would probably import less, and have positive current account. Oh noes.

Vanno
06-07-2008, 04:05
ANybody check the hourly earning portion of the report today? (http://biz.yahoo.com/c/e.html) Not only was the headline unemployment number bad, but earnings signal wage inflation.

Markets were down like 3%. Crazy

Zealot08
06-07-2008, 04:07
I plan to leave the US as soon as it starts going down the shithole more than it already is. From the looks of it, I won't be here very long...

Skree

only problem is where u gonna go mate, switzerland? they aren't too savy towards immigration

Spades Felligan
06-07-2008, 04:23
Wasn't the invasion of Iraq supposed to pay for itself? Lol.

Skree

Traep
06-07-2008, 04:28
Somehow i think thats just the beginning of what we will get hit with, they aren't even in office yet... Just wait till the national healthcare comes along... or any other bullshit they've dreamed up, not to mention the continued war and possible invasion of iran. Smaktacular times ahead imo.

This was one of the issues that worried me about Clinton. I'm not against universal healthcare, I'm just not convinced that it would definitely make things cheaper and judging by other countries there's really no going back once you start it. The nice thing about Obama's plan is it's not mandated. Hardcore conservatives like to say it's simply socialized healthcare but I can't even figure out why he himself claims it's a universal healthcare plan (unless universal just means it's available to everyone). From what I understand, his whole plan is to essentially create a government run health insurance plan and have it compete with privately run insurance companies. Doesn't sound all that crazy to me.

Maglubiyet
06-07-2008, 04:37
Wasn't the invasion of Iraq supposed to pay for itself? Lol.

Skree

God I wish we would make it true and turn it into a war for oil, and just take all of it.

Erroneous
06-07-2008, 04:38
This was one of the issues that worried me about Clinton. I'm not against universal healthcare, I'm just not convinced that it would definitely make things cheaper and judging by other countries there's really no going back once you start it. The nice thing about Obama's plan is it's not mandated. Hardcore conservatives like to say it's simply socialized healthcare but I can't even figure out why he himself claims it's a universal healthcare plan (unless universal just means it's available to everyone). From what I understand, his whole plan is to essentially create a government run health insurance plan and have it compete with privately run insurance companies. Doesn't sound all that crazy to me.

Ok to properly compare Obama and Hilary's plan you have to understand adverse selection. Under Obama's plan anyone who would like Health care would be subsidized so that they can afford it. This leaves a population that will elect not to enter the program because they believe their expected health bill is lower than the national average. This increases the expected payout for members of the national plan as they now constitute a higher risk insofar as people are able to identify their expected future claims, and further we will probably still cover those who elect to go without coverage (as we do today). Insurance is about risk pooling, constructing the pool is as important as anything else and if you are aiming for universal coverage you can not make it elective without increasing expected costs.

Porthios
06-07-2008, 05:07
What I think is most important is that the rich, the poor, whoever ther hell you are, should be paying equal amounts of taxes.

Also, witht he rut that the states is in right now, I see these tax increases as beneficial because we need to get out of this horse shit that we got into during the Bush administration. It's not going to go away on it's own. And just because you aren't seeing the drawbacks of being in a rut now, doesn't mean you wouldn't see them 10 fold within the next 5 years unless something is done about it.

Daccus
06-07-2008, 05:18
For those of you that vote democrat.. Thanks!! Nice job fucking yourselves. Im sure the po' folk will thank you!!



The best part is the wealthy wikll pay even less towards the total revenue than before.. christ you all are some stupid mother fuckers.



http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=297471548302770

As long as it's for the common good though, right? Go go socialism! :(

Surly
06-07-2008, 05:53
I'd like to see the tax code changes myself, what is facilitating this? You're just posting interpretation of specific scenarios which is likely ad hominem on a subject that I actually want to fucking know about. If there's one thing I hate more than idiots mindlessly chanting propaganda for an argument I am against, it's idiots mindlessly chanting propaganda for an argument I like!

Humbug.

Razel
06-07-2008, 06:59
All you "we need to get rid of the debt"-sayers should realize that the debt is not expected by anyone to ever be paid off. Even those to whom it is owed. They just expect their interest payments. In addition, you should realize that there are entire countries whose economies revolve around these interest payments. Without them there would be poverty and/or anarchy for millions all around the world.

while thats true, its also true that the burden will never be less because of teh compunded interest. It can only get worse... the real question is... what will be the breaking point and more importantly when? 5~10 years tops imo. What percentage of taxes will that breaking point be? 60-75-80%? Most rich people don't pay near the taxes the average worker does, thats a fact, so the resentment will only grow worse.

Cant think of that billionaires name off the top of my head that pays less taxes than his secretary but thats a classic example.

ah yes warren buffet http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13541144/

http://youtube.com/watch?v=Cu5B-2LoC4s

Jarkovii
06-07-2008, 07:25
Get rid of mandatory tax and increase the sales tax by 150%.

10 years down the road our deficit will be zero again.

Razel
06-07-2008, 07:29
Get rid of mandatory tax and increase the sales tax by 150%.

10 years down the road our deficit will be zero again.

i think you mean balanced budget. I don't think the national debt is even remotely able to be paid off.

Jarkovii
06-07-2008, 07:34
i think you mean balanced budget. I don't think the national debt is even remotely able to be paid off.

Before Y2K our debt was manageable too an extent. But I'm ashamed that my generation will be inheriting the restoration effort of what is surely going to go down in history as the decade American idealism died.

Razel
06-07-2008, 07:37
Before Y2K our debt was manageable too an extent. But I'm ashamed that my generation will be inheriting the restoration effort of what is surely going to go down in history as the decade American idealism died.

meh, rome fell too, maybe the third time around we'll learn something?

Protonix
06-07-2008, 07:43
Which means stop adding to the principal amount.

Not necessarily, interest rates are and have been dropping quite well.

ABR and Libor rates are the lowest that they've been in years,possibly ever. These days it is quite easy to add to principal and pay the same interest.

Matriel
06-07-2008, 14:18
Am I mistaken or doesnt America have a huge debt to pay off?

Wouldnt tax's going up make sence if they plan on EVER paying that debt off?

Eh, our government makes more than enough money to pay off the debt over time. They just can't stop spending it like drunken sailors in port after a 6 month cruise to get it done.


This was one of the issues that worried me about Clinton. I'm not against universal healthcare, I'm just not convinced that it would definitely make things cheaper and judging by other countries there's really no going back once you start it. The nice thing about Obama's plan is it's not mandated. Hardcore conservatives like to say it's simply socialized healthcare but I can't even figure out why he himself claims it's a universal healthcare plan (unless universal just means it's available to everyone). From what I understand, his whole plan is to essentially create a government run health insurance plan and have it compete with privately run insurance companies. Doesn't sound all that crazy to me.

Lol at government compete with private. Of course, I guess if you put enough restrictive legislation in, then it can be done. HMO Act Part Deux. Activate!

Traep
06-07-2008, 14:52
Ok to properly compare Obama and Hilary's plan you have to understand adverse selection. Under Obama's plan anyone who would like Health care would be subsidized so that they can afford it. This leaves a population that will elect not to enter the program because they believe their expected health bill is lower than the national average. This increases the expected payout for members of the national plan as they now constitute a higher risk insofar as people are able to identify their expected future claims, and further we will probably still cover those who elect to go without coverage (as we do today). Insurance is about risk pooling, constructing the pool is as important as anything else and if you are aiming for universal coverage you can not make it elective without increasing expected costs.

I'm not sure I understand why you believe that most people won't enter into the national plan. It's, ideally, the same as the plan that congress gets, I can't imagine that being too expensive. You even mention yourself that if someone can't afford it they will be subsidized. What exactly would make this more expensive for most people?

Either way, the very fact that you believe this will fail is what makes it more appealing to me. If it fails, it can be scrapped. It's a lot harder to scrap a mandated universal health plan once all the private companies go out of business because of it. The alternative seems to be crappy ideas like McCains where they just want to give everyone $5k a year towards health insurance (isn't that universal healthcare too?). I'd rather have a go at something that doesn't feel like putting a band aid on a gaping wound.

DaFatalGigabyte
06-07-2008, 15:35
What I think is most important is that the rich, the poor, whoever ther hell you are, should be paying equal amounts of taxes.


:eek: The poor are poor enough. Don't hurt them anymore than they already are. 10% from the rich is worth less than 10% from the poor. In my opinion, the rich should be lynched but high taxes are good enough.

Anyways. I heard something interesting about how there's no interstate competition between health insurance providers. Is this true?

Elemancer
06-07-2008, 15:38
I'm not sure I understand why you believe that most people won't enter into the national plan. It's, ideally, the same as the plan that congress gets, I can't imagine that being too expensive. You even mention yourself that if someone can't afford it they will be subsidized. What exactly would make this more expensive for most people?

Either way, the very fact that you believe this will fail is what makes it more appealing to me. If it fails, it can be scrapped. It's a lot harder to scrap a mandated universal health plan once all the private companies go out of business because of it. The alternative seems to be crappy ideas like McCains where they just want to give everyone $5k a year towards health insurance (isn't that universal healthcare too?). I'd rather have a go at something that doesn't feel like putting a band aid on a gaping wound.

If congress get's the same plan I get...most of them sucks...they're HMO and cost the gov't 500 bucks a month.

Elemancer
06-07-2008, 15:38
:eek: The poor are poor enough. Don't hurt them anymore than they already are. 10% from the rich is worth less than 10% from the poor. In my opinion, the rich should be lynched but high taxes are good enough.

Anyways. I heard something interesting about how there's no interstate competition between health insurance providers. Is this true?


Where the hell do you work? Cause fuck, if all the rich were lynched, I'd be uber fooked.

Buckk Dich
06-07-2008, 16:21
It sucks that us traditional libertarians have no one to vote for.

Guess McCain gets my vote though. He endured torture for our country, and Obama won't even salute our flag during the pledge of allegiance....obvious choice for me.

Lacker
06-07-2008, 16:23
Where the hell do you work? Cause fuck, if all the rich were lynched, I'd be uber fooked.

No shit. You can piss on the rich all you want. But there is a point where they say "No mas" and move their interests out of country.

They can afford to. You can't.

Ironically the only thing that might stop this is high gas prices and a low dollar.

Erroneous
06-07-2008, 16:48
I'm not sure I understand why you believe that most people won't enter into the national plan. It's, ideally, the same as the plan that congress gets, I can't imagine that being too expensive. You even mention yourself that if someone can't afford it they will be subsidized. What exactly would make this more expensive for most people?

Either way, the very fact that you believe this will fail is what makes it more appealing to me. If it fails, it can be scrapped. It's a lot harder to scrap a mandated universal health plan once all the private companies go out of business because of it. The alternative seems to be crappy ideas like McCains where they just want to give everyone $5k a year towards health insurance (isn't that universal healthcare too?). I'd rather have a go at something that doesn't feel like putting a band aid on a gaping wound.

I never said most would opt out, just that some proportion with lower than average risk would. Insurance expenses under government oversight should be actuarially priced meaning that "expenses" (taxes) should equal expected payouts. People opting out of the coverage would draw average expenses up for those still in the pool as they now are higher risk on average (this has the possibility to lead to a vicious cycle, but since it can be subsidized with other taxes government can prevent this). In general though I would prefer everyone to be included in the system if for no other purpose than quality control. The idea is that people should pursue preventive care, if they are outside of the system they may be less likely to.

A single payer system with choice where individuals bare some of the cost of forseeable health problems is my ideal solution. The three plans are all about equally good in my eyes. As with most things people have politicized it and that has led to wrongheaded ideas about health insurance to get imbedded in people.

Matriel
06-07-2008, 17:00
:eek: The poor are poor enough. Don't hurt them anymore than they already are. 10% from the rich is worth less than 10% from the poor. In my opinion, the rich should be lynched but high taxes are good enough.

Anyways. I heard something interesting about how there's no interstate competition between health insurance providers. Is this true?

I'm glad you're omniscient and know what rich people can and cannot live with out. While you're in the business of determining lifestyles for people, do you think it's a good idea that I sell my house and buy a farm? I think so, but you seem to know what everyone can handle, so I figure you'd give me good advice.

There's no good competition at all in our health care industry. Legislation and the FDA have seen to that.

DaFatalGigabyte
06-07-2008, 17:03
And I hope you know what I mean by rich. The one's with $0,000,000 much more money than the homeless.

I thought it was high gas prices and a low dollar that was moving them out of country. If they take the risk to move, they might make it. If they stay, their business is through. So that situation would encourage business movement from the country.

I think there needs to be a rethinking and revamp of the tax system. How about no income tax and no unfair taxing of different businesses? Why not tax each industry the same? Corporations are separate entities from the person. You choose to go into business ownership knowing what the negatives and positives are. So no excises in the Adam Smith way: "The motive for the implementation of excise should be nothing more than to curb the pursuit of goods and services harmful to our health and morals."

I'm not sure what a tariff does in the economy, but how would equal excises and equal tariffs work?

Matriel
06-07-2008, 17:07
Ah yes, the milllionaires that the majority of in this country are self-made. Let's fuck those people because some jackass with a shitty job can't handle it as much.

Rich people don't necessarily have any more disposable income than poor people. It's totally dependant on lifestyle. And in my experience, most people that don't have disposable income don't have any because of lifestyle choices. The poor get hurt more is just an emotional argument.

Lacker
06-07-2008, 17:09
And I hope you know what I mean by rich. The one's with $0,000,000 much more money than the homeless.

I thought it was high gas prices and a low dollar that was moving them out of country. If they take the risk to move, they might make it. If they stay, their business is through. So that situation would encourage business movement from the country.

High gas prices make it unfavorable to ship to to the US.
Low dollar also makes it unfavorable to export to the US.

Long as these two factors are in play manufacturers(Not that there are much left) are discouraged from leaving. Up until the regulation and taxation cost exceed the production/shipping costs from being in another country.

Death's Chill
06-07-2008, 17:10
:eek: The poor are poor enough. Don't hurt them anymore than they already are. 10% from the rich is worth less than 10% from the poor. In my opinion, the rich should be lynched but high taxes are good enough.

Anyways. I heard something interesting about how there's no interstate competition between health insurance providers. Is this true?

The poor shouldn't pay much at all in income tax, they get taxed enough through all the other means. It's just a matter of survival, not punishment for anyone making more... middle class will still clear a lot over "poor" people.

Income tax should just be declared a crime and be done with it, anyone want to help me bomb the IRS? Would serve them right.


Ah yes, the milllionaires that the majority of in this country are self-made. Let's fuck those people because some jackass with a shitty job can't handle it as much.

Rich people don't necessarily have any more disposable income than poor people. It's totally dependant on lifestyle. And in my experience, most people that don't have disposable income don't have any because of lifestyle choices. The poor get hurt more is just an emotional argument.

When the poor barely have enough to survive on because of their income tax and every other tax factored in, leaving nearly no room for any leisure, yes it is an issue. Income tax is a plague, and it may as well only be inflicted on those that have something to spare.

Again, I am not and never will be in support of it.

Traep
06-07-2008, 17:10
I never said most would opt out, just that some proportion with lower than average risk would. Insurance expenses under government oversight should be actuarially priced meaning that "expenses" (taxes) should equal expected payouts. People opting out of the coverage would draw average expenses up for those still in the pool as they now are higher risk on average (this has the possibility to lead to a vicious cycle, but since it can be subsidized with other taxes government can prevent this). In general though I would prefer everyone to be included in the system if for no other purpose than quality control. The idea is that people should pursue preventive care, if they are outside of the system they may be less likely to.

A single payer system with choice where individuals bare some of the cost of forseeable health problems is my ideal solution. The three plans are all about equally good in my eyes. As with most things people have politicized it and that has led to wrongheaded ideas about health insurance to get imbedded in people.

Ah, I see what you're saying now. Still, I think people opting out would depend just as much on what the insurance costs as it would their general health at the time. I don't think you'll find many people, even particularly healthy people, who would opt out of an insurance plan that costs $30-$40 a month (not saying that's what it would cost).

Baralis
06-07-2008, 17:10
I would be all for one tax at an equal percentage rate for all. Say 40% income tax and that is the only tax ever paid on anything ever.

Fro
06-07-2008, 17:10
Ah yes, the milllionaires that the majority of in this country are self-made. Let's fuck those people because some jackass with a shitty job can't handle it as much.

Rich people don't necessarily have any more disposable income than poor people. It's totally dependant on lifestyle. And in my experience, most people that don't have disposable income don't have any because of lifestyle choices. The poor get hurt more is just an emotional argument.

Fuck yeh lets raise taxes for the poor people! :rolleyes: When someone says a poor person it normaly means they have very little disposable income.

DaFatalGigabyte
06-07-2008, 17:10
Thanks for informing of that Lacker

Matriel
06-07-2008, 17:14
Fuck yeh lets raise taxes for the poor people! :rolleyes: When someone says a poor person it normaly means they have very little disposable income.

And just because someone is rich they can't have very little disposable income?

When people do well, they don't live in the shitty area of town still so they can have a lot of disposable income. They move to nicer neighborhoods with bigger homes. That argument is a load of shit.

What we need to do is either a flat tax of some sort if we have to have income taxation which I don't necessarily agree with. There's no reason anyone should be punished for being successful. Class envy does make for the best argument for progressive though. Those evil rich people. :bang:

DaFatalGigabyte
06-07-2008, 17:15
I'm glad you're omniscient and know what rich people can and cannot live with out. While you're in the business of determining lifestyles for people, do you think it's a good idea that I sell my house and buy a farm? I think so, but you seem to know what everyone can handle, so I figure you'd give me good advice.


I think you should! :D

Lacker
06-07-2008, 17:26
What we need to do is either a flat tax of some sort if we have to have income taxation which I don't necessarily agree with. There's no reason anyone should be punished for being successful. Class envy does make for the best argument for progressive though. Those evil rich people. :bang:

It can't happen though. We've been an enabler society of bad fiscal policy for how long now? 50+ years? People spending beyond their means and so does the government and NO ONE CARES.

To change that last fact you need the economy to crash and the people to at least mini-revolt against their politicians. THEN we can talk about abolishing the IRS and reforming gov spending.

Till then we've got to deal with retards upping the fed budget 1 trillion every 4 years. Fucking ridiculous.

Baralis
06-07-2008, 17:33
It can't happen though. We've been an enabler society of bad fiscal policy for how long now? 50+ years? People spending beyond their means and so does the government and NO ONE CARES.


Only solution I can see to this right off is to eliminate the ability to purchase things on credit other then homes.

Fylraen
06-07-2008, 17:44
I seriously hope Obama wins so we can watch Milo drown in his own greasy tears.

Helgeran
06-07-2008, 17:44
I thought you had jumped ship!

Death's Chill
06-07-2008, 17:47
I would be all for one tax at an equal percentage rate for all. Say 40% income tax and that is the only tax ever paid on anything ever.

40% tax on minimum wage wouldn't leave me enough for rent. Are you out of your mind?

Vanno
06-07-2008, 17:53
Not necessarily, interest rates are and have been dropping quite well.

ABR and Libor rates are the lowest that they've been in years,possibly ever. These days it is quite easy to add to principal and pay the same interest.

???????? What do mortgage rates have to do with anything? The interest rate on 10-year T-bills is a much more appropriate measuring stick, and those have been going up marginally if not stagnating. Likewise, the more debt you issue, generally the higher interest rates you have to offer.

Fro
06-07-2008, 17:55
And just because someone is rich they can't have very little disposable income?

If they have very little disposable income the've clearly fucked something up.


When people do well, they don't live in the shitty area of town still so they can have a lot of disposable income. They move to nicer neighborhoods with bigger homes. That argument is a load of shit.

And if they do that and cant afford the taxes then its there own dam fault.


What we need to do is either a flat tax of some sort if we have to have income taxation which I don't necessarily agree with. There's no reason anyone should be punished for being successful. Class envy does make for the best argument for progressive though. Those evil rich people. :bang

theres no reason anyone should be punished for being unsuccessful either. Have you ever been poor? the fact is that those taxes are going to come from somewhere and if there not coming from the rich then they're going to have to come from people who are average or poor. Its logical that the taxes should come from the rich who can afford everything they need (if they cant then they are not rich) then from the poor who struggle to have a house and enough food.

Surly
06-07-2008, 17:56
Taxing the rich is a misnomer for forcing everyone to stay poor because they can't pass the arbitrary tax barrier we set at $150k/yr. $150,000 per year is not "rich" at all, it's middle-class! Particularly if you are one of the few people who actually lives within your fucking means.

If you want to tax rich people, at least have the common decency not to get swept up in some feel good "kill the rich" campaign and wind up hamstringing people who are not rich.

And let's not forget that shitty statistic about how 1% of the population controls half the wealth in the country. Do you seriously believe they're drawing paychecks at that level? Stop fucking over the working stiff with income taxes.

Vanno
06-07-2008, 17:59
A single payer system with choice where individuals bare some of the cost of forseeable health problems is my ideal solution. The three plans are all about equally good in my eyes. As with most things people have politicized it and that has led to wrongheaded ideas about health insurance to get imbedded in people.

You are clearly one of the few people on this thread that actually knows what they are saying. Personal choice, with appropriate premium rate penalties, is definitely important to avoid moral hazard. Of course we need a single payer system to ease risk calculation and for pooling.

Helgeran
06-07-2008, 18:05
And let's not forget that shitty statistic about how 1% of the population controls half the wealth in the country. Do you seriously believe they're drawing paychecks at that level? Stop fucking over the working stiff with income taxes.
Yeah it's really fucking hard to get to someone who probably has many sources of income and might not even have a regular salary. Money is just a system that always end up with a few sitting on lots and that won't change till currency is handled radically different. Filthy rich are simply the untouchable nobility of our time unless you go Putin on their asses.

Sweden has gone a long way trying to squeeze money out of rich people by having atrocious property tax but it simply leads to people buying property abroad and the middle class being unable to own anything bigger than their own homes unless it's in a piece of shit place or unless they make more money from it than the tax, in which case the value of the property goes up and they get taxed harder.

III [C*D]
06-07-2008, 18:09
For those of you that vote democrat.. Thanks!! Nice job fucking yourselves. Im sure the po' folk will thank you!!



The best part is the wealthy wikll pay even less towards the total revenue than before.. christ you all are some stupid mother fuckers.



http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=297471548302770

Ahhh.. fixed income workers... the suckers of the free world.

No sympathy for you people... worried about taxes? Make more money.

III [C*D]
06-07-2008, 18:11
Taxing the rich is a misnomer for forcing everyone to stay poor because they can't pass the arbitrary tax barrier we set at $150k/yr. $150,000 per year is not "rich" at all, it's middle-class! Particularly if you are one of the few people who actually lives within your fucking means.

If you want to tax rich people, at least have the common decency not to get swept up in some feel good "kill the rich" campaign and wind up hamstringing people who are not rich.

And let's not forget that shitty statistic about how 1% of the population controls half the wealth in the country. Do you seriously believe they're drawing paychecks at that level? Stop fucking over the working stiff with income taxes.

150k is middle class? <4% makes less then 50k a year, so I'm curious about your math.

Tell that to somebody making ~30k year with a straight face.

Surly
06-07-2008, 18:14
;1388207']150k is middle class? <4% makes less then 50k a year, so I'm curious about your math.

Tell that to somebody making ~30k year with a straight face.30k a year is barely above the poverty line. It's below it, and still taxable, if you're a single parent! You live in California... with a budget of $22k disposable, post-income-tax, income per year, how the hell would you survive?

Less than 4% of what makes less than 50k per year? Households, families, people?

Death's Chill
06-07-2008, 18:17
30k a year is barely above the poverty line. It's below it, and still taxable, if you're a single parent! You live in California... with a budget of $22k disposable, post-income-tax, income per year, how the hell would you survive?

Less than 4% of what makes less than 50k per year? Households, families, people?

I will be making 16,728$ CAD this year, before factoring in income tax.

Now, with income tax in the loop, it's barely possible to survive. But without it? I'd have more than enough money to put some away to save and enjoy myself every weekend. if 16.7k is enough to thrive on, 30k is so much so that it is ridiculous, and 150k is beyond rich.

Surly
06-07-2008, 18:19
Yeah it's really fucking hard to get to someone who probably has many sources of income and might not even have a regular salary. Money is just a system that always end up with a few sitting on lots and that won't change till currency is handled radically different. Filthy rich are simply the untouchable nobility of our time unless you go Putin on their asses.I agree, that's why I'm a proponent of privatizing the money supply. Competing currency is a great thing to avoid the hoarding of false wealth in that way. Why is it that governments are assumed to have sole propriety over the printing of anything we consider "money"? That's a very, very new concept in human progression.


Sweden has gone a long way trying to squeeze money out of rich people by having atrocious property tax but it simply leads to people buying property abroad and the middle class being unable to own anything bigger than their own homes unless it's in a piece of shit place or unless they make more money from it than the tax, in which case the value of the property goes up and they get taxed harder.Just another example of a well-intentioned (albeit short-sighted) catastrophe perpetrated to punish the rich. Why do it in such convoluted ways? Why? It's not like you're hiding the goals by cleverly putting it into tax law... why not just make a law that anyone who has more than a certain amount of money has to give it to the government? Put a hard cap on how many assets one can own.

It's the same intention, isn't it?

End Dream
06-07-2008, 18:20
Anyone voting for obama is voting for a prolonged recession.

Fro
06-07-2008, 18:20
Taxing the rich is a misnomer for forcing everyone to stay poor because they can't pass the arbitrary tax barrier we set at $150k/yr. $150,000 per year is not "rich" at all, it's middle-class! Particularly if you are one of the few people who actually lives within your fucking means.

If you want to tax rich people, at least have the common decency not to get swept up in some feel good "kill the rich" campaign and wind up hamstringing people who are not rich.

And let's not forget that shitty statistic about how 1% of the population controls half the wealth in the country. Do you seriously believe they're drawing paychecks at that level? Stop fucking over the working stiff with income taxes.

Im not trying to say that current tax systems are right. Im saying that people who say that the rich shouldnt be taxed more than the poor are wrong. Thy've probably never been poor and for some reason all have this wonderfuly idealistic idea that if you work hard you will never be poor and that all rich people have earned it and that all poor people have made themselves poor. Its a huge load of bullshit.

III [C*D]
06-07-2008, 18:20
I will be making 16,728$ CAD this year, before factoring in income tax.

Now, with income tax in the loop, it's barely possible to survive. But without it? I'd have more than enough money to put some away to save and enjoy myself every weekend. if 16.7k is enough to thrive on, 30k is so much so that it is ridiculous, and 150k is beyond rich.

at 16.7 I don't think you will suffer income taxes =]=] If anything you will be getting a nice rebate.

~30 "should" be enough for a small family to live on, if they are not worried about status quo. Not everybody needs to drive a luxury care with 5,000.00 rims, even though we all know its very important to have rims, oh and a really loud care stereo amirite?

~150k is plenty of money... if you are struggling at that amount, you are bad with money.

Surly
06-07-2008, 18:21
I will be making 16,728$ CAD this year, before factoring in income tax.

Now, with income tax in the loop, it's barely possible to survive. But without it? I'd have more than enough money to put some away to save and enjoy myself every weekend. if 16.7k is enough to thrive on, 30k is so much so that it is ridiculous, and 150k is beyond rich.Buying an average home in America costs $400,000. College tuition is in the hundreds of thousands. Yearly heating and cooling bills can easily be in the thousands. Don't forget groceries, doctor's visits, mandatory insurance, and gas.

16.7k is "enough" to you because you're getting a lot of supplemental help, probably from living with your parents.

Vanno
06-07-2008, 18:23
Anyone voting for obama is voting for a prolonged recession.

I disagree. Obama could have a feel good effect on people that, via expectations, increases short run productivity and consumption. The problem with Obama is the effect he could have on the long run.

III [C*D]
06-07-2008, 18:26
Im not trying to say that current tax systems are right. Im saying that people who say that the rich shouldnt be taxed more than the poor are wrong. Thy've probably never been poor and for some reason all have this wonderfuly idealistic idea that if you work hard you will never be poor and that all rich people have earned it and that all poor people have made themselves poor. Its a huge load of bullshit.

That I totally agree with. Usually it's a matter of poor kids coming up not believing they can be rich, because all they know is poor. The same applying for rich. A kid with a healthy financial start to life is much more likely to stay rich as simple matter of mentality.

With that said, everybody has the potential to "break out." Most people simply choose not too... sadly enough.

III [C*D]
06-07-2008, 18:30
Buying an average home in America costs $400,000. College tuition is in the hundreds of thousands. Yearly heating and cooling bills can easily be in the thousands. Don't forget groceries, doctor's visits, mandatory insurance, and gas.

16.7k is "enough" to you because you're getting a lot of supplemental help, probably from living with your parents.

400k for a house, hundreds of thousands for college?

What? The average home in California is 260k (4 bedroom, 2 bath in a nice area.) Going to college is easy if you really WANT to go. My wife graduated making 800 dollars a month, and we only owe about 10k in loans. Her degree could land her a starting job 45k a year, more if she worked summer school and got involved in extra circulars. While that is low, for example an I.T. could make 60-80 starting, but she doesn't want to be an I.T.

Then you have doctors, dentists... etc... Which, I have friends who came from extremely poor back grounds who WANTED to have that education, and earned the grants/scholarships to get it.

People are not as handi-capped as they think they are.

Vanno
06-07-2008, 18:33
;1388236']at 16.7 I don't think you will suffer income taxes =]=] If anything you will be getting a nice rebate.

~30 "should" be enough for a small family to live on, if they are not worried about status quo. Not everybody needs to drive a luxury care with 5,000.00 rims, even though we all know its very important to have rims, oh and a really loud care stereo amirite?

~150k is plenty of money... if you are struggling at that amount, you are bad with money.

I agree with most of this. Even with student loan debt, I would love to be making 30k right now. I make chump change, at the moment, and still get by with no guberment support (since the government could cares less about the 18-30 range anyway because we don't vote). I split living costs with my girlfriend.

$150,000 a year really isn't a lot though, especially since those making that type of money are generally working highly specialized jobs, that required a lot of schooling, are workaholics (necessary to sustain their current income levels) and don't have time to really enjoy the income.

My problem with the tax system is that it completely ignores the leisure/work trade off. Is someone making 30k a year at 40 hour weeks really worse off than someone pulling in 100k at 60+ hour weeks? Maybe, but it isn't as cut and dry as just their salary differences.

Surly
06-07-2008, 18:36
Im not trying to say that current tax systems are right. Im saying that people who say that the rich shouldnt be taxed more than the poor are wrong. Thy've probably never been poor and for some reason all have this wonderfuly idealistic idea that if you work hard you will never be poor and that all rich people have earned it and that all poor people have made themselves poor. Its a huge load of bullshit.Percentages are funny like that... 20% of 1,000 is a lot less than 20% of 100,000. Graduated tax scales... if you think they're fine and dandy, whatever, but why create an impassible barrier at 150k? It's not that much money, and it's arbitrary. As inflation lowers the dollar's value, 150k becomes less and less by the year, pushing down the average real-wealth incomes of people.

I grew up on welfare, I lived in southern Illinois which is easily one of the most depressed areas of the country... idealistic views of poor people have nothing to do with it. If you do work, you do get ahead. Wasting your life at a dead end career or working for the city government all your life, and then bitching about not getting anywhere, is your own damned fault. You choose mediocrity and you live it.


;1388236']at 16.7 I don't think you will suffer income taxes =]=] If anything you will be getting a nice rebate.A rebate? You don't pay taxes, how can it be a "nice rebate" to get your own money back?


~30 "should" be enough for a small family to live on, if they are not worried about status quo. Not everybody needs to drive a luxury care with 5,000.00 rims, even though we all know its very important to have rims, oh and a really loud care stereo amirite?That's absurd and idealistic, you have absolutely no experience in this area. 30,000 dollars is not enough to sustain a copacetic lifestyle for a family of four in this country. It's disgusting to assume it is. Living within your means for 30,000 means living in HUD Housing, taking public transportation everywhere, shopping at the dollar store, and not running your heater in the winter. I've been there! I call it poverty... you call it "enough"? That's just insulting, self-loathing bunk.


~150k is plenty of money... if you are struggling at that amount, you are bad with money.$149,000 is enough money to live a middle-class life within your means. Living in an average home, in a decent neighborhood with low police presence, buying your groceries and driving a modest car. You can run the heating and cooling to make your home comfortable, too. That's what you can do with $149,000/year, nothing more and nothing less.

And you cannot breach that barrier unless you can somehow achieve another 100,000/year income to add to your current income because taxes over 150k will ensure that, unless you over-shoot that arbitrary delimitation by a hell of a lot, you'll be pulling in as much money as you did when you made half what you do now. Good luck doing that when your yearly raise is something to the effect of 5%.

Helgeran
06-07-2008, 18:38
Just another example of a well-intentioned (albeit short-sighted) catastrophe perpetrated to punish the rich. Why do it in such convoluted ways? Why? It's not like you're hiding the goals by cleverly putting it into tax law... why not just make a law that anyone who has more than a certain amount of money has to give it to the government? Put a hard cap on how many assets one can own.

It's the same intention, isn't it?
They used to tax piled wealth but there was an outrage when Astrid Lindgren had to pay 102% of her incomes in tax. You can't really reach money either since it can be placed abroad as well, the more resources you have the more you can spend to keep them safe. I'm not the right person to speculate about this though since I'm not very read up on economics. Don't like the idea of flat tax other than that it might cut down beurocracy because of how salaries seem to inflate since people want exponantionally bigger rewards for responsibility. There is a classic swedish punk song from the 70's that opens with the lines:

The Capital raises the rent and the State the living subsidies
That's how you fiddle with the ironhard salary law
You can even pay less than the price for food and rent
Because the State more than gladly helps you when you all your money have spent

Vanno
06-07-2008, 18:39
;1388252']That I totally agree with. Usually it's a matter of poor kids coming up not believing they can be rich, because all they know is poor. The same applying for rich. A kid with a healthy financial start to life is much more likely to stay rich as simple matter of mentality.

With that said, everybody has the potential to "break out." Most people simply choose not too... sadly enough.

Mentality? Rubbish. Rich people tend to remain rich because of one thing, assets. Return on capital is much higher than return on labor, and labor is how the poor and middle class generally make the assets necessary to invest. This is just common sense stuff, we don't need to go into behavioral Economics or psychology to explain it.

Death's Chill
06-07-2008, 18:44
Buying an average home in America costs $400,000. College tuition is in the hundreds of thousands. Yearly heating and cooling bills can easily be in the thousands. Don't forget groceries, doctor's visits, mandatory insurance, and gas.

16.7k is "enough" to you because you're getting a lot of supplemental help, probably from living with your parents.

400k for a home? Are you insane? I guess the market must suck horribly in the US, my parents are going to be buying a home outside of the city for 150k, I've already seen it and it's pretty damn huge and comes with a nice land.

College... lol, yeah that's not a factor for me. Not going to have kids either so again, not a factor. My apartment comes with everything included... furnished, heat, water, electricity, even cable and internet. Food is the biggest financial pit actually, with only rent trumping it.

I'll be getting medical insurance too so routine doctor visits won't be a factor. And what do you mean, "mandatory" insurance? It's a choice, I don't even have a car so the only insurance that matters to me is health insurance. ;)

Death's Chill
06-07-2008, 18:46
;1388236']at 16.7 I don't think you will suffer income taxes =]=] If anything you will be getting a nice rebate.

No, I live in Canada. Provincial and federal income tax here would amount to something like 15% on minimum fucking wage. It's fucked up.


~30 "should" be enough for a small family to live on, if they are not worried about status quo. Not everybody needs to drive a luxury care with 5,000.00 rims, even though we all know its very important to have rims, oh and a really loud care stereo amirite?

Yeah, I agree.



~150k is plenty of money... if you are struggling at that amount, you are bad with money.

I also agree here. :p

Vanno
06-07-2008, 18:50
$149,000 is enough money to live a middle-class life within your means. Living in an average home, in a decent neighborhood with low police presence, buying your groceries and driving a modest car. You can run the heating and cooling to make your home comfortable, too. That's what you can do with $149,000/year, nothing more and nothing less.

And you cannot breach that barrier unless you can somehow achieve another 100,000/year income to add to your current income because taxes over 150k will ensure that, unless you over-shoot that arbitrary delimitation by a hell of a lot, you'll be pulling in as much money as you did when you made half what you do now. Good luck doing that when your yearly raise is something to the effect of 5%.

Verbose as usually Surly. Either my reading comprehension needs some brushing up, or you are delirious. So, please clarify; are you saying someone making 150k has the same after tax income of someone making 75k?

DaFatalGigabyte
06-07-2008, 19:03
Vanno, it's not about rich people staying rich. They're talking about poor people getting up out of the police infested streets. And yes, most are only lucky to get out. Public education has helped a s***load in this field. But when the people are poor, there is rampant sex, drugs, and alcohol , crime and police punishment, bad parenting, and lesser education.

I know! People should pay for the service of having less crime and police around! :lmao:

EDIT: Dunno if I messed up the person I was replying to. Whatever, disregard when i said Vanno.

Vanno
06-07-2008, 19:05
You said rich staying rich is a matter of mentality. I said it is a matter of money being necessary to make money.

alfaroverall
06-07-2008, 19:08
College tuition is in the hundreds of thousands.
Bullshit. For a bachelor's degree at a typical state university tuition amounts to well under $50,000 (at GMU it's about $24,000, which I'd say is a little below average), and with room and board is still below $80,000. Even at MIT tuition for four years is under $90,000 (not counting room and board).

It's in the hundreds of thousands if you go to GW or something, but not at a state university.

I see and agree with your point, but you made a flawed argument in making it.

$149,000 is enough money to live a middle-class life within your means. Living in an average home, in a decent neighborhood with low police presence, buying your groceries and driving a modest car. You can run the heating and cooling to make your home comfortable, too. That's what you can do with $149,000/year, nothing more and nothing less.
Yet again, bullshit. I live in northern Virginia, which is one of the most expensive places to live in all around for the standard of living one gets there. My parents between them make between $90,000 and $100,000. Our house is about 2,500 square feet and cost $365,000 when it was purchased. My parents' cars are (or were when they were purchased anyway) worth about $35,000 together, which is a hair above modest I'd say. The neighborhood is pretty nice, and we can afford heating and AC just fine. Oh, and my sister and her son live here and have been living here for 6 months too. She pays very little rent and eats our food, and so is effectively a dependent.

$150k a year isn't filthy stinking rich, but it's not a standard middle class income either.

DaFatalGigabyte
06-07-2008, 19:11
Vanno, I understand that. That keeps the rich up high and the poor down low. That in turn keeps in place the system of different levels of neighborhoods.

alfaroverall
06-07-2008, 19:13
Delete please, kthx.

Lacker
06-07-2008, 19:17
College tuition is only a problem for the lesser degrees and jobs.(Aka most people) Its really hard to pay back 20k+ in loans when you're only making 40k-50k pre-tax.

Add in taxes, mortgage, general expenses, and god help you a family. Gonna suck to feel that you spent 4 years of work just to scrape by.

Everto
06-07-2008, 19:43
I think we need some sort of V revolution.

Death's Chill
06-07-2008, 19:45
Honestly anyone who is claiming that 150k is only enough to maintain a middle class lifestyle doesn't have the faintest idea as to how you invest and become a multimillionaire.

150k is wealthy, but not rich. You rent out a small apartment, and continue to bring in your wealth year after year... take public transportation if possible. Save in every way you can think of. If you live well below your means, you could easily save 100k+ a year, and that is factoring a lot of expenses that are purely for fun. Of course this is assuming you're living on your own by yourself.

With 100k a year, even at just 5% interest, that's 5k a year for doing nothing, and if you keep saving, this will double every year. And keep getting higher and higher... eventually you can pull in 30k on interest alone and never have to work another day in your life.

150k is so good it's ridiculous to claim it is middle class.

III [C*D]
06-07-2008, 19:46
I agree with most of this. Even with student loan debt, I would love to be making 30k right now. I make chump change, at the moment, and still get by with no guberment support (since the government could cares less about the 18-30 range anyway because we don't vote). I split living costs with my girlfriend.

$150,000 a year really isn't a lot though, especially since those making that type of money are generally working highly specialized jobs, that required a lot of schooling, are workaholics (necessary to sustain their current income levels) and don't have time to really enjoy the income.

My problem with the tax system is that it completely ignores the leisure/work trade off. Is someone making 30k a year at 40 hour weeks really worse off than someone pulling in 100k at 60+ hour weeks? Maybe, but it isn't as cut and dry as just their salary differences.

Any sales career can earn 150k a year easy with no college... just takes a mentor and/or the will to do it.

Everto
06-07-2008, 19:47
Honestly anyone who is claiming that 150k is only enough to maintain a middle class lifestyle doesn't have the faintest idea as to how you invest and become a multimillionaire.

150k is wealthy, but not rich. You rent out a small apartment, and continue to bring in your wealth year after year... take public transportation if possible. Save in every way you can think of. If you live well below your means, you could easily save 100k+ a year, and that is factoring a lot of expenses that are purely for fun. Of course this is assuming you're living on your own by yourself.

With 100k a year, even at just 5% interest, that's 5k a year for doing nothing, and if you keep saving, this will double every year. And keep getting higher and higher... eventually you can pull in 30k on interest alone and never have to work another day in your life.

150k is so good it's ridiculous to claim it is middle class.

When you put it this way, it really just comes down to what kind of person you really are. I mean, if you have no clue what you're doing, 150k is really shit.

Death's Chill
06-07-2008, 19:48
When you put it this way, it really just comes down to what kind of person you really are. I mean, if you have no clue what you're doing, 150k is really shit.

True, but that applies to any aspect of life. If you have even just a dash of common sense, and can stand to live a tad bit below your means, you will become filthy rich so easily, it's ridiculous.

III [C*D]
06-07-2008, 19:49
30k a year is barely above the poverty line. It's below it, and still taxable, if you're a single parent! You live in California... with a budget of $22k disposable, post-income-tax, income per year, how the hell would you survive?

Less than 4% of what makes less than 50k per year? Households, families, people?

Actually that's a good question, but I'm pretty sure he said "people" and not household.

Plenty of people live off that kind of money, its not luxurious... oh well?

Everto
06-07-2008, 19:50
True, but that applies to any aspect of life. If you have even just a dash of common sense, and can stand to live a tad bit below your means, you will become filthy rich so easily, it's ridiculous.

It would seem trusting in your savings account would be one of the few main ways to survive now. . .

Hold up, I read something interesting in a blog.
http://my.mmosite.com/disconeonick/Blog/Item/a99f734c77b900c4dec17868be56b6f0.html

Ignore the fact it's from MMOSite, the blog is actually quite good. And some of this mans other blogs are as well.

III [C*D]
06-07-2008, 19:51
Percentages are funny like that... 20% of 1,000 is a lot less than 20% of 100,000. Graduated tax scales... if you think they're fine and dandy, whatever, but why create an impassible barrier at 150k? It's not that much money, and it's arbitrary. As inflation lowers the dollar's value, 150k becomes less and less by the year, pushing down the average real-wealth incomes of people.

I grew up on welfare, I lived in southern Illinois which is easily one of the most depressed areas of the country... idealistic views of poor people have nothing to do with it. If you do work, you do get ahead. Wasting your life at a dead end career or working for the city government all your life, and then bitching about not getting anywhere, is your own damned fault. You choose mediocrity and you live it.

A rebate? You don't pay taxes, how can it be a "nice rebate" to get your own money back?

That's absurd and idealistic, you have absolutely no experience in this area. 30,000 dollars is not enough to sustain a copacetic lifestyle for a family of four in this country. It's disgusting to assume it is. Living within your means for 30,000 means living in HUD Housing, taking public transportation everywhere, shopping at the dollar store, and not running your heater in the winter. I've been there! I call it poverty... you call it "enough"? That's just insulting, self-loathing bunk.

$149,000 is enough money to live a middle-class life within your means. Living in an average home, in a decent neighborhood with low police presence, buying your groceries and driving a modest car. You can run the heating and cooling to make your home comfortable, too. That's what you can do with $149,000/year, nothing more and nothing less.

And you cannot breach that barrier unless you can somehow achieve another 100,000/year income to add to your current income because taxes over 150k will ensure that, unless you over-shoot that arbitrary delimitation by a hell of a lot, you'll be pulling in as much money as you did when you made half what you do now. Good luck doing that when your yearly raise is something to the effect of 5%.

Your perspective is very skewed... but okay. If that's all you can do with 150k a year.. again, bad with money.

Everto
06-07-2008, 19:52
;1388429']Your perspective is very skewed... but okay. If that's all you can do with 150k a year.. again, bad with money.

Could you really provide me with an alternate ?
I'm curious to see what you can come up with.

[as much as this post sounds like I'm insulting him, really I'm not.]

Death's Chill
06-07-2008, 19:55
Yep, that's good; but putting your money in a bank isn't the only way to go. There are ways you can get your money to earn 10% interest, and investing in gold can be a pretty safe bet now that the economy is coming down. ;)

Matriel
06-07-2008, 19:59
If they have very little disposable income the've clearly fucked something up.



And if they do that and cant afford the taxes then its there own dam fault.

Hey look, it's another omnisicient moron that decides people's lifestyles for them.



theres no reason anyone should be punished for being unsuccessful either. Have you ever been poor? the fact is that those taxes are going to come from somewhere and if there not coming from the rich then they're going to have to come from people who are average or poor. Its logical that the taxes should come from the rich who can afford everything they need (if they cant then they are not rich) then from the poor who struggle to have a house and enough food.

Fuck yes I've been poor. That's why I have no sympathy for poor people. At 25 I'm well above average income for America and will be upper middle class in the next couple of years.. I worked for what I have and other people can too without sticking their hands in someone else's pocket.

And again you've decided what kind of lifestyle that "rich" people should have by determining that they have more to give without even knowing it personally. Class envy is fucking stupid. I wish people would worry about their own selves without trying to punish people that are doing better than them. Fucking jealous pricks.


Bullshit. For a bachelor's degree at a typical state university tuition amounts to well under $50,000 (at GMU it's about $24,000, which I'd say is a little below average), and with room and board is still below $80,000. Even at MIT tuition for four years is under $90,000 (not counting room and board).

It's in the hundreds of thousands if you go to GW or something, but not at a state university.

I see and agree with your point, but you made a flawed argument in making it.

Yet again, bullshit. I live in northern Virginia, which is one of the most expensive places to live in all around for the standard of living one gets there. My parents between them make between $90,000 and $100,000. Our house is about 2,500 square feet and cost $365,000 when it was purchased. My parents' cars are (or were when they were purchased anyway) worth about $35,000 together, which is a hair above modest I'd say. The neighborhood is pretty nice, and we can afford heating and AC just fine. Oh, and my sister and her son live here and have been living here for 6 months too. She pays very little rent and eats our food, and so is effectively a dependent.

$150k a year isn't filthy stinking rich, but it's not a standard middle class income either.

Didn't you post before that your parents were having trouble with that amount of income?

Vanno
06-08-2008, 00:17
;1388412']Any sales career can earn 150k a year easy with no college... just takes a mentor and/or the will to do it.

So everyone should just go into sales, and the problem will be solved?

Traep
06-08-2008, 01:50
It sucks that us traditional libertarians have no one to vote for.

Guess McCain gets my vote though. He endured torture for our country, and Obama won't even salute our flag during the pledge of allegiance....obvious choice for me.

The hand over the heart issue was during the national anthem, not the pledge of allegiance. During the anthem it's highly debatable as to whether you're supposed to cover your heart or not, especially when a WWII veteran taught you that you don't.

Killuminati
06-08-2008, 01:55
What the hell is a traditional libertarian? Is that codename for republican in this forum?

Traep
06-08-2008, 02:15
Honestly anyone who is claiming that 150k is only enough to maintain a middle class lifestyle doesn't have the faintest idea as to how you invest and become a multimillionaire.

150k is wealthy, but not rich. You rent out a small apartment, and continue to bring in your wealth year after year... take public transportation if possible. Save in every way you can think of. If you live well below your means, you could easily save 100k+ a year, and that is factoring a lot of expenses that are purely for fun. Of course this is assuming you're living on your own by yourself.

With 100k a year, even at just 5% interest, that's 5k a year for doing nothing, and if you keep saving, this will double every year. And keep getting higher and higher... eventually you can pull in 30k on interest alone and never have to work another day in your life.

150k is so good it's ridiculous to claim it is middle class.

I actually agree with this. I think that's a first.

But yeah, I'm a pretty frugal person and if I made 150k a year I'd be so ridiculously comfortable it's not even funny. I would probably save and invest two thirds of that and with 5-10 years not have to worry about much of anything for the rest of my life.

As it is, I make anywhere between $15-$30k a year and I've made that work living in a small town as well as living in NYC (at no time relying on parents, naysayers). It's all about budgeting and roommates. I mean..

I don't think it's even necessary to make a more detailed point. $150,000 a year is just extremely, extremely easy to live a very comfortable life on even with a family. Shit, my parents made $120k combined when I was growing up and me and my two siblings were very comfortable in a large house on the beach.

alfaroverall
06-08-2008, 02:19
Didn't you post before that your parents were having trouble with that amount of income?
We were seemingly screwed a while back, but a recent bank statement seems to indicate the contrary. Seems we were hemorrhaging money somehow or other. We've since cut back on spending and are better off now, though "nubbins" is not a bad description of our actual lifestyle at the moment.

I guess I should shift it a bit, though; our AC is not at a "perfectly comfortable" level. We can't afford it to be that low. Nonetheless, we do live in a $365,000 house on <$100,000 a year and aren't exactly suffering. We can't do whatever the hell we feel like (we used to go out to eat like once a week) but we can do a decent bit of stuff.

KingHussien
06-08-2008, 02:25
Higher Taxes! Woohoo! I can't wait to give my government more money to fight the evildoers!

Another reason to vote Obama, on top of the numerous good reasons to vote for him such as him being black!

Jarkovii
06-08-2008, 02:38
meh, rome fell too, maybe the third time around we'll learn something?

Nothing lasts forever..

Our best bet is to prolong the good for as long as possible until evil finds a crack through the net. And then we start over again.

arkdecon13
06-08-2008, 03:08
its times like these i wish i could move to a third world contry and take a bunch of money build a self sustaining mansion and just live there

Death's Chill
06-08-2008, 03:13
We were seemingly screwed a while back, but a recent bank statement seems to indicate the contrary. Seems we were hemorrhaging money somehow or other. We've since cut back on spending and are better off now, though "nubbins" is not a bad description of our actual lifestyle at the moment.

I guess I should shift it a bit, though; our AC is not at a "perfectly comfortable" level. We can't afford it to be that low. Nonetheless, we do live in a $365,000 house on <$100,000 a year and aren't exactly suffering. We can't do whatever the hell we feel like (we used to go out to eat like once a week) but we can do a decent bit of stuff.

Where the hell is your money going?

At 100k a year you should easily be able to go out a few times a week if not every night. :ninja:

Xzi
06-08-2008, 03:19
Yep, would've been much better to fuck over the country in the long run by continuing to spend, spend, spend, and find no way to pay for any of it. :rolleyes:

Fucking tards.

Surly
06-08-2008, 03:28
Verbose as usually Surly. Either my reading comprehension needs some brushing up, or you are delirious. So, please clarify; are you saying someone making 150k has the same after tax income of someone making 75k?It's an allegory, but you already knew that.


Bullshit. For a bachelor's degree at a typical state university tuition amounts to well under $50,000 (at GMU it's about $24,000, which I'd say is a little below average), and with room and board is still below $80,000. Even at MIT tuition for four years is under $90,000 (not counting room and board).

It's in the hundreds of thousands if you go to GW or something, but not at a state university.

I see and agree with your point, but you made a flawed argument in making it.What the hell makes you think I'm, for some reason, discounting peripheral expenses to college education when speaking allegorically? Going to school full time takes away a great deal of your ability to create wealth through labor, wouldn't you say?

I'm talking from the parent's perspective. I'd love to see you consider sending one of your kids off for a BA with less than $100k without taking loans out.


Yet again, bullshit. I live in northern Virginia, which is one of the most expensive places to live in all around for the standard of living one gets there. My parents between them make between $90,000 and $100,000. Our house is about 2,500 square feet and cost $365,000 when it was purchased. My parents' cars are (or were when they were purchased anyway) worth about $35,000 together, which is a hair above modest I'd say. The neighborhood is pretty nice, and we can afford heating and AC just fine. Oh, and my sister and her son live here and have been living here for 6 months too. She pays very little rent and eats our food, and so is effectively a dependent.I'm averaging between highly urbanized and rural areas for housing prices. A decent quality 3bed/2bath home where I live runs around $180,000-$250,000... and it's fucking Roswell. In California similar accommodations are in the millions. You think it's ludicrous for me to estimate a roughly 400,000 price tag on 1800-2000 square foot homes? $200/sqft is the national average for new construction!

Don't get all wheezy with me just because your local real estate market is below the national average.

And I don't see how you're disproving what I'm saying, your parents have an income of almost $200,000 but aren't driving luxury cars or drinking champagne every night. You live what I look at as the ideal "average" life, and I contend that there is no fucking reason to think this country doesn't have the resources to support your lifestyle as the norm. It used to be, after all, as early as the 60s. What I'm saying is that your family has been defined as "Rich" in the phrase "Taxing the Rich"... do you think that's accurate?


$150k a year isn't filthy stinking rich, but it's not a standard middle class income either.You sound guilty for being "comfortable". Is there some fucking catastrophe that happened between 1920 and 2008 that suddenly made living a comfortable life a cause for owing society a debt? $150k/year for an average family provides the same living conditions as what was dead middle class less than 50 years ago, today it is told to us that 150k makes you "rich" and worthy of having the most crippling taxes in the nation laid on your doorstep to cover the expenses of people who have no ambition to match your success.

Do you think because you pay more taxes you aren't middle class? What the hell is the world coming to when people gauge their living conditions on the opinionated jealousy of poor people?


;1388423']Actually that's a good question, but I'm pretty sure he said "people" and not household.

Plenty of people live off that kind of money, its not luxurious... oh well?Well I guess we do have a fundamental difference of opinion after all. I think that there is no shame in having a comfortable life, indulging in a few luxuries now and then, and generally reaping the fruits of your labor.

"Oh well", their lives are shit... what an interesting point of view to be coming out of the mouth of a self-directed "egalitarian".

alfaroverall
06-08-2008, 03:30
Where the hell is your money going?

At 100k a year you should easily be able to go out a few times a week if not every night. :ninja:
1. Pseudo-recession.
2. $365,000 house.
3. Decent credit card debt (~$500 a month go to it, though that's several times higher than the minimum payment)
4. Cars (my dad's isn't paid for).
5. Generic stuff (groceries etc.)

If it wouldn't pwn me in the face I could probably scan the bank statement to show you where the money went.

What the hell makes you think I'm, for some reason, discounting peripheral expenses to college education when speaking allegorically? Going to school full time takes away a great deal of your ability to create wealth through labor, wouldn't you say?


I'm talking from the parent's perspective. I'd love to see you consider sending one of your kids off for a BA with less than $100k without taking loans out.
Admittedly I'm helped by living at home while I go to school. But really, once you take into account tuition, room and board, books, and miscellaneous fees, you've covered pretty much anything a child could actually need, and for me (even living on campus) that would be less than $100k.


I'm averaging between highly urbanized and rural areas for housing prices. A decent quality 3bed/2bath home where I live runs around $180,000-$250,000... and it's fucking Roswell. In California similar accommodations are in the millions. You think it's ludicrous for me to estimate a roughly 400,000 price tag on 1800-2000 square foot homes? $200/sqft is the national average for new construction!
Care to cite some statistics? Because I've always heard that this area was obscenely expensive per square foot.



And I don't see how you're disproving what I'm saying, your parents have an income of almost $200,000 but aren't driving luxury cars or drinking champagne every night.
$200,000? I said flat out that it's under $100,000. Maybe that's just a typo, though.

You live what I look at as the ideal "average" life, and I contend that there is no fucking reason to think this country doesn't have the resources to support your lifestyle as the norm. It used to be, after all, as early as the 60s. What I'm saying is that your family has been defined as "Rich" in the phrase "Taxing the Rich"... do you think that's accurate?
To some extent, yeah.

You sound guilty for being "comfortable". Is there some fucking catastrophe that happened between 1920 and 2008 that suddenly made living a comfortable life a cause for owing society a debt?
Actually, yes. It was the Great Depression. No politician just ever had the balls to repeal the New Deal, and so now the government operates under the same basic structure.

$150k/year for an average family provides the same living conditions as what was dead middle class less than 50 years ago, today it is told to us that 150k makes you "rich" and worthy of having the most crippling taxes in the nation laid on your doorstep to cover the expenses of people who have no ambition to match your success.
Again, rich? No. But certainly at the upper end of the middle class.

Septus
06-08-2008, 03:31
My problem with the tax system is that it completely ignores the leisure/work trade off. Is someone making 30k a year at 40 hour weeks really worse off than someone pulling in 100k at 60+ hour weeks? Maybe, but it isn't as cut and dry as just their salary differences.

/thread right fucking there. Most people who earn high wages are essentially on-call at all times. When my dad worked for Apple, he was getting calls & e-mails at all hours of the night. I feel for people who do manual labor, because it is hard, but guess what? It has very little value. Everyone can do it. Use your f'ing brain and you'd make more money. That's what has value in today's world (or maybe it's always been that way).

I'm not devoid of sympathy, but it's really as simple as that. Working hard doesn't mean you just push your broom harder, it means you do what most people don't want to do - USE YOUR BRAIN.

Death's Chill
06-08-2008, 03:45
/thread right fucking there. Most people who earn high wages are essentially on-call at all times. When my dad worked for Apple, he was getting calls & e-mails at all hours of the night. I feel for people who do manual labor, because it is hard, but guess what? It has very little value. Everyone can do it. Use your f'ing brain and you'd make more money. That's what has value in today's world (or maybe it's always been that way).

I'm not devoid of sympathy, but it's really as simple as that. Working hard doesn't mean you just push your broom harder, it means you do what most people don't want to do - USE YOUR BRAIN.

It's not about using your brain, it's about getting into massive debt to be able to go to a good college and get a fancy degree, hoping you don't die of boredom along the way.

If a smart person could get a job without the need for a superficial diploma, then it would be different. ;)

Note that I do think there are some fields where a degree does help, science and medical areas require extensive knowledge of the trade to really be effective.

Death's Chill
06-08-2008, 03:49
1. Pseudo-recession.
2. $365,000 house.
3. Decent credit card debt (~$500 a month go to it, though that's several times higher than the minimum payment)
4. Cars (my dad's isn't paid for).
5. Generic stuff (groceries etc.)

If it wouldn't pwn me in the face I could probably scan the bank statement to show you where the money went.

I'm sorry, but I really just don't see, even with all those payments, how you could be struggling with a household earning of 100k.

Food for three people every month, that's 1,000 dollars at the most, then the mortgage, car and credit card payments, that's another what, 1,500? So 2,500 per month in expenses...

To make 100k a year, that's 8,333 dollars a month.

Unless you're paying triple what I estimated, there's an issue here... ;)

Though factoring in income tax, I can see how you wouldn't have too much to spare, but way way WAY more than enough to dine out at a nice place every night.

alfaroverall
06-08-2008, 03:55
I'm sorry, but I really just don't see, even with all those payments, how you could be struggling with a household earning of 100k.

Food for three people every month, that's 1,000 dollars at the most, then the mortgage, car and credit card payments, that's another what, 1,500? So 2,500 per month in expenses...

To make 100k a year, that's 8,333 dollars a month.

Unless you're paying triple what I estimated, there's an issue here... ;)

Though factoring in income tax, I can see how you wouldn't have too much to spare, but way way WAY more than enough to dine out at a nice place every night.
Much, much higher. The mortgage alone is $1,700 a month. My parents were bringing in about $6,500 a month after taxes and spending almost $8,000 a month. They've dropped that to around $6,000 a month now. Off the top of my head I don't know where all the money was going, but yeah, nearly 1/4 of it was going to the mortgage (and over 1/4 of it is going there now!)

And again, we're really feeding 5 people (if you count a 4-year-old as a whole mouth to feed) since my sister can't really pull her weight.

It's not about using your brain, it's about getting into massive debt to be able to go to a good college and get a fancy degree, hoping you don't die of boredom along the way.

If a smart person could get a job without the need for a superficial diploma, then it would be different. ;)

Note that I do think there are some fields where a degree does help, science and medical areas require extensive knowledge of the trade to really be effective.
Explain to me why a corporation would take you, a mere high school graduate who has not verified that they are willing and able to work (and do so mentally; i.e. the job is not manual labor) when they could take someone who has gone through the much greater rigor of a college education and proven that they can work? That's the premise behind getting a college degree to succeed in the corporate world. Corporations think like insurance companies (and indeed, several of them are insurance companies): they want to minimize their risk of having to find a new employee to replace you because of your personal failure.

It's a pity that people fail to find something that interests them in college that they can do something with but instead major in something that they loathe, but that's their own damn fault. It's not just a flashy diploma that you are guaranteed to be bored stiff on your way to getting. Criticize public education all you want, but if you play your cards right, in college you'll almost never take a class you absolutely don't want to take.

Myself, I'll be taking a total of 2 classes that I don't want to take in college, out of a total of over 30; these are a history class and a literature/art class, respectively. Every other class that I am going to take I will have wanted to take, at least to some extent.

Matriel
06-08-2008, 03:57
You sound guilty for being "comfortable". Is there some fucking catastrophe that happened between 1920 and 2008 that suddenly made living a comfortable life a cause for owing society a debt? $150k/year for an average family provides the same living conditions as what was dead middle class less than 50 years ago, today it is told to us that 150k makes you "rich" and worthy of having the most crippling taxes in the nation laid on your doorstep to cover the expenses of people who have no ambition to match your success.

Do you think because you pay more taxes you aren't middle class? What the hell is the world coming to when people gauge their living conditions on the opinionated jealousy of poor people?

Quoted for motherfucking truth and justice.

Surly
06-08-2008, 04:09
Admittedly I'm helped by living at home while I go to school. But really, once you take into account tuition, room and board, books, and miscellaneous fees, you've covered pretty much anything a child could actually need, and for me (even living on campus) that would be less than $100k.Huh, well, I don't agree... but I haven't created a budget for it either. 100k isn't far off.


Care to cite some statistics? Because I've always heard that this area was obscenely expensive per square foot.You live in a 2,500 sqft house and it cost $325k? That's only around $150/sqft, which depending on the features is the same as it could be here in Roswell or anywhere suburban, for that matter. Sounds pretty average to me. A little on the high side if you don't have a very decked out house, but it's still not as bad as highly urbanized areas where most people live.

I'm citing NAR numbers for median square footage costs on new construction which I either heard from my manager or read in some realtor magazine this week. HUD housing, crime-infested, dilapidated neighborhoods all considered, including 40, 60, 80+ year old homes and the national average was around $90/sqft two years ago (here in Roswell it's $75/sqft currently).
http://www.nahb.org/fileUpload_details.aspx?contentID=560


$200,000? I said flat out that it's under $100,000. Maybe that's just a typo, though. Just semantics, I thought you said they made "90k and 100k" respectively rather than combined.

Though that explains why you're in so much debt. 100k/yr is enough to get by on comfortably if you don't actually own all of your stuff and are in debt. It's also enough to get by on if you only have 3 people in the family, I'd say.


To some extent, yeah.If it's simply to the extent that you have more money than what you'd call the "average" guy, then I guess I can sympathize. But there's really no excuse for calling your family upper-class. Your family's lifestyle, I guarantee is not what whiny Obama supporters are visualizing when they say "tax the rich". At least, I hope it isn't.


Actually, yes. It was the Great Depression. No politician just ever had the balls to repeal the New Deal, and so now the government operates under the same basic structure.Yes, it did... and if you didn't mention that, I would have. Way to take the wind out of my sails, that should teach me to set you up.


Again, rich? No. But certainly at the upper end of the middle class.As defined by tax brackets, sure. How many siblings do you have anyhow? I'm just making the argument that in this economic environment it's about $30k per person to live a comfortable life.

Death's Chill
06-08-2008, 04:25
Much, much higher. The mortgage alone is $1,700 a month. My parents were bringing in about $6,500 a month after taxes and spending almost $8,000 a month. They've dropped that to around $6,000 a month now. Off the top of my head I don't know where all the money was going, but yeah, nearly 1/4 of it was going to the mortgage (and over 1/4 of it is going there now!)

Holy fuck, you get taxed for nearly 25% of your income on income tax alone?!

........

Hmm, even with that high of a mortgage I still don't see how your bill is climbing to 8k, or even 6k, unless you're spending 3k + on food somehow...


And again, we're really feeding 5 people (if you count a 4-year-old as a whole mouth to feed) since my sister can't really pull her weight.

Explain to me why a corporation would take you, a mere high school graduate who has not verified that they are willing and able to work (and do so mentally; i.e. the job is not manual labor) when they could take someone who has gone through the much greater rigor of a college education and proven that they can work? That's the premise behind getting a college degree to succeed in the corporate world. Corporations think like insurance companies (and indeed, several of them are insurance companies): they want to minimize their risk of having to find a new employee to replace you because of your personal failure.

So our entire system is developed so corporations can feel good about their choice? People spend years and sometimes decade doing pointless work and PAYING to do it, just for the privilege and odd chance of getting a job that's worth it?

I don't know how anyone could ever set their ambition to working for someone else. It doesn't make much sense to me. ;)


It's a pity that people fail to find something that interests them in college that they can do something with but instead major in something that they loathe, but that's their own damn fault. It's not just a flashy diploma that you are guaranteed to be bored stiff on your way to getting. Criticize public education all you want, but if you play your cards right, in college you'll almost never take a class you absolutely don't want to take.

There are mandatory classes in every colleges, right? Even private ones? So then yes I personally would be stuck with Math most likely, and perhaps English of which I don't feel like I need, nor would studying for it in the way they teach it help me. It's not how I learned the proper way to write. :p

Of course, if you compare college to high school, they are in separate leagues. I definitely give much more credit to college, simply because it's optional and not forced, and there just seems to be a lot more leeway in how you go about taking the courses; I just feel like there's a whole lot of room for improvement.


Myself, I'll be taking a total of 2 classes that I don't want to take in college, out of a total of over 30; these are a history class and a literature/art class, respectively. Every other class that I am going to take I will have wanted to take, at least to some extent.

The thing I do not understand is, if you're paying to attend the school, you are a customer and they are a business, so they provide you with what you want. Why would they mandate specific courses? You should be allowed to take as few or as many courses as you want, which ever ones they may be. That makes more sense than the current method, much more.

Forcing people to study a subject that does not interest them doesn't do anything, as even if they do the work, they'll never use the information again, nor would they care enough to even try to remember it.

Surly
06-08-2008, 04:31
Hmm, even with that high of a mortgage I still don't see how your bill is climbing to 8k, or even 6k, unless you're spending 3k + on food somehow...
Kids need braces, my head hurts i could use an asprin, I want a snack, I want some weed, my jeans have a hole in the knee, I need a new towel, I'm out of soap, are we out of dog food?, my fucking spleen ruptured, my shoes are old, my daughter will just die if she doesn't get an iPod, fuck is gas this expensive already?, who the hell left the fridge door open?, stop touching the god damned thermostat!

Go live on your own for a while and you'll never be dumbfounded at how quickly money can vanish into thin air.

Matriel
06-08-2008, 04:34
5 bucks here, 5 bucks there is a 100 dollars. Shit adds up fast. Wait till you buy a house. There's like 500,000,000 things you need and constantly have to replace.

Death's Chill
06-08-2008, 05:11
Kids need braces, my head hurts i could use an asprin, I want a snack, I want some weed, my jeans have a hole in the knee, I need a new towel, I'm out of soap, are we out of dog food?, my fucking spleen ruptured, my shoes are old, my daughter will just die if she doesn't get an iPod, fuck is gas this expensive already?, who the hell left the fridge door open?, stop touching the god damned thermostat!

Go live on your own for a while and you'll never be dumbfounded at how quickly money can vanish into thin air.

Ever heard of medical insurance and actually being aware of your financial assets?

Besides none of that applies to me. Though if they indulge in everything in there, I suppose they could spend a lot without realizing it. But again, even then with a monthly income of 6.5k, I just don't see them having financial issues. They'd have to be going on vacation every three months to be in trouble financially. :ninja:


5 bucks here, 5 bucks there is a 100 dollars. Shit adds up fast. Wait till you buy a house. There's like 500,000,000 things you need and constantly have to replace.

Yes, but these 500 things don't add up to an extra 3-4k a month. It only would if you're very unlucky and don't have insurance.

Traep
06-08-2008, 13:47
It's weird hearing people describe how hard it is to get by on $100k a year and at the same time talking about how easy it is to get out of poverty (poverty in the US is defined at ~$12k or less) if you really want to. If life is so hard on $100k, it should be downright impossible on $10-$15k. Just go to college and work hard, right? I'm not denying that doing so will greatly help you get out of poverty, but it's hard to imagine that starting at such a low income doesn't make it exponentially harder both mentally and physically. Just an observation.

alfaroverall
06-08-2008, 14:02
Holy fuck, you get taxed for nearly 25% of your income on income tax alone?!
Something like that, yeah, though that also includes Social Security, Medicare, and health insurance.



Hmm, even with that high of a mortgage I still don't see how your bill is climbing to 8k, or even 6k, unless you're spending 3k + on food somehow...




So our entire system is developed so corporations can feel good about their choice? People spend years and sometimes decade doing pointless work and PAYING to do it, just for the privilege and odd chance of getting a job that's worth it?
Not "feel good" about it. Be willing to take you.

I don't know how anyone could ever set their ambition to working for someone else. It doesn't make much sense to me. ;)
If you can be successful as an entrepreneur, then all power to you. By the very nature of the free market economy, most people can't.





The thing I do not understand is, if you're paying to attend the school, you are a customer and they are a business, so they provide you with what you want. Why would they mandate specific courses? You should be allowed to take as few or as many courses as you want, which ever ones they may be. That makes more sense than the current method, much more.

Forcing people to study a subject that does not interest them doesn't do anything, as even if they do the work, they'll never use the information again, nor would they care enough to even try to remember it.
A Bachelor's or Associate's degree isn't intended to provide you a bunch of information that you're interested in. It's intended to broaden the scope of your capacity and desire for thought, in addition to verifying your ability and willingness to work. The information learned in Gen Ed isn't meant to be used again; it's meant to build you as a thinker, as a person, etc.

Maybe I've succumbed to college propaganda in this regard (though being a college student, buying into the propaganda makes it a lot easier to do Gen Ed), but I buy into it.

It's weird hearing people describe how hard it is to get by on $100k a year and at the same time talking about how easy it is to get out of poverty (poverty in the US is defined at ~$12k or less) if you really want to. If life is so hard on $100k, it should be downright impossible on $10-$15k. Just go to college and work hard, right? I'm not denying that doing so will greatly help you get out of poverty, but it's hard to imagine that starting at such a low income doesn't make it exponentially harder both mentally and physically. Just an observation.
If your family makes $15k a year, and you have a drive to learn, college is more or less free for you.

And really, life isn't hard on $100k a year. It can be hard on $100k a year when you're supporting 3-5 people, a house big enough to fit them, and random things, but $100k a year is huge if you're on your own.

Killuminati
06-08-2008, 16:02
Kids need braces, my head hurts i could use an asprin, I want a snack, I want some weed, my jeans have a hole in the knee, I need a new towel, I'm out of soap, are we out of dog food?, my fucking spleen ruptured, my shoes are old, my daughter will just die if she doesn't get an iPod, fuck is gas this expensive already?, who the hell left the fridge door open?, stop touching the god damned thermostat!

Go live on your own for a while and you'll never be dumbfounded at how quickly money can vanish into thin air.

Holy shit that was incredibly funny.

SCUM
06-08-2008, 17:00
Forget the recession, somebody has to pay another few hundred dollars in annual taxes!

Believe me, I hate taxes too, at least knowing how much of it is spent on shit. But in your current situation with the fucking monsterous debt you guys have, raising taxes to pay for some of it would actually be a good idea.

Keep crying about miniscule tax elevations and democrats though as your current administration rapes/shorts your whole country for personal profit.

Matriel
06-08-2008, 17:04
It's weird hearing people describe how hard it is to get by on $100k a year and at the same time talking about how easy it is to get out of poverty (poverty in the US is defined at ~$12k or less) if you really want to. If life is so hard on $100k, it should be downright impossible on $10-$15k. Just go to college and work hard, right? I'm not denying that doing so will greatly help you get out of poverty, but it's hard to imagine that starting at such a low income doesn't make it exponentially harder both mentally and physically. Just an observation.

How dare we set our sights high on a good life. We should all lower our standards so that this doesn't sound so ridiculous to you. Fuck a bunch of pursuit of happiness.

Simmy
06-08-2008, 17:12
So our entire system is developed so corporations can feel good about their choice? People spend years and sometimes decade doing pointless work and PAYING to do it, just for the privilege and odd chance of getting a job that's worth it?

I don't know how anyone could ever set their ambition to working for someone else. It doesn't make much sense to me. ;)

Its not about them feeling good, its about you proving that you are willing to do whatever it takes to get and keep the job. A company isn't going to be as willing to hire you if you dropped ouut of high school or college because that shows you have a shitty work ethic, and they dont want that in their employees. They want someone who is willing to work no matter what the project is because that is what gets results.

Shamoke
06-08-2008, 17:14
Forget the recession, somebody has to pay another few hundred dollars in annual taxes!

Believe me, I hate taxes too, at least knowing how much of it is spent on shit. But in your current situation with the fucking monsterous debt you guys have, raising taxes to pay for some of it would actually be a good idea.

Keep crying about miniscule tax elevations and democrats though as your current administration rapes/shorts your whole country for personal profit.

Except throughout history higher taxes has never meant more revenue. It does do something that politicians like, but that isn't make more money.

Killuminati
06-08-2008, 18:30
Except throughout history higher taxes has never meant more revenue. It does do something that politicians like, but that isn't make more money.

Laffer curve ^^

Death's Chill
06-08-2008, 18:47
Its not about them feeling good, its about you proving that you are willing to do whatever it takes to get and keep the job. A company isn't going to be as willing to hire you if you dropped ouut of high school or college because that shows you have a shitty work ethic, and they dont want that in their employees. They want someone who is willing to work no matter what the project is because that is what gets results.

I don't have a "shitty" work ethic when I'm getting paid for my efforts.

I do however, have an extremely poor work ethic when I'm forced to do the work, or I have to PAY to be able to do the work. :rolleyes:

High school and college are two extremely different things.

Death's Chill
06-08-2008, 18:51
Something like that, yeah, though that also includes Social Security, Medicare, and health insurance.

I don't know, doesn't anyone else find this sick beyond measure?





Not "feel good" about it. Be willing to take you.

If you can be successful as an entrepreneur, then all power to you. By the very nature of the free market economy, most people can't.

There are other ways to make money on your own, like doing freelance work, or working artistically, either painting, music, or writing. ;)

Though yes, not everyone would want to do this, nor have the natural talent required. It's a shame for them. :(






A Bachelor's or Associate's degree isn't intended to provide you a bunch of information that you're interested in. It's intended to broaden the scope of your capacity and desire for thought, in addition to verifying your ability and willingness to work. The information learned in Gen Ed isn't meant to be used again; it's meant to build you as a thinker, as a person, etc.

Maybe I've succumbed to college propaganda in this regard (though being a college student, buying into the propaganda makes it a lot easier to do Gen Ed), but I buy into it.

Well, I dropped out of high school. Now would you say that I have a narrow mind? Eh, I don't think I do. I can have an open mind, especially over new things. I do like to learn things tied to my interests, just like anyone else, and I don't see how people are willing to not only accept, but pay for an education system that doesn't even let you chose what you learn. :bang:


If your family makes $15k a year, and you have a drive to learn, college is more or less free for you.

No my parents wouldn't be able to pay for it...



And really, life isn't hard on $100k a year. It can be hard on $100k a year when you're supporting 3-5 people, a house big enough to fit them, and random things, but $100k a year is huge if you're on your own.

Yeah, again bringing me back to the claim that 150k isn't rich.. that was one of the more ridiculous statements of the year. Not only could you survive on that, but you could dine our three times a day and go on a vacation every month (if you had the time). ;)

Traep
06-08-2008, 18:57
Laffer curve ^^

I checked into that. It was pretty interesting. I especially liked this part (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laffer_curve#The_Neo-Laffer_curve). I don't think it really supports higher or lower taxes necessarily, it just supports an optimal tax rate which may be higher or lower than the current one.

There seems to be a desire when talking about taxes to oversimplify the economics behind it. It's a soft science. You can't prove anything about it because there are a bagillion variables that come into play that can't be isolated. I think we'd do well to figure out where tax rates should be based on as many factors that we can crunch into an equation that reflect the world we currently live in. Unfortunately most people would rather politicize their economics.

Killuminati
06-08-2008, 19:05
I checked into that. It was pretty interesting. I especially liked this part (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laffer_curve#The_Neo-Laffer_curve). I don't think it really supports higher or lower taxes necessarily, it just supports an optimum tax rate which may be higher or lower than the current one.

There seems to be a desire when talking about taxes to oversimplify the economics behind it. It's a soft science. You can't prove anything about it because there are a bagillion variables that come into play that can't be isolated. I think we'd do well to figure out where tax rates should be based on as many factors that we can crunch into an equation that reflect the world we currently live in. Unfortunately most people would rather politicize their economics.

To be honest the laffer curve has a heavy republicanesque background (supply siders) so it definitely is part of their politics. However I've accepted their conclusions to be correct because I doubt the empirical data is any different from their conclusions.

Malhavok
06-08-2008, 19:34
For those of you that vote democrat.. Thanks!! Nice job fucking yourselves. Im sure the po' folk will thank you!!


"By doing nothing we will have teh biggest tax hike evar."
There wasn't political support for a permanent version of Bush's tax cut to the wealthy when it was made so they did a temporary tax cut. Then they set loose the pundits on a campaign to convince all the stupid people of America that if the temporary tax cut wasn't made permanent it would be the Democrats making the largest tax hike ever. I'd say the idea worked pretty well. Playing on the partisan ideologies of the stupid seems to be a safe bet towards weaseling out of a situation you created. Make temporary patch-up-plan then blame the other guys when your half-assed band aid has leaked so much deficit everyones up to their ears in it.

Everto
06-08-2008, 19:43
Wait, I have a question: My friend wouldn't accept this information as valid because he said Republicans hike taxes up, not Democrats.

What's the deal?

Malhavok
06-08-2008, 19:43
;1388272']400k for a house, hundreds of thousands for college?

What? The average home in California is 260k (4 bedroom, 2 bath in a nice area.) Going to college is easy if you really WANT to go. My wife graduated making 800 dollars a month, and we only owe about 10k in loans. Her degree could land her a starting job 45k a year, more if she worked summer school and got involved in extra circulars. While that is low, for example an I.T. could make 60-80 starting, but she doesn't want to be an I.T.

Then you have doctors, dentists... etc... Which, I have friends who came from extremely poor back grounds who WANTED to have that education, and earned the grants/scholarships to get it.

People are not as handi-capped as they think they are.

Um, where?

A blue-collar house in the shitty parts of California with terrible economies, such as where I grew up, is running about 250k/year - down from 400k 2 years ago. In an area like Sacramento a house is 300-350k, depending on how far you want to commute. If you want to actually live in Sacramento you're looking 500-750k depending on the neighborhood. Someplace like the Monterey Bay is 700k which is about as cheap as it gets in the entire Bay Area.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/laland/2008/03/california-free.html
There you go, just over 400k median home price, down from 550k a year ago. Tell your wife to get off her ass and stop working part-time at McDonald's.

Matriel
06-08-2008, 19:57
Holy shit. Use astroglide on that asshole next time.

Everto
06-08-2008, 19:58
Wait, I have a question: My friend wouldn't accept this information as valid because he said Republicans hike taxes up, not Democrats.

What's the deal?

Someone answer my question before I rape you all with lubed up cacti.

maskedtears
06-08-2008, 20:06
I don't see why you guys are complaining about our income tax. We have one of the lowest in the world only bettered (last time I checked) by Japan.

And he probably meant about the "war".

Matriel
06-08-2008, 20:11
Someone answer my question before I rape you all with lubed up cacti.

Yes and no. Bush sr. raised taxes and it was part of the reason he wasn't re-elected. Bush jr. lowered taxes, but not as across the board as most people would have liked. And rather stupid while he was spending like a drunken sailor.

That's just recently though. The parties have changed as well, so I'm not sure if you could lay it at the hands of one group or another.


I dont' see why you guys are complaining about our income tax. We have one of the lowest in the world only bettered (last time I checked) by Japan.

And he probably meant about the war.

Not really. http://www.heritage.org/research/features/index/country.cfm?id=Unitedstates

While not as high as some of the more ridiculous countries in Europe, we could learn a lot from people like the Czechs who just passed a flat 13% income tax for their country.

Fro
06-08-2008, 20:12
Why does America even bother with a goverment?

maskedtears
06-08-2008, 20:13
...are you honestly asking that in all seriousness?

Matriel
06-08-2008, 20:13
Why does America even bother with a goverment?

I wish we didn't. :)

Everto
06-08-2008, 20:15
Yes and no. Bush sr. raised taxes and it was part of the reason he wasn't re-elected. Bush jr. lowered taxes, but not as across the board as most people would have liked. And rather stupid while he was spending like a drunken sailor.

That's just recently though. The parties have changed as well, so I'm not sure if you could lay it at the hands of one group or another.

That's how I put it, I put it as the parties is just a name, and that the politician could just do as he pleases, wouldn't that sound about right?

maskedtears
06-08-2008, 20:18
They can't do whatever they want or else they wouldn't be able to run at all. But once they are in office they tend to unless they actually want their bills passed, then they actually do what their party wants.

Killuminati
06-08-2008, 20:19
I wish we didn't. :)

Finally, some good libertarian thought.

Matriel
06-08-2008, 20:20
Finally, some good libertarian thought.

I think I've finally decided to stop rooting for the lesser evil and just go with full blown anarchism. The LP just pisses me off.

Everto
06-08-2008, 20:21
I think I've finally decided to stop rooting for the lesser evil and just go with full blown anarchism. The LP just pisses me off.

Forumfall should start their own political party.
We know what's best.

... or close to it anyway.

Killuminati
06-08-2008, 20:22
I think I've finally decided to stop rooting for the lesser evil and just go with full blown anarchism. The LP just pisses me off.

I've noticed that this extreme is absolutely non-existent on these forums even though its highly considered a "Libertarian sanctuary." This is the only forum I've been to where libertarians are talking about how awesome its going to be when they vote Mccain or when someone receives federal funding.


Also yah, the LP should be abolished immediately. No ones going to take a jr. Republican party seriously. Plus I've always thought of the ideology as more than some nametag that can be made into a political party. Plus those that think changes are possible within the system are just deluding themselves.

maskedtears
06-08-2008, 20:23
Could someone explain the whole libertarian ideals to me. If I understand what it is correctly (I probably don't) wouldn't the governement screwing us over fall under, "should be free to do whatever they wish with their persons or property" and seeing as I am a US citizen doesn't that make me the their bitch? ..theoretically.

Fro
06-08-2008, 20:23
I think I've finally decided to stop rooting for the lesser evil and just go with full blown anarchism. The LP just pisses me off.

Amen!

Everto
06-08-2008, 20:23
and seeing as I am a US citizen doesn't that make me the their bitch? ..theoretically.

This is the only part I could answer:
yes.

Matriel
06-08-2008, 20:24
Could someone explain the whole libertarian ideals to me. If I understand what it is correctly (I probably don't) wouldn't the governement screwing us over fall under, "should be free to do whatever they wish with their persons or property" and seeing as I am a US citizen doesn't that make me the their bitch? ..theoretically.

No. Just because someone is free to do what they want they do not get the right to infringe upon your freedom.

My right to punch you in the face stops at the tip of your nose.

maskedtears
06-08-2008, 20:25
This is the only part I could answer:
yes.

thanks...I'm just gonna go kill myself now.

alfaroverall
06-08-2008, 20:25
I don't know, doesn't anyone else find this sick beyond measure?
Beyond measure? No. To an extent? Yes.







There are other ways to make money on your own, like doing freelance work, or working artistically, either painting, music, or writing. ;)

Though yes, not everyone would want to do this, nor have the natural talent required. It's a shame for them. :(
The free market functions such that some people have to be employees to the entrepreneurs. Without employees, things don't function on any significant scale, and you're reduced to a barter-esque economy.






Well, I dropped out of high school. Now would you say that I have a narrow mind? Eh, I don't think I do. I can have an open mind, especially over new things. I do like to learn things tied to my interests, just like anyone else, and I don't see how people are willing to not only accept, but pay for an education system that doesn't even let you chose what you learn. :bang:
A quote that I'm rather fond of that I think you should know:
Education is learning what you didn't even know you didn't know.

That's the premise behind how it broadens your mind. If you knew about chemistry but realized that you didn't know about (for example) organic reaction pathways, you could look it up in a book. That wouldn't be education, that would just be learning. If you didn't even know what chemistry was and started learning about it, that would be education. And that's the idea behind the kinds of things you learn in high school and college, at least in theory: you're learning what you didn't even know there was to learn in the first place. Here's an easier example: did you even know there was a 1492 when you were 6 or 7 and your teacher taught you about Columbus? No, you didn't; you probably didn't even know there were people around before you were alive. Suddenly this whole concept of a past, before your parents, their parents, and even their parents were alive, appeared before you. This continues on in middle school, high school, and college (again in theory).

The theory collapses when the teachers and the students start to look at it as just work instead of as an opportunity to open their eyes to a whole new world of ideas.



No my parents wouldn't be able to pay for it...

In this country the government and most universities would pay for pretty much all of it, and the remainder could be paid off with low-interest loans on your new income, which would be in the area of $40,000 at least right off the bat.


Yeah, again bringing me back to the claim that 150k isn't rich.. that was one of the more ridiculous statements of the year. Not only could you survive on that, but you could dine our three times a day and go on a vacation every month (if you had the time). ;)
Even as an individual 150k doesn't make you rich. You couldn't own a mansion. If you had a large house (2000+ square feet) you couldn't afford an amazing car either. You're definitely well off and at the upper end of the middle class, but you're not rich. That is, if you don't invest it. $150k a year on $75k expenses with investments can make you rich, but $150k a year alone won't make you rich.

maskedtears
06-08-2008, 20:26
No. Just because someone is free to do what they want they do not get the right to infringe upon your freedom.

My right to punch you in the face stops at the tip of your nose.

I see...so if I harass you and insult you then I'm not giving you the right to punch me even if I'm trying to illicit that response from you? Don't you have the right to do something if others give the power to you?

Everto
06-08-2008, 20:27
No. Just because someone is free to do what they want they do not get the right to infringe upon your freedom.

My right to punch you in the face stops at the tip of your nose.

I will probably use this quote in my future.
Thanks.

Matriel
06-08-2008, 20:28
I see...so if I harass you and insult you then I'm not giving you the right to punch me even if I'm trying to illicit that response from you? Don't you have the right to do something if others give the power to you?

You have freedom of speech. Words do not give me the reasoning to use force upon you.

Although, I suppose you could make the argument that fucking with someone would be cause to use force. However, in such a situation, the person using force wouldn't have started the altercation.

maskedtears
06-08-2008, 20:30
You have freedom of speech. Words do not give me the reasoning to use force upon you.

Although, I suppose you could make the argument that fucking with someone would be cause to use force. However, in such a situation, the person using force wouldn't have started the altercation.

Even if I said I was going to hurt you?

But wouldn't it be my right to argue with whoever I please? (or is it whomever?)

(sorry for the questions but I'm honestly curious)

Matriel
06-08-2008, 20:32
Even if I said I was going to hurt you?

But wouldn't it be my right to argue with whoever I please? (or is it whomever?)

(sorry for the questions but I'm honestly curious)

You can say a lot of things. Until you actually take action, it doesn't mean anything.

Liberty is inherently an offensive lifestyle. Someone will say something that criticizes and even belittles your core beliefs. It is still worth it.

maskedtears
06-08-2008, 20:34
You can say a lot of things. Until you actually take action, it doesn't mean anything.

Liberty is inherently an offensive lifestyle. Someone will say something that criticizes and even belittles your core beliefs. It is still worth it.

...I see. Well I think that answers all of my questions. Thank you.

Matriel
06-08-2008, 20:36
...I see. Well I think that answers all of my questions. Thank you.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian

That might be a little more helpful and articulate than myself.

Everto
06-08-2008, 20:37
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian

That might be a little more helpful and articulate than myself.

Holy shit Matriel, for seemingly having the largest post count on the forum, and arguably having no life.

You are fucking intelligent.
Props to you.

maskedtears
06-08-2008, 20:39
Well I find that actually asking someone with views more closely associated with the one I'm acquiring about is better, I also can't ask wiki questions or make it elaborate on any given point. So I think you were more helpful.

Lethn
06-08-2008, 20:40
I love how a lot of you americans think that simply voting for a certain party will fix all your problems, pretty funny.

Fro
06-08-2008, 20:43
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian

That might be a little more helpful and articulate than myself.

I thought you didnt like wikipedia?

maskedtears
06-08-2008, 20:43
I love how a lot of you americans think that simply voting for a certain party will fix all your problems, pretty funny.

Who said I did?

edit//

I actually can't talk for the other americans in the world but I can say that I don't. So I changed it.

Matriel
06-08-2008, 20:59
I thought you didnt like wikipedia?

Wiki is great. You just have to be smart enough to check the sources before using any of it as an argument.

Malhavok
06-08-2008, 21:04
I love how a lot of you americans think that simply voting for a certain party will fix all your problems, pretty funny.

Well, duh. It's not like we'll actually do anything that requires work to improve our problems. That would require taking personal responsibility and we all know that personal responsibility is down right Un-American!

maskedtears
06-08-2008, 21:08
Well, duh. It's not like we'll actually do anything that requires work to improve our problems. That would require taking personal responsibility and we all know that personal responsibility is down right Un-American!

:lmao: that made my day

Traep
06-08-2008, 21:15
I love how a lot of you americans think that simply voting for a certain party will fix all your problems, pretty funny.

I don't think you'll find a lot of people who think all their problems will be fixed by voting for a particular person but it's shortsighted to think that the people that one puts in power don't have an effect on one's life. Good 'ol GW should have made this painfully obvious for anyone who was skeptical before.

Spineless_DoO
06-08-2008, 22:08
Am I mistaken or doesnt America have a huge debt to pay off?

Wouldnt tax's going up make sence if they plan on EVER paying that debt off?

LOL? When you come to understand how the elites work our system like they have for a veyr long time the answer is not raising taxes. That hurts everyone. Not funding endless police actions around the world and paying private contracters several hundred $$$ per hour to have a guy put clothes in the dryer or clean a shitter is probably a better idea. But hey following the law just doesnt work for modern political players.

Vanno
06-09-2008, 04:53
To be honest the laffer curve has a heavy republicanesque background (supply siders) so it definitely is part of their politics. However I've accepted their conclusions to be correct because I doubt the empirical data is any different from their conclusions.

The thing about the Laffer curve is that it says something very specific, which is that there is a point where a marginal increase in taxes will reduce revenues, and a marginal decrease in taxes will reduce revenues. it doesn't say that a rate cut will always and everywhere reduce revenue, or that a tax hike will always and everywhere reduce revenues, but that there is an equilibrium somewhere. Often people entirely misunderstand this, including Art Laffer himself (who proves himself a complete putz quite frequently on Kudlow and Company).

Killuminati
06-09-2008, 04:59
The thing about the Laffer curve is that it says something very specific, which is that there is a point where a marginal increase in taxes will reduce revenues, and a marginal decrease in taxes will reduce revenues. it doesn't say that a rate cut will always and everywhere reduce revenue, or that a tax hike will always and everywhere reduce revenues, but that there is an equilibrium somewhere. Often people entirely misunderstand this, including Art Laffer himself (who proves himself a complete putz quite frequently on Kudlow and Company).

I'm aware about the what the graph is like. Lol, I'm sure the reason why he doesn't make that clear is that it follows his politics since he can use it to justify a tax decrease.

I've only seen some clips of that show because of Peter Schiff though so I might be wrong and he could just be ignorant about his own theory. It wouldn't surprise me since Keynes was taught everything by Alfred Marshall.

Vanno
06-09-2008, 05:07
I'm aware about the what the graph is like. Lol, I'm sure the reason why he doesn't make that clear is that it follows his politics since he can use it to justify a tax decrease.

I've only seen some clips of that show because of Peter Schiff though so I might be wrong and he could just be ignorant about his own theory. It wouldn't surprise me since Keynes was taught everything by Alfred Marshall.

I watch Kudlow every day pretty much to laugh at everyone, except Joe Battipaglia.

losinglife
06-10-2008, 08:58
5 bucks here, 5 bucks there is a 100 dollars. Shit adds up fast. Wait till you buy a house. There's like 500,000,000 things you need and constantly have to replace.

And its only made worse by the need for high downpayments and shitty closing costs.

Matriel
06-10-2008, 13:48
And its only made worse by the need for high downpayments and shitty closing costs.

High downpayments is good though. So they stop giving 100% housing away to people that can't hack it and end up foreclosing and fucking everyone else. :)

Brillen
06-10-2008, 13:54
I bet it's the same people that bitch about no public healthcare that bitch about taxes.

Money has got to come from somewhere....


then again, Washington DC and have a bake sale. :p

losinglife
06-10-2008, 14:00
High downpayments is good though. So they stop giving 100% housing away to people that can't hack it and end up foreclosing and fucking everyone else. :)

tho you have a point, it also eats away at ones savings. Not to mention screws people like me over who can totally make a mortgage payment up to 1k (if i wanted) yet cant even get there feet wet cause they gotta save up the initial (20%) + closing costs.

Not to mention if you dont reach the 20% you get screwed even more with higher fees and shit.

Matriel
06-10-2008, 14:22
tho you have a point, it also eats away at ones savings. Not to mention screws people like me over who can totally make a mortgage payment up to 1k (if i wanted) yet cant even get there feet wet cause they gotta save up the initial (20%) + closing costs.

Not to mention if you dont reach the 20% you get screwed even more with higher fees and shit.

Yeah, but PMI is pissing money away, so it's better to get the 20% anyway.

Just gotta live like a refugee for a bit. :)

Brillen
06-10-2008, 14:27
Bake sale! helloooooo. :p

Killuminati
06-10-2008, 16:43
I watch Kudlow every day pretty much to laugh at everyone, except Joe Battipaglia.

lmao, I've seen some lulzy videos of Fox Business where Charles Payne would pile on Schiff the whole time. Oh ya and the most retarded idiot is cramer.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=gUkbdjetlY8

losinglife
06-11-2008, 05:34
Yeah, but PMI is pissing money away, so it's better to get the 20% anyway.

Just gotta live like a refugee for a bit. :)

yeah but that is my point. Why the hell even put that shit in there if its just gonna make it worse for people who want to put less than 20% down. I never understood how the philosophy of penelizing someone for not paying x amount works out to them being able to pay z + y amount.

Anywyas, it sucks livin like a highschool kid while waiting to collect the cash one needs to for a shitty house when they could just get one without the wait (provided they wouldnt get ass raped on extra charges)