$550 billion more in tax cuts - wtf? - Page 3 - GoFuckYourself.com

bobosoft · 04-16-2003, 12:41 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Lane

is the difference as big as 30+% as it is with the income tax?

what about the discouragement towards the personal expenses of middle-class people which is what drives the economy?

Actually, it would be at least 30%. The proposal is a 23% sales tax + 7% average exisiting state and local tax + whatever percentage the states use instead of income tax.

yes, there would be some discouragement to spend and more encouragment to save but todays savings is tommorow's spendings. Besides that a Harvard study estimated that 20-30% of consumer prices were due to income taxes. So prices should drop enough to balance out some of the increased sales tax.

Libertine · 04-16-2003, 12:46 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by bobosoft

What the fuck does a playstation have to do with anything. I was using it as an example of the supply and demand economic model. And I didn't say nobody would want to succeed. I said less people would want to succeed.

Your example compared income to a playstation. However, some people use their income for other things than luxury articles.
And why would less people want to succeed if succeeding still means a huge difference in comparison to not succeeding?

"So, you mean I'll only make a million a year?! Well, in that case I'd rather get by on 50 bucks a week."

12clicks · 04-16-2003, 12:46 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Lenny2

I never said I expected the rich to bail me out of anything.

yes you did, when you were busy explaining why we can't give the rich a tax cut. you pretended it was for the good of the people so I clarified your position. it was for the good of the people as long as it meant someone besides you paid more.

Quote:

Originally posted by Lenny2
If I paid a flat tax like the one Steve Forbes was pushing my rate would go down.....way down.

and you'd be here railing against the inequity of it because those rich bastards got such a huge break.

look, this was fun but I've got a Tee time to catch. (I'll be golfing while the people who's load I don't want to carry die)

see you goobers later.

Snake Doctor · 04-16-2003, 12:49 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by bobosoft

http://www.taxfoundation.org/prtopincome.html

http://www.mtn.org/iasa/povstats.html

Says that the richest 1% has more than the bottom 90% combined.

We could do this all day, but we're not going to agree.
Pointless really.

Libertine · 04-16-2003, 12:49 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by FATPad
There's a difference between helping someone who sprained their ankle and carrying someone's load for them because they just don't want to or they didn't plan their load properly.

And taxes do not exist to carry the load for lazy people. They exist to pay essential services like roads, an army, etc. Things that everyone uses and benefits from.

In my opinion, those who can work and do not don't deserve to get any money. I have no problems whatsoever with people starving because of their own laziness.
However, you also mentioned those that didn't plan properly - do you think a mistake (which everyone can make) should mean you starve?

Snake Doctor · 04-16-2003, 12:52 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by 12clicks

look, this was fun but I've got a Tee time to catch. (I'll be golfing while the people who's load I don't want to carry die)

I disagree about the fun part, but we're never going to agree so I'm just going to let this one go and call it a day.

FATPad · 04-16-2003, 12:53 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by punkworld

In my opinion, those who can work and do not don't deserve to get any money. I have no problems whatsoever with people starving because of their own laziness.
However, you also mentioned those that didn't plan properly - do you think a mistake (which everyone can make) should mean you starve?

Not planning properly doesn't necessarily mean a mistake was made.

If I know my rent is due in 5 days, but I take my rent money and buy a new Playstation (sorry had to use that as an example), I didn't plan properly, but I didn't make a mistake and I do deserve to be evicted and starve.

bobosoft · 04-16-2003, 12:54 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by punkworld

Your example compared income to a playstation. However, some people use their income for other things than luxury articles.
And why would less people want to succeed if succeeding still means a huge difference in comparison to not succeeding?

"So, you mean I'll only make a million a year?! Well, in that case I'd rather get by on 50 bucks a week."

The reason less people would (not want to) but have the motivation to succeed is the same reason less people would buy a playstation if it costs $1000. It's not like you can flip a swith a be rich, it takes a lifetime of work. I remember a time a while ago that I had to pass up a pay raise because it would have ended up costing me money.

Libertine · 04-16-2003, 12:55 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by FATPad
Not planning properly doesn't necessarily mean a mistake was made.

If I know my rent is due in 5 days, but I take my rent money and buy a new Playstation (sorry had to use that as an example), I didn't plan properly, but I didn't make a mistake and I do deserve to be evicted and starve.

But in that case, you did have enough money for food/shelter in the first place. You just screwed up with it, and should take full responsibility for that.

genomega · 04-16-2003, 12:56 PM

Do you Karl Marx lovers really want to go back to the days of FDR and a top rate of 96%?

Libertine · 04-16-2003, 12:58 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by bobosoft

The reason less people would (not want to) but have the motivation to succeed is the same reason less people would buy a playstation if it costs $1000. It's not like you can flip a swith a be rich, it takes a lifetime of work.

And your point is? Being rich is only worth a lot of hard work if you can be extremely rich, not if you'll just be very rich?
That makes no sense to me.

FATPad · 04-16-2003, 12:59 PM

btw, I have no problem supporting some guy who worked for 12 years at a job, got laid off unexpectedly, has two kids, a wife, the house, etc, for a limited time while he finds another job.

I do have a problem with supporting people like 22 year old women with 5 kids and no job, lazy people who were taught that the govt will take care of them, and shit like that.

I also have a problem with taking care of people above a level that someone actually working gets to live at.

If you make no money, you can live off the govt like you make $30k a year. If you are actually working and make $22k, you get nothing. That is hardly fair and gives no incentive to go and work. It reinforces the idea that living off the govt is the way to go.

There is no need or reason for people on welfare to be buying steaks and lobsters with their food stamps (for example), or living in brand new places that people actually working cannot afford. If you want to live off the govt, you should live at the bottom of the barrel.

bobosoft · 04-16-2003, 01:00 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Lenny2

http://www.mtn.org/iasa/povstats.html

Says that the richest 1% has more than the bottom 90% combined.

We could do this all day, but we're not going to agree.
Pointless really.

Your article is about the intire world, I was talking about the US. And I'm not arguing that the richest people aren't realy rich. Im arguing that they pay a high percentage of their incomes. And your right, we'll never agree.

Libertine · 04-16-2003, 01:04 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by FATPad
btw, I have no problem supporting some guy who worked for 12 years at a job, got laid off unexpectedly, has two kids, a wife, the house, etc, for a limited time while he finds another job.

I do have a problem with supporting people like 22 year old women with 5 kids and no job, lazy people who were taught that the govt will take care of them, and shit like that.

I also have a problem with taking care of people above a level that someone actually working gets to live at.

If you make no money, you can live off the govt like you make $30k a year. If you are actually working and make $22k, you get nothing. That is hardly fair and gives no incentive to go and work. It reinforces the idea that living off the govt is the way to go.

There is no need or reason for people on welfare to be buying steaks and lobsters with their food stamps (for example), or living in brand new places that people actually working cannot afford. If you want to live off the govt, you should live at the bottom of the barrel.

The largest group of poor people are the working poor, those who do work but just make very, very little money. (13% of americans live in poverty, 5% are unemployed)

I myself am in favor of a simpler system without "tax levels" and such, one where someone that makes money will automatically have more than someone who doesn't, and someone who makes more money will have more money.

bobosoft · 04-16-2003, 01:05 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by punkworld

And your point is? Being rich is only worth a lot of hard work if you can be extremely rich, not if you'll just be very rich?
That makes no sense to me.

Yes, thats pretty much what I am saying. If I can earn $150,000 and keep $100,000 or earn $300,000 and keep $150,00, its probably not worth the responibility that comes along with earning $300,000 for the extra $50,000. And once again, I said our tax system discourages success, not eliminates it.

Libertine · 04-16-2003, 01:06 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by bobosoft

Your article is about the intire world, I was talking about the US. And I'm not arguing that the richest people aren't realy rich. Im arguing that they pay a high percentage of their incomes. And your right, we'll never agree.

He was referring to this part:
As of 1995 (the latest figures available), Federal Reserve research found that the wealth of the top one percent of Americans is greater than that of the bottom 95 percent. Three years earlier, the Fed's Survey of Consumer Finance found that the top one percent had wealth greater than the bottom 90 percent.

bobosoft · 04-16-2003, 01:08 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by punkworld

The largest group of poor people are the working poor, those who do work but just make very, very little money. (13% of americans live in poverty, 5% are unemployed)

I myself am in favor of a simpler system without "tax levels" and such, one where someone that makes money will automatically have more than someone who doesn't, and someone who makes more money will have more money.

5% unemployment ratio does not mean 5% of this country is unemployed. It means 5% of this country is seeking employment through a government agency.

Libertine · 04-16-2003, 01:08 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by bobosoft

Yes, thats pretty much what I am saying. If I can earn $150,000 and keep $100,000 or earn $300,000 and keep $150,00, its probably not worth the responibility that comes along with earning $300,000 for the extra $50,000. And once again, I said our tax system discourages success, not eliminates it.

Why wouldn't it be worth it? Increasing your income by 50% is quite a bit.

bobosoft · 04-16-2003, 01:09 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by punkworld

He was referring to this part:
As of 1995 (the latest figures available), Federal Reserve research found that the wealth of the top one percent of Americans is greater than that of the bottom 95 percent. Three years earlier, the Fed's Survey of Consumer Finance found that the top one percent had wealth greater than the bottom 90 percent.

sorry, missed that

FATPad · 04-16-2003, 01:12 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by punkworld

The largest group of poor people are the working poor, those who do work but just make very, very little money. (13% of americans live in poverty, 5% are unemployed)

I myself am in favor of a simpler system without "tax levels" and such, one where someone that makes money will automatically have more than someone who doesn't, and someone who makes more money will have more money.

Those who work and make very little money need to find a second job or acquire some skills of some kind, and live within their means until they can work their way out. I've lived on a $160/week after taxes, and I went through a hell of a lot of effort just to make that shitty amount of money.

It can be done, you just can't afford to buy a new TV, new car, game systems, new furniture, all the music you want, etc, and you have to do shit like live in crappy places for a while and eat a hell of a lot of chicken and spaghetti because they're cheap.

And before anyone accuses me of making it sound simple, I've done it and my friends have done it. There is no excuse that flies with me for not being able to work your way out of a situation if you really want to.

bobosoft · 04-16-2003, 01:13 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by punkworld

Why wouldn't it be worth it? Increasing your income by 50% is quite a bit.

Well, it really depends on the job. In many cases it would not be worth it to me. Ask a person with a $300,000 a year job how much stress they have to deal with on a daily basis. I can think of a lot of things I woudl not do for an extra $50,000 a year.

Serge_Oprano · 04-16-2003, 01:16 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Joe Sixpack

And yet Canada has a consistently higher standard of living than the USA!

BAD SOCIALISTS!

yeap,
toronto death toll %% wise is bigger than in honk kong...

GOOD SOCIAL MEDECINE!

Libertine · 04-16-2003, 01:16 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by bobosoft

5% unemployment ratio does not mean 5% of this country is unemployed. It means 5% of this country is seeking employment through a government agency.

It's referring to the % of the labor force that's unemployed. I assumed that's counting all adults medically and otherwise capable of working, between the ages of 18 and 65, with the exception of students.
That's how they count it here, anyway.

Libertine · 04-16-2003, 01:19 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by FATPad
Those who work and make very little money need to find a second job or acquire some skills of some kind, and live within their means until they can work their way out. I've lived on a $160/week after taxes, and I went through a hell of a lot of effort just to make that shitty amount of money.

It can be done, you just can't afford to buy a new TV, new car, game systems, new furniture, all the music you want, etc, and you have to do shit like live in crappy places for a while and eat a hell of a lot of chicken and spaghetti because they're cheap.

And before anyone accuses me of making it sound simple, I've done it and my friends have done it. There is no excuse that flies with me for not being able to work your way out of a situation if you really want to.

So you think the people that are working full time but are still living in poverty are lazy? Or that they don't want to work their way out of the situation?

bobosoft · 04-16-2003, 01:23 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by punkworld

It's referring to the % of the labor force that's unemployed. I assumed that's counting all adults medically and otherwise capable of working, between the ages of 18 and 65, with the exception of students.
That's how they count it here, anyway.

You reffered to americans. In the USA, the labor force only includes people who are working or actively looking for work. it does not count people capable of working.

FlyingIguana · 04-16-2003, 01:25 PM

Quote:

So the answer is to stop spending. you know how you stop spending? by forcing everyone to spend the same amount in tax (a poll tax if you will)

12clicks i agree with your point here a bit. but the thing isa middle class family is gonna have a very tight budget and if they have to pay more tax you cut consumer spending.

if it wasn't for consumer spending, the US economy would be in a recession.

no government should be talking about half a trillion in tax cuts if they can't balance the budget. if you don't balance the budget, future government's will have to cut programs and raise taxes to pay for poor financial mismanagement.

Libertine · 04-16-2003, 01:26 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by bobosoft

You reffered to americans. In the USA, the labor force only includes people who are working or actively looking for work. it does not count people capable of working.

Odd way of counting, if you ask me. I'll take your word for it though.

jimmyf · 04-16-2003, 01:27 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by MarkTiarra

Has anyone here actually served in the government or worked on government contracts? Lemme tell you that what you will find will twist your fucking head off. If anyone ran a company the way we run our country, they would be in deeper shit than Enron.

I put some of my software in a Landfill in Fresno, CA back in the 1980's. The guy that owned it also owned a Garbage hauling company. Got to remember this was in the early 2 mid 1980's. The system used two (2) printers, so I gave him one (1) box of computer paper ( at this time it cost like 4 or 5 times it does now ). Also this Landfill owner knew nothing about computers, NOT very many people did at that time. He ask me, is this paper worth anything? I told him sure it is and gave him the price I had paid, I forget the cost at that time. Well the IRS has one (1) of there main offices in Fresno, CA. He told me he hauled something like 20 truck loads of it to his dump every year. Now these were BIG Garbage trucks. They just threw it away so they wouldn't loose the money next year, new un-opened box's. I should have ask him what else they threw away NEW stuff.

This is just one VERY small example MarkTiarra posted about.

I could give you some more, but I feel it would be just a big waste of my time and would over TAX my grey matter.

Oh and yes government contracts, my fucking God I've bidded on 'em and got a few. Most Just 2 fucking funny.

FATPad · 04-16-2003, 01:31 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by punkworld

So you think the people that are working full time but are still living in poverty are lazy? Or that they don't want to work their way out of the situation?

All of them? No.

bobosoft · 04-16-2003, 01:33 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by punkworld

Odd way of counting, if you ask me. I'll take your word for it though.

Its counted that way so that people who are retired or do not need to work are not counted. If you think about it, counting it that way gives a better picture of our economics. When the economy is starting to turn around the employment rates soemtimes go up. Experts attribute this to people being encouraged by the upturned economy and starting to look for work again.

jimmyf · 04-16-2003, 01:45 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by MarkTiarra

So the economy gets bad and a "liberal" says we better raise taxes cuz there is less money going around... but taking more from people makes them spend less and have less for stocks and the like. So how does that make sense?! The economy is nothing more than the result of psychology. Give people more to spend or make them feel safe about what they might spend and things get kicking.

Simple right. I think so. Give me more money and yes I will spend it, or some of it, or a little of it, or put it a savings,(then the banks have it to loan out). I dam sure can't spend it if I don't have it. Never has and never will compute with me... Tax me more so I can spend more, how does this work? If you put the money back into the system it will get spent one way or another, and it will create jobs (it has to). Never will I understand how I will have more money if I am taxed more.

Even if a tax cut goes only to the rich or very rich IT WILL create jobs, and dam sure don't have a degree from MIT and know it will create jobs. And I'm dam sure not rich, at least not any more.

Only way it wouldn't is the rich or very rich bury it in there back yards. The money WILL find it's way back into the system.

Also the off shore Corp. shit is going to be cut in due time, been reading about it.

jimmyf · 04-16-2003, 01:59 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by 12clicks

When I was 18, I was roofing by day and bartending at night but I still understood that making the rich pay more than everyone else was nothing more than state sponsored theft.

When I was 17 I was a sheet rock nailer, 10 hours a day 6 days a week. When I was 18 they were forcing me on to a
Troop Ship at gun Point. And all I cared about was pussy not any dam Taxes.

jimmyf · 04-16-2003, 02:08 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by bobosoft

Don't you think its a little bit fucked up that you earn $400,000 and keep $200,000 (80% of that 200,000 goes to social programs by the way). I'm sure thats enough to discourage some people.

I might add not one and I repeat NOT ONE
social programs has solved one problem. They just **don't* work with the Gov. running them

MarkTiarra · 04-16-2003, 02:26 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by punkworld

You're saying that if everyone respected democratic decisions there wouldn't be anything but dictatorships left in the world?

Here's how I saw the thread of our conversation:

You suggested that if people don't like America's tax system, they should move elsewhere.

I suggested that you have to stand and fight for what you believe in sometimes or everytime there is an injustice, you'll leave and what political system will be left behind?

If people don't fight for their freedoms what's left? Well dictatorships. That's why I don't argue against anti-war protests and the like. I may not agree but it's the ability to stand and fight for what you believe in that keeps the system of democracy honest.

So how did you get out of that, that I said respecting deomcratic decisions leads to dictatorships? It's NOT respecting what it takes to continually allow people the right to democratic decisions that lead to a world full of dictators. That's a very important distinction.

04-16-2003, 12:59 PM	#112
FATPad Confirmed User Join Date: Oct 2001 Posts: 6,693	btw, I have no problem supporting some guy who worked for 12 years at a job, got laid off unexpectedly, has two kids, a wife, the house, etc, for a limited time while he finds another job. I do have a problem with supporting people like 22 year old women with 5 kids and no job, lazy people who were taught that the govt will take care of them, and shit like that. I also have a problem with taking care of people above a level that someone actually working gets to live at. If you make no money, you can live off the govt like you make $30k a year. If you are actually working and make $22k, you get nothing. That is hardly fair and gives no incentive to go and work. It reinforces the idea that living off the govt is the way to go. There is no need or reason for people on welfare to be buying steaks and lobsters with their food stamps (for example), or living in brand new places that people actually working cannot afford. If you want to live off the govt, you should live at the bottom of the barrel. __________________ <a href="http://www.adultcontent.co.uk">Adult Content UK - Great British Content</a>

04-16-2003, 12:56 PM	#110
genomega Confirmed User Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: NW Florida Posts: 1,190	Do you Karl Marx lovers really want to go back to the days of FDR and a top rate of 96%?