Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 07-04-2012, 07:43 PM
 
29,939 posts, read 39,379,267 times
Reputation: 4798

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by buzzards27 View Post
No, you're just being ridiculous. Who built all those homes for the 99%'ers, them or that top earner? There's hypotheticals and there's being silly. You're being the latter. Wealthy "thinkers" add little or nothing to society. A farmer doesn't need a wealthy landowner to tell him his job.
I'll remember that the next time you tell us about your $millions$ stocked away and your early retirment you one-percenter you.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 07-05-2012, 06:09 AM
 
Location: Hinckley Ohio
6,721 posts, read 5,188,970 times
Reputation: 1378
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigJon3475 View Post
I'll remember that the next time you tell us about your $millions$ stocked away and your early retirment you one-percenter you.
Actually I was never more than a 9%'er.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-06-2012, 10:18 AM
 
Location: The Land of Reason
13,221 posts, read 12,284,152 times
Reputation: 3554
Quote:
Originally Posted by wutitiz View Post
All analogies walk with a limp. The 'robinson crusoe' anologies like this one seem irresistible in economics and and are problematic in a debate context because they are always so easy to blast apart.

That said, I disagree with your correction 'closer toward reality' of my correction. It's basically the 'physical fallacy,' that only physical, or manufacturing-type activities really 'add value.' Suppose the top earner is a brilliant social scientist who comes up with a new way to organize society such that everyone is a millionaire, everyone has a big house, nice car, etc.. He did 'zero manual labor.' He probably just sat thinking, and analyzing reams of data. But did he 'add value.' Yes.
But is'nt that a theory? In otherwords he still has not DONE anything. Social scientist are thinkers they contribute ideas which cost absolutely nothing. Other people are then use to implement those ideas, so in a nutshell he still did not do anything
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-06-2012, 10:21 AM
 
Location: The Land of Reason
13,221 posts, read 12,284,152 times
Reputation: 3554
Quote:
Originally Posted by irishvanguard View Post
Almost anyone who understands anything about economics understands that capital gains are counted as income. Ever had an economics course? Or filled out your own income tax form?

But they are not taxed the same which the problem in the first place.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-06-2012, 10:29 AM
 
Location: The Land of Reason
13,221 posts, read 12,284,152 times
Reputation: 3554
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zimar View Post
Hmm...

Let's do some MATH!

Let's pretend all of the income in America is 1 million dollars: $1,000,000.00,
and that there are only 100 people in America.

Let's pretend that only 1 person in America makes $500,000.00, let's call him "Top Earner."
He makes this money selling knickknacks to the other 99, so if he leaves, he doesn't get to make more money.

Let's pretend that the other 99 are a bunch of bums and the rest is distributed to them, $500,000.00
Because they're on welfare and get a bunch of luxurious tax breaks, these 99 bums only pay $100,000.00 in taxes. They each make about $5000 and pay about $1000 in taxes, about 20%

Top Earner, on the other hand, pays $150,000.00 in taxes, and keeps $350k all to himself.

OMG HE IS PAYING MORE THAN THE REST OF THE ENTIRE COUNTRY WTF?!?!?!

Ok, so do you guys see where this statistic completely and utterly fails? It reveals nothing about the actual state of the economy and whether the tax system is truly broken. If you think about it for more than about a minute, it turns into an argument for wealth redistribution.

Now also take into consideration that the top earner also has tax shelters in other countries and can influence the laws which the other 99% have to abide by. One must also look at the fact that if the 99% decided that they did not need to buy the knicknacks that the 1% dude has to sell and just keeps their money or spend it on other things amongst themselves, where does that put the 1% dude?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-06-2012, 10:32 AM
 
Location: The Land of Reason
13,221 posts, read 12,284,152 times
Reputation: 3554
Quote:
Originally Posted by irishvanguard View Post
Yes, the snide tone is usually reserved for your use. Let me state unequivocally that there is no such thing as "unearned income", except to the lazy and stupid.

...........and the wealthy
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-16-2012, 10:27 PM
 
313 posts, read 352,883 times
Reputation: 84
Quote:
Originally Posted by HappyTexan View Post
Obamcare will take care of that along with the Obama tax cuts expiring.

Cap gains and dividends will be taxed much, much higher. Tax on dividends can go as high as over 40%.

No, ‘Obamacare’ isn’t ‘the largest tax increase in the history of the world’ (in one chart)
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-16-2012, 10:29 PM
 
313 posts, read 352,883 times
Reputation: 84
Record-low Taxes: In 2009, Americans paid lowest tax rates in 30 year.

The top 1% of earners saw a 36% drop while the four lowest income brackets lost 5%, in terms of percentage of wages lost. That hugely inflates the dollar value of household income decline.
Just trying to point out that claiming that taxes have been raised, or taxes are higher under Obama, is false.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-17-2012, 02:16 AM
 
29,939 posts, read 39,379,267 times
Reputation: 4798
Quote:
Effects on the Federal Budget Deficit

March 2010
Estimates

2012-2019

Gross cost

931 billion

Effects on Revenues

524 billion

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Feb. 2011
Estimates

2012-2021

Gross cost

1,390

Effects on Revenues

813 billion

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

March 2011
Estimates

2012-2021

Gross cost

1,445

Effects on Revenues

n.a.
https://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/fi...egislation.pdf

Look, it has the same type of estimates that led to garbage like this...

Quote:
Another example of concern about budget conventions involves the Hospital Insurance trust fund, which covers Medicare Part A. The legislation will improve the cash flow in that trust fund by hundreds of billions of dollars over the next decade. Higher balances in the fund will give the government legal authority to pay Medicare benefits longer, but most of the money will pay for new programs rather than reduce future budget deficits and therefore will not enhance the government’s economic ability to pay Medicare benefits in future years. We wrote about those issues as the legislation was being considered.
And then of course you have the CBO making sure it's well documented that they just estimate what's thrown in front of them and if it's crap in it'll be crap out.

Quote:
As with all of CBO’s cost estimates, the ones for this legislation reflect an assumption that the legislation will be implemented in its current form. We do not attempt to predict the intent of future Congresses that might choose to enact different legislation. At the same time, we have emphasized that the budgetary impact of this legislation could be quite different if key provisions of the legislation were changed, and we have highlighted certain provisions that we expect might be difficult to sustain for a long period of time.
https://www.cbo.gov/publication/25155

So if the CBO can't tell you how much it will cost and it's highly skeptical of the provisions even occurring like they were planned on how on god's green earth do you think Motherjones is going to be able to tell how much this monstrosity is going to cost?

It all looks eerily similar to the SS trustees reports that come out every year and the trust fund exhaustion dates are revised downward closer and closer to the present.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-17-2012, 02:38 AM
 
26,918 posts, read 15,136,775 times
Reputation: 11927
Quote:
Originally Posted by EddieB.Good View Post
So the fact that they pay payroll taxes, sales tax, gasoline taxes, etc. counts for... what?


The payroll taxes come back to them and often with $$$ added on top of that.
Just like Welfare.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top