If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Huffington Post)   Republicans have released their budget proposal. I'm not saying it's tax cuts... but it's tax cuts   (huffingtonpost.com) divider line 287
    More: Obvious, tax cuts  
•       •       •

7959 clicks; posted to Main » on 20 Mar 2012 at 4:55 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



287 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-03-20 06:22:16 PM

xl5150: Yeah, there's NO way that letting financially savvy people keep their money can be good for the economy. And when I say financially savvy people, I'm talking about people who actually make the country run by creating jobs; not the slovenly lower middle class and below people who are sucking at the government teat.

Newsflash: if you let someone like me keep my own money, I will use that money for buying houses, stocks, bonds and other things that will be good for the economy and get the country back on track while creating jobs. If you tax my money and give it to poor people as an earned income credit, they're going to spend it on lottery tickets, fried pork skins, and cigarettes.

(And yes, I'm sure some wit will jump in with a remark like "You sure as hell won't spend the money on tips for waiters!" HAHA! How clever!)


I'm embarrassed for you.
 
2012-03-20 06:23:26 PM

GAT_00: Awesome, they're doubling down on the Ryan plan.


This election better be a Democratic blowout, else I worry about the future of America. The Republicans are really derping it up lately, for reasons unknown. They deserve to be slapped down for that reason alone. Now, while Obama seems to have a five point lead or so, the generic Congressional ballot tests are much more mixed (and that particular test typically has a Democratic bias; IE, if the Dems are up by a few points, typically the race is basically tied in reality). This is worrysome. Maybe people are thinking about the Presidential race already but not Congress. Congressional Republicans have lower approval than Congressional Democrats, although both sets of numbers are below used car salesmen, IRS agents, and Hitler, so I'm not sure how helpful that is.
 
2012-03-20 06:23:44 PM
img713.imageshack.us
 
2012-03-20 06:24:33 PM

xl5150: Yeah, there's NO way that letting financially savvy people keep their money can be good for the economy. And when I say financially savvy people, I'm talking about people who actually make the country run by creating jobs; not the slovenly lower middle class and below people who are sucking at the government teat.

Newsflash: if you let someone like me keep my own money, I will use that money for buying houses, stocks, bonds and other things that will be good for the economy and get the country back on track while creating jobs. If you tax my money and give it to poor people as an earned income credit, they're going to spend it on lottery tickets, fried pork skins, and cigarettes.

(And yes, I'm sure some wit will jump in with a remark like "You sure as hell won't spend the money on tips for waiters!" HAHA! How clever!)


But think of the pork and tobacco farmers! (And...lottery ticket printers?)
 
2012-03-20 06:24:38 PM

tallguywithglasseson: As for deductions, I guess I don't see the "consolation prize" analogy, but it seems to expresses your attitude towards them pretty well (you are against them).


I would consider the analogy to be fair IF the deductions were small enough that they wouldn't actually save money given what you need to do to qualify. In the case of the mortgage interest deduction, I ran the numbers for myself a while back and found that it came out pretty close to how much I had been spending on rent, so I would hardly call it a consolation prize.
 
2012-03-20 06:29:01 PM
I hate when people laud Paul Ryan but when they start calling him brave and courageous it really makes me want to puke. He pushes a system where tax payer dollars are funneled into the pockets of the very insurance companies that stuff his campaign coffers. That's not courageous, it's crooked and dishonest. More importantly, it ignores the fact that once you've set the precedent that you're going to feed tax payer money into the hands of your donors, those donors are going to demand more and more of that money.
 
2012-03-20 06:30:59 PM

anfrind: I would consider the analogy to be fair IF the deductions were small enough that they wouldn't actually save money given what you need to do to qualify. In the case of the mortgage interest deduction, I ran the numbers for myself a while back and found that it came out pretty close to how much I had been spending on rent, so I would hardly call it a consolation prize.


Well I mean, theoretically, the deductions are there partially to attempt to drive behavior. Having kids, house, etc, is expensive, it's more of an attempt to make it financially feasible for more people. A lot of people have bought a house, for example, figuring in the tax benefits as part of the equation... taking them away would be like pulling the rug out from under them.
Which probably wouldn't help the housing market recover... which in turn probably wouldn't help "spur the economy" too much.

But who knows what deductions Ryan's planning to eliminate. A lot of these tax plans end up leaving the mortgage deduction alone, at least for the primary residence.
 
Ehh
2012-03-20 06:31:24 PM
Si naciste martillo del cielo te caen los clavos.
 
2012-03-20 06:31:33 PM

xl5150: Yeah, there's NO way that letting financially savvy people keep their money can be good for the economy. And when I say financially savvy people, I'm talking about people who actually make the country run by creating jobs; not the slovenly lower middle class and below people who are sucking at the government teat.

Newsflash: if you let someone like me keep my own money, I will use that money for buying houses, stocks, bonds and other things that will be good for the economy and get the country back on track while creating jobs. If you tax my money and give it to poor people as an earned income credit, they're going to spend it on lottery tickets, fried pork skins, and cigarettes.

(And yes, I'm sure some wit will jump in with a remark like "You sure as hell won't spend the money on tips for waiters!" HAHA! How clever!)


It's generalizations like this that make you and your ilk intolerable, and impossible to speak to.
 
2012-03-20 06:33:09 PM

xl5150: keep their money


Money has to move to have value. Refusing to tax the earnings of those who are least likely to spend it is a recipe for economic disaster, as we have seen all too recently. Taxes pay for society, something we are all responsible for and from which we all benefit. The GOP is less interested in having a healthy economy than it is in redistributing wealth to the already wealthy. Hence their never ending quest to lower taxes for the wealthiest Americans.

It's really pretty simple.
 
2012-03-20 06:34:14 PM
In SimCity 3000 Unlimited, (also true in 3K, for that matter), you can decrease municipal taxes to zero%, and you'll still have people in your office, every year, lobbying for lower taxes. Sid Meyer even modeled the GOP. What a brilliant, brilliant simulator.

/ I used to think that was a bug in the game.
 
2012-03-20 06:37:10 PM

jabelar: tallguywithglasseson: jabelar: Ummm, I'm pretty sure I do. I make straight income in a high bracket and don't have much to deduct. I'm in the 30 percents ...

30%, that would be well over $450,000 taxable a year, and even more if there are *any* deductions.
So maybe more like 500k a year. So... congratulations?

If you use Turbotax, they print your effective rate right on your receipt.

No, first of all, the proposed 25% is a marginal tax. So you have to compare marginally.

But yes, I'm in that bracket some years.

No I don't use Turbotax, spend plenty of money on accountants.

However, I, unlike most others refuse to borrow money. So no mortgage. Also single, so no worries about protecting assets, life insurances, college savings. Also, I don't gamble, so no investments -- only straight contracted interest (bridge lending). Don't do any retirement savings because it is foolish to lock in your money and make less with it than you can churning it through my business.

Most of the tax deductions are really consolation prizes -- oh you've got a mortgage poor baby here's a tax break, oh you've got kids poor baby here's a tax break, oh you've had investment losses poor baby here's a tax break.


Wow, you're so rich and tough.
 
2012-03-20 06:39:11 PM
Some people think that everyone should pay the same percent of their income in taxes. Some think that people who make more are greedy farks and should pay a higher percentage.

Both ignore the massive defense budget.
 
2012-03-20 06:39:20 PM

culebra: Money has to move to have value. Refusing to tax the earnings of those who are least likely to spend it is a recipe for economic disaster, as we have seen all too recently.


This. The economy is the world's cardio-vascular system. If the "blood" doesn't flow, cyclically and perpetually, the "organism" dies.
 
2012-03-20 06:43:55 PM

culebra: Money has to move to have value. Refusing to tax the earnings of those who are least likely to spend it is a recipe for economic disaster, as we have seen all too recently. Taxes pay for society, something we are all responsible for and from which we all benefit. The GOP is less interested in having a healthy economy than it is in redistributing wealth to the already wealthy. Hence their never ending quest to lower taxes for the wealthiest Americans.

It's really pretty simple.


Yes, it is pretty simple, which is why I'm surprised you didn't get it.

Do you really think that when I said "keep my money," I meant literally hold onto it and never use it for anything? If my taxes are cut, I'm not going to take my extra money and stuff it into my mattress and let it rot forever and ever. I'm among the wealthy class, and I didn't get to be that way by being bad with my money. People like me are accustomed to using our money to create more money, and we accomplish that by investing it into the economy. I buy houses, I buy stocks, I buy bonds. I have friends who own businesses--businesses that pay employees to come and work for them. We're not going to be able to help the economy if the government is taking that money away from us and siphoning it into a black hole of bureaucracy and welfare. If you gave me an extra million dollars today, I guaran-damn-tee you that what I did with it would be much more economically stimulating to the economy than the government taxing me for a million dollars and giving it out on welfare so that people can spend the $300,000 that remains after processing costs on lottery tickets, Marlboro Reds, and grape soda.

The fact that you specifically highlighted my sentence of "keep my money" and apparently interpreted it to mean I was going to literally keep my money is what's wrong with trying to talk about money with people that don't have money. People without money think that people who have money are hoarding money like Scrooge McDuck with his money tower and once they have a dollar it will never be seen again. Wrong. Nobody ever got rich from a savings account. Right now, today, I have more money than you will ever see cumulatively in your life, and I don't even have a savings account.
 
2012-03-20 06:44:07 PM

Harold_of_the_Rocks: Meanwhile, absolutely NO ONE wants to be honest with us and say the following:

In order to shrink the deficit, we will have to raise taxes AND cut spending. It's a giant shiat sandwich, and we all have to take a bite.


I will say it.

Raise taxes, and do cuts to spending; with the caveat being we'll need to raise taxes first, and be very careful cutting spending, and we will need a robust private sector that can handle the loss of government money as well as the newly unemployed government workers.

Otherwise we'll end up in another deep recession.
 
2012-03-20 06:45:15 PM

Troy McClure: Why isn't it class warfare when the burden shifts to poorer folks?


Poor people don't own the media.

/or anything, by definition, but the other things they don't own aren't so relevant to the question
 
2012-03-20 06:48:24 PM

All_Farked_Up: Both ignore the massive defense budget.


No, it's not being ignored. Thing is, yes, you could slash the defense budget, end procurement, quit having foreign adventures, and lay off a fark-load of soldiers.

But the consequences of that would be to immediately stop a fark-load of money from flowing, both from the layoffs and from the immediate decrease in R&D and manufacturing.

Of all of our economic activities, farming, manufacturing, and R&D are the most desirable. These activities add value and grow GDP. The service industry can only redistribute wealth (although the cyclic flow of wealth is inherently good in itself). But service industry cannot grow an economy on its own.

Like it or not, we can't cold-turkey the defense budget. Wean off it over time, sure. But anything drastic would immediately trigger another recession.
 
2012-03-20 06:51:23 PM

Allen. The end.: Oh Paul Ryan you fascist shill. I'm sick of this. Why can't we treat our fellow Americans better than this???


Because they hate our guts of course. They rely on the votes of the Dangerously Stupid to get into power, and from there on they wage war on us.
 
2012-03-20 06:53:14 PM

MooseUpNorth: culebra: Money has to move to have value. Refusing to tax the earnings of those who are least likely to spend it is a recipe for economic disaster, as we have seen all too recently.

This. The economy is the world's cardio-vascular system. If the "blood" doesn't flow, cyclically and perpetually, the "organism" dies.


Precisely. This is why the most economically stimulative measure a government can employ is an increase in food stamps. It' money that is virtually guaranteed to get recirculated. People have to eat. They don't have to open new businesses or hire new employees.
 
2012-03-20 06:54:01 PM

SevenizGud: OMG! Doesn't the GOP understand that gubmint can spend our money for us better than we can spend it for ourselves?

What next, allowing the people to vote?


Some republicans actually DO want to deny the majority of Americans from having the right to vote. Check out some cases on Google where they wanted to reduce eligibility to "land owners" and even to take away the right to vote for Senators.
 
2012-03-20 06:54:55 PM
Republican math:

4-2=53423396434
 
2012-03-20 06:57:42 PM

trappedspirit: Is this one of those threads where ideas from the other political party seem illogical and disastrous because you actually think that only your political party has the corner market on reason and sanity? Because if it is then sign me up!


Reason and sanity are but a distant memory for the Republican Party. If you can't see that, then you are afflicted with the same insanity.
 
2012-03-20 07:00:01 PM

xl5150: I meant literally hold onto it and never use it for anything?


I sure didn't. It's too bad your ensuing screed is based on the assumption that this is what I meant.

xl5150: much more economically stimulating


I'm sorry, but the data simply does not support this argument. In dire economic situations, the wealthy are far less likely to spend their money opening new businesses, making new investments and hiring new employees. The best thing a government can do in these situations is to put money into the hands of people who are most likely to circulate it. This is invariably people who need things.

It's simple economics. No ethical judgments concerning cartoon ducks included.
 
2012-03-20 07:02:04 PM
In the spirit of the GOP plan, I'm going to pay off my credit cards by working one hour less each day and stop buying food.
 
2012-03-20 07:02:36 PM
www.clker.com
The record's stuck, the record's stuck, the record's stuck, the record's stuck, the record's stuck, the record's stuck, the record's stuck, the record's stuck, the record's stuck, the record's stuck, the record's stuck, the record's stuck, the record's stuck, the record's stuck, the record's stuck, the record's stuck, the record's stuck, the record's stuck, the record's stuck.
 
2012-03-20 07:03:11 PM

culebra: put money into the hands of people who are most likely to circulate it.


At the risk of putting too fine a point on it: this recirculating of currency in exchange for goods and services is the only thing that will encourage business to make new investments, open new operations and hire new employees. Only when they ascertain that it will be profitable for them will they do so, not when they simply have a lower tax burden and the economy (the trade in goods and services) still sucks.
 
2012-03-20 07:06:20 PM

culebra: culebra: put money into the hands of people who are most likely to circulate it.

At the risk of putting too fine a point on it: this recirculating of currency in exchange for goods and services is the only thing that will encourage business to make new investments, open new operations and hire new employees. Only when they ascertain that it will be profitable for them will they do so, not when they simply have a lower tax burden and the economy (the trade in goods and services) still sucks.


Executive summary: To have customers (with money), you have to have employees (with living wages). They're the same people.
 
2012-03-20 07:06:41 PM
I'm not sure that anyone could seriously call me an Apologist for the Republican Party, (given that the nicest thing I've called them this week is "morally bankrupt, vicious little assholes") but there are a couple of points that really should be mentioned here.

1: We are taxed too much. All of us. You, me, Bill farking Gates. I'm fairly sure I could build my own continent right off the shore of California with what the U.S. collects in taxes every year. The fact that Republicans are greedy, hate-fueled dickbags doesn't alter the fact that our Government could (and should) run on about a third of what it currently collects in taxes. Also, it's ridiculous to assume, as all Presidents currently do, including Obama, that what YOU get to spend is "whatever the last guy spent, plus 50%."

2: Budgets, much like wars, are in fact supposed to be declared. The fact that we allow troops to fight without a declared war, and allow the government to spend without passing a budget are reflections on how we as Americans, regardless of our political affiliations, have become gutless. Hell, why would anyone pass a budget (or declare a war) if they know they there will be no repercussions if they don't? While it's true that Republicans are hypocritical assholes for continually proposing budgets that they know won't pass, and blocking budgets that could pass, the fact remains that if we didn't put up with it, they wouldn't be able to do it.

3: Even a broken watch is right once a day, as they say, and Republicans are right that the country can't just keep raising it's own credit limit. Sadly, Republicans only came to this realization one a black guy was in office, and will immediately forget all about "fiscal responsibility" the moment a White Republican comes back to power.

4: Medicare is going to devour us. You, me, our children- it will eat us all. It's completely unsustainable, and everyone knows it. Much as Republicans respond with knee-jerky Crazy to anything Obama says or does, we on the Left respond with knee-jerk Crazy whenever medicare comes up. In a constantly aging society like ours, where the average life span keeps increasing and the number of people over 60 does nothing but grow, there is absolutely no way to sustain Medicare. Either coverage or expenses have to come down. Personally, I think expenses should come down, but that would require *gasp* Socialized Medicine, and frankly, Republicans would rather see old people dead than see them Socialist.
 
2012-03-20 07:07:09 PM

xl5150: culebra: Money has to move to have value. Refusing to tax the earnings of those who are least likely to spend it is a recipe for economic disaster, as we have seen all too recently. Taxes pay for society, something we are all responsible for and from which we all benefit. The GOP is less interested in having a healthy economy than it is in redistributing wealth to the already wealthy. Hence their never ending quest to lower taxes for the wealthiest Americans.

It's really pretty simple.

Yes, it is pretty simple, which is why I'm surprised you didn't get it.

Do you really think that when I said "keep my money," I meant literally hold onto it and never use it for anything? If my taxes are cut, I'm not going to take my extra money and stuff it into my mattress and let it rot forever and ever. I'm among the wealthy class, and I didn't get to be that way by being bad with my money. People like me are accustomed to using our money to create more money, and we accomplish that by investing it into the economy. I buy houses, I buy stocks, I buy bonds. I have friends who own businesses--businesses that pay employees to come and work for them. We're not going to be able to help the economy if the government is taking that money away from us and siphoning it into a black hole of bureaucracy and welfare. If you gave me an extra million dollars today, I guaran-damn-tee you that what I did with it would be much more economically stimulating to the economy than the government taxing me for a million dollars and giving it out on welfare so that people can spend the $300,000 that remains after processing costs on lottery tickets, Marlboro Reds, and grape soda.

The fact that you specifically highlighted my sentence of "keep my money" and apparently interpreted it to mean I was going to literally keep my money is what's wrong with trying to talk about money with people that don't have money. People without money think that people who have money are hoarding money like Scrooge McDuck ...


Ah, I see you don't understand how investiging works.

When you "use money to make money", you wind up with more money. So does every other wealthy person you describe doing the same thing. A lot of it. That money has to come from somewhere - it doesn't get magically created by the same leprechauns that allegedly make jobs appear out of thin air whenever your taxes are lowered. Then you invest some of that money again, and use it to make more money. That process isn't pumping money into the economy, it's draining it away from it, and funneling it towards the very richest.

This process is what drives the staggering growth in wealth disparity throughout the country. It makes the rich richer and the poor poorer. It's not the only driver - high interest loans on credit cards, automobiles, and houses from wealthy individuals and banks have much the same effect.

The important thing to take away from this lesson in economic basics is: wealthy investors aren't magical angel-saints who use their magic investing powers to keep our economy afloat. They're leeches who have grown fat by sucking as much of the blood out of our economy as possible.
 
2012-03-20 07:10:45 PM
FTA
switching to a privatized Medicare system in which beneficiaries receive "premium support" from the government permitting them to buy insurance on the open market.

How many ways can these clowns say vouchers. Vouchers that will likely cover half of what will be offered.
 
2012-03-20 07:12:01 PM
It must have been painful to put birth control on the back burner for this. My sympathies.
 
2012-03-20 07:13:02 PM

xl5150: Yeah, there's NO way that letting financially savvy people keep their money can be good for the economy. And when I say financially savvy people, I'm talking about people who actually make the country run by creating jobs; not the slovenly lower middle class and below people who are sucking at the government teat.

Newsflash: if you let someone like me keep my own money, I will use that money for buying houses, stocks, bonds and other things that will be good for the economy and get the country back on track while creating jobs. If you tax my money and give it to poor people as an earned income credit, they're going to spend it on lottery tickets, fried pork skins, and cigarettes.

(And yes, I'm sure some wit will jump in with a remark like "You sure as hell won't spend the money on tips for waiters!" HAHA! How clever!)


Poe's Law Poe's Law Poe's Law Poe's Law Poe's Law Poe's Law Poe's Law Poe's Law Poe's Law Poe's Law
Poe's Law Poe's Law Poe's Law Poe's Law Poe's Law Poe's Law Poe's Law Poe's Law Poe's Law Poe's Law
Poe's Law Poe's Law Poe's Law Poe's Law Poe's Law Poe's Law Poe's Law Poe's Law Poe's Law Poe's Law
 
2012-03-20 07:13:13 PM

gimmegimme: Republican math:

4-2=53423396434


And yet, Democrats are the ones that think spending more somehow will reduce the deficit.

/But it is easy to prove that lower taxes don't always lead to lower revenue.
//All you need to do is look at the history of tax rates and revenue.
///But hey, why bother to do any research when you can just use a little hyperbole and a lot of laziness?
 
2012-03-20 07:15:02 PM

xl5150: Right now, today, I have more money than I am a gigantic loudmouthed asshole


FTFY.

Now, assuming what you say is true, please be sure to pat yourself on the back for what a great person you are while you're in Church this Sunday, congratulating yourself on on what a spectacular Christian you are.

But really- fark you. It's the Internet pal, and your stories of wealth and success mean exactly jack squat. If you want to make a point, try doing it based on logic, and not on assertations of your massive penis size.
 
2012-03-20 07:15:08 PM
As I understand it, we could cut our military in half and still have the largest military in the world several times over. Is that not true?
 
2012-03-20 07:16:53 PM

06Wahoo: And yet, Democrats are the ones that think spending more somehow will reduce the deficit.


Oh, stop being a whiny little cockbite. Guess which party the last President to leave office with a surplus belonged to.
 
2012-03-20 07:19:08 PM
Only on Fark and in meetings of the Communist party would the idea of letting people keep more of the money they earn be a bad idea.

Feel free to leave at any time. You social leeches are not needed. We have plenty already.
 
2012-03-20 07:20:39 PM

Kurmudgeon: BillCo: Good, give the money back to the people so that it can be used to get the country back on it's feet.

Like these guys.
[grist.files.wordpress.com image 400x280]




Don't be hatin, bro. If we just gave billionaires like the Koch brothers a few more tax breaks, then they'll start buying Rolex watches and yachts like crazy and everyone that's unemployed will be able to get jobs at the Rolex factory!
 
2012-03-20 07:22:16 PM
Wow cuts in all the wrong places

why not cut military spending in half for 2 years ? budget issues solved.

Come on team america world police
 
2012-03-20 07:22:21 PM

Mavent: Now, assuming what you say is true, please be sure to pat yourself on the back for what a great person you are while you're in Church this Sunday, congratulating yourself on on what a spectacular Christian you are.


Christian? You really don't know anything about the wealthy in Southern California, do you?
 
2012-03-20 07:23:12 PM

ifarkthereforiam: FTA
switching to a privatized Medicare system in which beneficiaries receive "premium support" from the government permitting them to buy insurance on the open market.

How many ways can these clowns say vouchersaffordability credits. VouchersAffordability credits that will likely cover half of what will be offered.


FTFPPACA
 
2012-03-20 07:24:51 PM

xl5150: Mavent: Now, assuming what you say is true, please be sure to pat yourself on the back for what a great person you are while you're in Church this Sunday, congratulating yourself on on what a spectacular Christian you are.

Christian? You really don't know anything about the wealthy in Southern California, do you?


I apologize, I wrote my original message before it became obvious that you're a troll.
 
2012-03-20 07:25:17 PM
Our economy is in trouble. We have a debt that is approaching unserviceable. We have a deficit rate that is unsustainable and that will increase the debt to catastrophic levels. Paul Ryan comes up with a plan that will substantively reduce the rate of the deficit and, with a bit of economic growth, stop the deficit which will give us the opportunity to start reducing the debt.

We have historical examples under JFK, Reagan, and Bush that reducing the tax rate and simplifying the tax code (the polite way of telling folks that you're doing away with a bunch of their deductions) increases revenues to the government and stimulates the economy. We have a great example under Clinton that changing welfare system, much like Ryan's proposals, reduces the welfare rolls (saving money) and moves people into work. Moving people onto the work rolls increases tax revenues but it also moves people out of poverty and into the middle class. Times of economic prosperity improve the lot of the poor and middle class, times of economic depression hurt the poor and middle class disproportionately.

Democrats hate the Ryan budget. They have already come up with so many clever epithets that you'd swear they've been working on them all winter in anticipation of the plan. What the Democrats don't have is any kind of plan of their own that gets spending under control. Their solution is to increase the tax rate. The problem with that solution is that, in order to placate their donors, they tag every rate increase with a plethora of deductions. Between the deductions and the fact that rich people shift their wealth to tax shelters whenever they think the tax rate is too high, revenues to the government always drop when taxes are increased. Beyond a demonstrably failed plan, the Democrats have nothing but their arsenal of clever epithets. And yet, they would have you believe they are the smart ones, te responsible ones.

Too many of you probably don't remember the great Luxury tax increase under Clinton. It was only going to apply to luxury items like yachts and designer jewelry and the like. It was the quintessential "tax the rich" plan. What happened was that the rich didn't pay taxes. they simply didn't buy the luxury items. I was consulting with a handful of supply chain partners in the luxury yacht business at the time. Every single company suffered hugely, a couple yacht builders went out of business, most of the rest moved overseas. Domestic luxury yacht market has never returned. I had friends who sold and serviced yachts. Several lost their jobs, a couple lost their business. As soon as the tax was dropped the rich started buying yachts again. Except that now they were buying them from foreign companies because U.S. yacht manufacturers weren't financially stable enough for the rich folks to trust them with building their yachts. End result: the rich didn't suffer one iota. The middle class took it in the shorts as thousands of employees at yacht manufacturers, marine hardware manufacturers, and all of their suppliers lost their jobs. Yacht service companies, yacht sales people, etc. either lost their job or lost a large chunk of their income. If they survived, they were selling for an overseas builder. So keep taxing those rich bastards. We'll teach them!
 
2012-03-20 07:26:18 PM

Mavent: 1: We are taxed too much. All of us. You, me, Bill farking Gates. I'm fairly sure I could build my own continent right off the shore of California with what the U.S. collects in taxes every year. The fact that Republicans are greedy, hate-fueled dickbags doesn't alter the fact that our Government could (and should) run on about a third of what it currently collects in taxes. Also, it's ridiculous to assume, as all Presidents currently do, including Obama, that what YOU get to spend is "whatever the last guy spent, plus 50%."


There is it. A clean naked assertion that we are taxed too much. How much should we be taxed? What does it depend on? Where's the reference state? No no no no. None of that matters. It's too much whatever it is as a first principle.

That's the box I put you in, with many before you, who offer nothing more than assertions that we pay too much tax and that taxes are bad.

Please do run off to your island with the rest who are like you and enjoy the overflowing septic system of whoever lives uphill from you.
 
2012-03-20 07:27:10 PM

Mavent: xl5150: Mavent: Now, assuming what you say is true, please be sure to pat yourself on the back for what a great person you are while you're in Church this Sunday, congratulating yourself on on what a spectacular Christian you are.

Christian? You really don't know anything about the wealthy in Southern California, do you?

I apologize, I wrote my original message before it became obvious that you're a troll.


Typical liberal argument tactic. Just accuse everyone who disagrees with you of being a troll, even when what they're writing is correct and makes sense.
 
2012-03-20 07:27:13 PM
Ha. I heard this story on NPR, and I thought, Oh I am totally getting into that thread on Fark.

It's so farking depressing.
 
2012-03-20 07:30:26 PM

Goodfella: Kurmudgeon: BillCo: Good, give the money back to the people so that it can be used to get the country back on it's feet.

Like these guys.
[grist.files.wordpress.com image 400x280]



Don't be hatin, bro. If we just gave billionaires like the Koch brothers a few more tax breaks, then they'll start buying Rolex watches and yachts like crazy and everyone that's unemployed will be able to get jobs at the Rolex factory!


We've done better. We've actually secretely taxed the uber-rich. Except the "tax" is called a Super Pac and the jobs created are in media, advertising and hiring shills to post nonsense on the inter-tube-thingies.
 
2012-03-20 07:31:33 PM

MilesTeg: Only on Fark and in meetings of the Communist party would the idea of letting people keep more of the money they earn be a bad idea.

Feel free to leave at any time. You social leeches are not needed. We have plenty already.


Only amoral, antisocial, unpatriotic slime believe that those that benefit the most from Society shouldn't pay back that Society to enable those who least benefit sustain even the basest level of living.

I make a pretty damned decent salary, from what I understand it's in the top 10%. I happily pay my taxes because I have benefited quite well from the Society in which I live. I did not make it to where I am on my own, neither has anyone else, no one in the entire history of this country. I am lucky to be where I am today and want to do what I can to help those who have been less fortunate, whether that means food stamps, free medical care or whatever else they need.
 
2012-03-20 07:34:07 PM
There's a lot wrong with what you've said, Mavent, although I recognize you mean well. Please hear me out.

Mavent: 1: We are taxed too much. All of us. You, me, Bill farking Gates. I'm fairly sure I could build my own continent right off the shore of California with what the U.S. collects in taxes every year.


Yes and no. Here's the thing. The government doesn't hoard wealth. It can't. What it brings in, it spends in the same year. Like a family that lives paycheck to paycheck, this is a net-positive for the economy.

You see, the vast majority of that wealth (except interest payments on deficit spending) is spent in the US, for R&D/defense (see a previous post for why this isn't entirely a bad thing), salaries (a very good thing), and marketing and politics (doesn't grow an economy, but doesn't hurt it either.)

It's not a bad thing, necessarily, for some of this money to go foreign, as long as there's an overall trade balance. (Your trade imbalance with China is going to wreck you eventually.)

Now we come to the private sector. Where businesses are mostly breaking even, and doing business locally where possible, this is also a net-positive. Flowing money contributes to the economy.

On the third hand, stagnant money (usually investment money, hoarded savings, and unreasonably high margins) does not contribute to the economy. Some pooled money is beneficial, because individual people usually can't build things beyond their means, but too much of it? Money that isn't flowing does not contribute to the economy.

2: Budgets, much like wars, are in fact supposed to be declared.

Deficit spending is the problem here. Accountability, in itself, doesn't hurt or help an economy. It only prevents shenanigans that might.

3: Even a broken watch is right once a day, as they say, and Republicans are right that the country can't just keep raising it's own credit limit.

Yes, except the biggest increases in deficit spending all came during Republican administrations. This is also true of the Progressive Conservatives in Canada. The numbers are clear on this.

4: Medicare is going to devour us. You, me, our children- it will eat us all. It's completely unsustainable, and everyone knows it.

Sorry, but you're flat out wrong here.

a) Every country in the G8, except the US, has universal health care, and none of us are devoured, nor at risk of being devoured.

b) A person has to be healthy in order to contribute to an economy. Worry-free preventative care (aka, single payer) works. The numbers are there.

c) Stagnant money. See above.

If you compare effective tax rates while including health insurance premiums (an apples to apples comparison between Canada and the US), Canadians pay far, far less in taxes, overall than Americans do. Though the disparity narrows somewhat when you include sales taxes.
 
Displayed 50 of 287 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report