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.

(Telegraph)   UK: I know, we'll tax the rich 50%. They'll just lie back and think of England. The rich: My oh my, but isn't tax exile lovely this time of year   (telegraph.co.uk) divider line 281
    More: Obvious, Lib Dems, parliamentary debate, Ed Miliband, cull, tax rates, Britain, income taxes  
•       •       •

10796 clicks; posted to Main » on 28 Nov 2012 at 8:18 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-11-28 12:32:19 PM  

MoxieLover: fickenchucker: Why can't we agree with the widely-accepted and unbiased charts that if taxation rises too far as compared to neighboring options, revenue goes down, and the trick is to raise taxes just to the level of your competition, not above it?


In this case some of the decline was due to the economy in general, but some was undoubtedly due to the options the wealthier have, such as claiming residency in a different country?


Conversely, if taxation is too low, revenues fall. I'm not talking about a simplistic Laffer Curve, so don't knock it down. I'm saying people will tend to work to improve their lives, but if there is an easy out to reduce their tax burden they will take it. How many of you liberals and moderates don't take any deductions on your personal taxes?

I've gotten to the point I hate dogma from both sides. England went too far with their top rate as compared to much of their competition. We may be a couple of points too low as compared to our competition. We need to cut spending AND raise taxes a little.

But I'm not a fool. Cut the spending first, then we can talk about raising taxes.

Truer words never written.


Indeed. We have a +1 trillion dollar gap every year. Raising taxes will only raise 90 billion a year. Spending needs to be addressed first. 100% agree.
 
2012-11-28 12:33:37 PM  

wingnut396: Sid_the_sadist: I see hundreds of people every day collecting their checks while wearing gold chains that cost more than my monthly salary and driving a brand new Escalade on 24's

I think you mean you saw on person using their EBT wearing a gaudy 10K plated chain driving a 10 year old Escalade from the Credit Clown Car Corral on rent to own 24"s rims.

Unless you work at the continuous convention for stereotype welfare queens.


And I think you are a reality denying moran. Come vacation for one week down here, take notes, take pictures, you'll either explode or leave with a different outlook.
 
2012-11-28 12:38:44 PM  

jayphat: Because there were enough god damn deductions to drop the effective rate to next to nothing.


There were certainly lots of deductions. But, the effective tax rate for top earners in 1961 was still well over 50%...at least if the American Enterprise Institute is to be believed.

And, yet, the rich didn't hop on a plane or a ship for exile. Why?
 
2012-11-28 12:48:40 PM  

thurstonxhowell: bluefoxicy: Granted you have people like me, who can get by on $400/mo

Mom and Dad's place sure is cheap.


Actually I bought a house on a $60k salary and it only took a few years to pay off. Instead of saving for retirement, I paid my debt--credit cards, car loan, mortgage--before I hit 30. So my expenses are car insurance, food, gas/electric, gasoline, minor maintenance.
 
2012-11-28 01:05:11 PM  

Sid_the_sadist: I'm a married, middled-aged guy with three kids, My wife and I both work for the Government and make about 50k a year combined before taxes.

We pay day care for two kids - 1400 a month
We pay after school care for one - 200 a month
We pay full priced meals for the one in school.

After Mortgage, car, utilities, insurance (health, home, and auto) fuel and groceries we live literally paycheck to paycheck. Our bank accounts have less that $20 in them several days before we get paid again.

I've done some research though, check this out...


We can get divorced (on paper), she keeps the kids (we would still live in the same house) She quits her job.

We vote Democrat the rest of our lives.



At first, she'll collect unemployment.


If you voluntarily leave a job, you don't get unemployment (some exceptions for hostile environments and such. You can also be denied unemployment if you are fired with cause.

We get welfare (roughly $1000 a month)

From what I can tell, this is calledTANF in MS. This is capped monthly at $110 for the 1st person, $36 for the 2nd, and $24 for each after. So that would mean your wife would have 36 kids. (I would mention that TANF has a welfare to work requirement, but with 36 kids, I'm sure one is disabled or under 12 months old, exempting her from that requirement). There are also unpleasant requirements for gaining TANF, such as your wife will basically have to have any of her bank account exhausted first, the State making sure you pay your child support for 36 kids and I'm not sure what they will say about the free housing provided by the divorced dad where he just happens to live as well.


We get WIC- free baby food and other staples

With so many kids (im sure you have at least five under 5 years of age), I think you need this. You'll be rolling in all that milk, dried beans, peaches and Boost for sure (PDF Alert). Straight ballin.

She immediately qualifies for $850 a month in food stamps
From what I can find, the average per person SNAP benefit is $123.29 per person in Mississippi. This doesn't make the number match as that means your wife would have about 7 people on SNAP... far shorter than the 36 from the TNAF calculation.

Health insurance for her and the kids is now free (I save 480 a month in health insurance premiums)
I'm sure you are just jumping at the chance to use the 'free' health care system that the great State of Mississippi has to offer. I'm sure it is better than the State benefits you kids get right now.


We get free cell phones
Yes, a free phone with 250 minutes or air time and 250 text messages per month is the pinnacle of success.

She can watch kids in our house or clean houses for cash that's not reported as income.
I'm sure when child services stops by, they'll look kindly on this. Also keep in mind that since she is now on TANF, SNAP and other programs, you will be required to pay 25% of your pay to the State for child support. They will then pay her the child support. If you don't pay on time, you can lose your professional licenses, passport, hunting permits or just toss you in jail.

So knock yourself out. I'm sure I'm totally wrong about every part of your cunning plan and soon you, your ex-wife and the brood will be riding around in an iced out, brand new Escalade and laughing at all the rubes not living phat off the public dole.
 
2012-11-28 01:07:33 PM  

jayphat: Cythraul: This is why we should just raise an army of the people, arrest them, and take what they have. Maybe even find a final solution for these pests later on.

Alot of people forget, or don't know, that even if you confiscate 100% of what the "rich" have, it would only run the government for ~45 days. And you know, we can only do that once.


That's why you seize the means of production as well. Silly.
 
2012-11-28 01:12:55 PM  

SlothB77: Tigger: My guess though is that, paradoxically, the more you increase the number of threads talking about the Laffer curve that it will reduce the number of people who think it isn't total horseshiat.

The more evidence that is presented, like this article, that supports the Laffer Curve, the less people will think its total horseshiat. You'll still go ahead and raises here in the USA. Predictably, the same thing will happen here that happened in the UK. Then people like you will still say the Laffer Curve is horseshiat again. And people will stop listening to you.


Oh I think the results of the election showed pretty clearly to whom is being listened.

It will be you Fox News and the Telegraph all on your own.
 
2012-11-28 01:16:39 PM  

Sid_the_sadist: wingnut396: Sid_the_sadist: I see hundreds of people every day collecting their checks while wearing gold chains that cost more than my monthly salary and driving a brand new Escalade on 24's

I think you mean you saw on person using their EBT wearing a gaudy 10K plated chain driving a 10 year old Escalade from the Credit Clown Car Corral on rent to own 24"s rims.

Unless you work at the continuous convention for stereotype welfare queens.

And I think you are a reality denying moran. Come vacation for one week down here, take notes, take pictures, you'll either explode or leave with a different outlook.


Skippy, I live no more than 2 hours or so down I-10 from most of rural south Mississippi and have for most of my life. I know what exactly what you claim you are seeing. I also know the tons of rent to own car lots, the crappy gold jewelry in pawn shops and the cheap rim places in the better parts of such locations. I've worked right next to them. There are not hundreds of welfare recipients driving around in brand new Escalades every day.

I will completely agree that there are some people that are totally gaming the system. I have absolutely no doubt that is happening. But it is not happening on the scale you are suggesting. Living in section 8 housing and using welfare is not a kind existence. It not horrible, but well, that is the farking point in having welfare IMO. People should not have to be living in shanty towns with open sewage and picking through the dump for food.
 
2012-11-28 01:16:59 PM  

wingnut396: Sid_the_sadist:

At first, she'll collect unemployment.

If you voluntarily leave a job, you don't get unemployment (some exceptions for hostile environments and such. You can also be denied unemployment if you are fired with cause.

We get welfare (roughly $1000 a month)

From what I can tell, this is calledTANF in MS. This is capped monthly at $110 for the 1st person, $36 for the 2nd, and $24 for each after. So that would mean your wife would have 36 kids. (I would mention that TANF has a welfare to work requirement, but with 36 kids, I'm sure one is disabled or under 12 months old, exempting her from that requirement). There are also unpleasant requirements for gaining TANF, such as your wife will basically have to have any of her bank account exhausted first, the State making sure you pay your child support for 36 kids and I'm not sure what they will say about the free housing provided by the divorced dad where he just happens to live as well.


We get WIC- free baby food and other staples

With so many kids (im sure you have at least five under 5 years of age), I think you need this. You'll be rolling in all that milk, dried beans, peaches and Boost for sure (PDF Alert). Straight ballin.

She immediately qualifies for $850 a month in food stamps
From what I can find, the avera ...


OH SNAP!
 
2012-11-28 01:24:48 PM  

wingnut396: Health insurance for her and the kids is now free (I save 480 a month in health insurance premiums)
I'm sure you are just jumping at the chance to use the 'free' health care system that the great State of Mississippi has to offer. I'm sure it is better than the State benefits you kids get right now.


One correction: depends on where they live. But, in lots of places, only minor children, pregnant women and the disabled qualify for Medicaid coverage. If she lived in my state, as an able bodied adult, she'd get nothing.
 
2012-11-28 01:26:46 PM  

onyxruby: Flat tax 20 regardless of income source. No penalty for success, fair for everyone. Get rid of all the corporate tax loopholes for sending jobs overseas etc.


Sure, I'm on board....

... but remember that the biggest loophole is corporate "personhood". Eliminate corporate bankruptcy - all shareholders are responsible for liabilities and debts. Including the podiatrist buying stock at $38 hoping to make a killing. While we're at it, corporations (banks) don't get to issue money, only the government does. As in Chicago Plan.

See, Bain Capital can buy 10 companies, make money off the 2 that are profitable, and just file paperwork to wipe out the other 8. But Joe down the street living on food stamps can't wipe out his student loans through bankruptcy. That's the biggest giveaway to the rich, and something none of the fair tax people even want mentioned.

But you do that, and I'm OK with paying the same tax rate as a hedge fund manager...
 
2012-11-28 01:32:07 PM  

SlothB77: Zasteva: At a top marginal rate of 35%, you are depriving yourself of nearly 2 times the income you are depriving the government of, in order to keep from paying an extra 5% on your income above $250k.

the question is if the time spent working and the effort required for the job is worth the compensation, after taxes, for doing it. at a certain tax rate, it may be. as a new, higher tax rate, it may not be.


Of course. And $250k taxable is plenty of money to live on. So working less will probably improve your quality of life.

However you talked about using a tax deferment scheme to bring your income down close to $250K, which suggests that you are still doing the work, just deferring the income in some way. I'm not presuming to know what you are actually doing, just saying that your explanation was ambiguous.
 
2012-11-28 01:37:45 PM  

wingnut396: So knock yourself out. I'm sure I'm totally wrong about every part of your cunning plan and soon you, your ex-wife and the brood will be riding around in an iced out, brand new Escalade and laughing at all the rubes not living phat off the public dole.


It makes me sad that people exist who would take something like his post at face value. Thanks for taking the time to show how full of it he is.

BTW, why didn't you mention what a gold mine his profile is? That's some grade-A moron right there.
 
2012-11-28 01:38:59 PM  

my_cats_breath_smells_like_cat_food: wingnut396: Sid_the_sadist:

At first, she'll collect unemployment.

If you voluntarily leave a job, you don't get unemployment (some exceptions for hostile environments and such. You can also be denied unemployment if you are fired with cause.

We get welfare (roughly $1000 a month)

From what I can tell, this is calledTANF in MS. This is capped monthly at $110 for the 1st person, $36 for the 2nd, and $24 for each after. So that would mean your wife would have 36 kids. (I would mention that TANF has a welfare to work requirement, but with 36 kids, I'm sure one is disabled or under 12 months old, exempting her from that requirement). There are also unpleasant requirements for gaining TANF, such as your wife will basically have to have any of her bank account exhausted first, the State making sure you pay your child support for 36 kids and I'm not sure what they will say about the free housing provided by the divorced dad where he just happens to live as well.


We get WIC- free baby food and other staples

With so many kids (im sure you have at least five under 5 years of age), I think you need this. You'll be rolling in all that milk, dried beans, peaches and Boost for sure (PDF Alert). Straight ballin.

She immediately qualifies for $850 a month in food stamps
From what I can find, the avera ...

OH SNAP!


I don't think he thought his cunning plan all the way through.
 
2012-11-28 01:43:30 PM  

thurstonxhowell: wingnut396: So knock yourself out. I'm sure I'm totally wrong about every part of your cunning plan and soon you, your ex-wife and the brood will be riding around in an iced out, brand new Escalade and laughing at all the rubes not living phat off the public dole.

It makes me sad that people exist who would take something like his post at face value. Thanks for taking the time to show how full of it he is.

BTW, why didn't you mention what a gold mine his profile is? That's some grade-A moron right there.


Meh: Poe's law. Sad: I know people that think reality is exactly what he claimed While on vacation at Disney, the beach, or some other moderately priced destination, they biatch about how hard their middle class suburban life is and lament how easy the welfare queens have it.. Fark: Some of those people are family... and I know they are not trolling.
 
2012-11-28 01:45:10 PM  

wingnut396: Sid_the_sadist: I'm a married, middled-aged guy with three kids, My wife and I both work for the Government and make about 50k a year combined before taxes.

...........All your stuff.............



We both have low paying government jobs...I see hundreds of people scamming the system daily, the clues are there, where do you think we work?
When I threw those numbers up there, it was because I'd already done the calculations based on an unmarried disabled mother of three, one being 6 mos old, and a disabled veteran living in the house with her.

There are currently 26 families that are damn near exact matches to that scenario who receive between 800-870 in SNAP and between 700-900 in TANF


In truth, I wish the system was exactly like you think it is based on your numbers, the sad truth is that it is not.
 
2012-11-28 01:50:02 PM  

Cythraul: This is why we should just raise an army of the people, arrest them, and take what they have. Maybe even find a final solution for these pests later on.


Jew have got to be kidding.
 
2012-11-28 01:52:42 PM  

Cythraul: This is why we should just raise an army of the people, arrest them, and take what they have. Maybe even find a final solution for these pests later on.


Good idea. Ask Pol Pot how well it worked for him.
 
2012-11-28 01:53:45 PM  

Dadoody: Taxes need to be reasonable all around.

There is no real reason ANYONE should be forced to pay a 50% tax on anything. That's not taxation - that's outright theft of income. What governments need to do, but will not, is live within their budgets and means.

In the United States, our tax monies go into fruitless military expenditures, high pensions and lavish lifestyles of many people on the government's dole, while our roads, dams, and infrastructure are falling into disrepair.


In the United States you have the government you deserve. It's been elected by the people since its inception. There is no excuse for it, other than the shortsightedness and stupidity of the voting public.
 
2012-11-28 01:54:16 PM  

Sid_the_sadist: I'd already done the calculations based on an unmarried disabled mother of three, one being 6 mos old, and a disabled veteran living in the house with her.


So, you made a calculation that is nothing like your situation?

In other words, wingnut396 was exactly right.
 
2012-11-28 01:58:22 PM  

thurstonxhowell: wingnut396: So knock yourself out. I'm sure I'm totally wrong about every part of your cunning plan and soon you, your ex-wife and the brood will be riding around in an iced out, brand new Escalade and laughing at all the rubes not living phat off the public dole.

It makes me sad that people exist who would take something like his post at face value. Thanks for taking the time to show how full of it he is.

BTW, why didn't you mention what a gold mine his profile is? That's some grade-A moron right there.


Actually there wasn't really anything in his profile that screams "moron" to me... I honestly kind of liked the phtoos, especially the tree in the desert.

It does bring up another question though, don't military members get free (gov. paid) healthcare for their families? Or at least a great rate on some of the best coverage available? Plus, with all that overseas/active duty/warzone pay, how are you only pulling in $50,000 combined?
 
2012-11-28 02:10:20 PM  

Arkanaut: Dadoody: There is no real reason ANYONE should be forced to pay a 50% tax on anything. That's not taxation - that's outright theft of income. What governments need to do, but will not, is live within their budgets and means.

Stop it. The difference between taxation and theft is that you don't get to elect representatives to the Thieves Guild to tell them how much to steal from you, much less contribute to their elections and try to influence their outcomes. You also don't get to tell those representatives what to do with that money.

Come to think of it, the Thieves Guild should really be more transparent.


You think your voice matters to the representatives?
 
2012-11-28 02:14:56 PM  

eraser8: But, tell me: when the top marginal rate was 90+% why didn't the top earners hop on a plane and flee the country?


there are a lot more top earners now than there were when the rate was 90%. Where did they all come from? The question is how many there could have been back then had rates been lower.
 
2012-11-28 02:15:51 PM  

theknuckler_33: If people making over a million pounds could just hide their money somewhere to avoid the 50% tax rate, why wouldn't they just do it to avoid ANY tax rate?

Keep farking that chicken, conservatives.


It's a matter that it costs money to hide money. At 10%, you don't bother with anything but the most minor tax avoidance* schemes. At 50%, you have legions of accountants and lawyers getting 'creative'.

*I define avoidance as seeking to reduce your tax via legal means, evasion is by illegal means.

Zeb Hesselgresser: No. Regressive, punishes the poor.


Not if you still allow a personal exemption/deduction.

Mija: Keep on pushing the myth that people on foodstamps and ssi are living the good life. Feel sorry for the rich MOAR.


When I read the comment, I wasn't thinking about the people on welfare. I was thinking retired politicians, federal(and state) employees, etc...

DrPainMD: Win-win? How so? With his wife's lack of income and him reducing/deferring his, they will have less to spend (costing the economy jobs) and will pay less in taxes (reducing the jobs that the government can create). Any way you look at it, the effect on GDP and jobs will be negative.


Well, right now we have a lot of employment. In a sort of trickle fashion, this will enable somebody who still wants the job to apply for the wife's vacated position, reducing unemployment* a smidge, and as she isn't getting benefits, probably reduce those paid out. There are opportunity costs involved with working - fuel, clothing, child care, etc... that they're avoiding by her staying home. Heck, with not working she can also do more home cooked meals, clip coupons, etc...

Just because somebody isn't working in a 'job' doesn't mean that they aren't productive and therefore helping the economy.

Mom is an accountant. On an individual basis she's recommended people quit because the job was costing more than their pay, because of all the expenses.

*Part of being unemployed is that you're actually looking to work.

fo_sho!: Why on earth woiuld they try to make less than $250k when dealing with marginal tax rates?


Quality of Life - It may be worth it with a marginal tax of 20% to get the extra income, but at a marginal rate of 30%, it may be worth less money, but more QOL for the wife to quit and stay at home.

Sid_the_sadist: We can get divorced (on paper), she keeps the kids (we would still live in the same house) She quits her job.


Wouldn't work as well as you think; you'd be hit up for child support payments. In order to get the welfare she'd have to sign over said payments to the state, which WOULD come after you for them.

On the other hand, my brother has never married his baby-momma(1 not his, 2 kids are his) that he IS living with. As you point out, it would make no sense for him to marry her, as then they'd lose quite a few of those benefits.

Oddly enough, at the moment she's the one working and he's staying at home taking care of the kids. House is in my parent's name.
 
2012-11-28 02:19:02 PM  

Tigger: SlothB77: Tigger: My guess though is that, paradoxically, the more you increase the number of threads talking about the Laffer curve that it will reduce the number of people who think it isn't total horseshiat.

The more evidence that is presented, like this article, that supports the Laffer Curve, the less people will think its total horseshiat. You'll still go ahead and raises here in the USA. Predictably, the same thing will happen here that happened in the UK. Then people like you will still say the Laffer Curve is horseshiat again. And people will stop listening to you.

Oh I think the results of the election showed pretty clearly to whom is being listened.


That will change significantly in four years.
 
2012-11-28 02:22:29 PM  

SlothB77: eraser8: But, tell me: when the top marginal rate was 90+% why didn't the top earners hop on a plane and flee the country?

there are a lot more top earners now than there were when the rate was 90%. Where did they all come from? The question is how many there could have been back then had rates been lower.


A hell of a lot them were minted in the 1960s and 1970s. And, one of the best times for wealth creation was when OBRA93 raised tax rates across the board.

The idea that keeping taxes low on the highest income individuals creates wealth for the entire country has been tried and it has failed. That 35 year experiment has simply not worked out. It's about time you faced reality.
 
2012-11-28 02:22:33 PM  

DeathByGeekSquad: Arkanaut: Dadoody: There is no real reason ANYONE should be forced to pay a 50% tax on anything. That's not taxation - that's outright theft of income. What governments need to do, but will not, is live within their budgets and means.

Stop it. The difference between taxation and theft is that you don't get to elect representatives to the Thieves Guild to tell them how much to steal from you, much less contribute to their elections and try to influence their outcomes. You also don't get to tell those representatives what to do with that money.

Come to think of it, the Thieves Guild should really be more transparent.

You think your voice matters to the representatives?


Maybe not individually (unless I had a ton of money), but generally they're not dumb enough to piss off the majority of their district. That said, there are some districts out there that are pretty dumb...
 
2012-11-28 02:27:07 PM  

Firethorn: Sid_the_sadist: We can get divorced (on paper), she keeps the kids (we would still live in the same house) She quits her job.

Wouldn't work as well as you think; you'd be hit up for child support payments. In order to get the welfare she'd have to sign over said payments to the state, which WOULD come after you for them.


Keep in mind, also, that Sid_the_sadist is counting on both unmarried partners being disabled. There are just so many problems with the scenario he plotted out. I mean, I'm not sure why he didn't assume that both partners would be blind with kidney failure...cause that would up their payments even more.
 
2012-11-28 02:34:44 PM  

thurstonxhowell: onyxruby: How can have everyone pay the same rate not be fair?

You can disagree with the answer to this question, but, if you don't know it, you should look it up. Until you can answer this question yourself, you should accept that taxation is not a subject on which you should have an opinion.

Again, it's fine to disagree with the answer, but to not be aware of the debate is to be completely ignorant of the discussion in which you are participating.


Wow! I'm glad you're on here. Now we can all stop having a discussion and you can just argue with yourself.
 
2012-11-28 02:41:47 PM  

eraser8: Firethorn: Sid_the_sadist: We can get divorced (on paper), she keeps the kids (we would still live in the same house) She quits her job.

Wouldn't work as well as you think; you'd be hit up for child support payments. In order to get the welfare she'd have to sign over said payments to the state, which WOULD come after you for them.

Keep in mind, also, that Sid_the_sadist is counting on both unmarried partners being disabled. There are just so many problems with the scenario he plotted out. I mean, I'm not sure why he didn't assume that both partners would be blind with kidney failure...cause that would up their payments even more.


A married couple filing for divorce, both spouses quitting their jobs, neither spouse changing address, and both filing for disability while collecting unemployment probably won't raise any red flags. Also, I'm totally buying what he says about his state giving out more than the state maximum for various programs. I say he gives it a shot. Also, that plan to have another kid in order to achieve a net gain in money should work just gangbusters. Really, we're the dumb ones for working. Obviously, we should all just quit.

Quit your job, folks. It's like winning Powerball, but more fun!
 
2012-11-28 02:43:18 PM  

eraser8: Firethorn: Sid_the_sadist: We can get divorced (on paper), she keeps the kids (we would still live in the same house) She quits her job.

Wouldn't work as well as you think; you'd be hit up for child support payments. In order to get the welfare she'd have to sign over said payments to the state, which WOULD come after you for them.

Keep in mind, also, that Sid_the_sadist is counting on both unmarried partners being disabled. There are just so many problems with the scenario he plotted out. I mean, I'm not sure why he didn't assume that both partners would be blind with kidney failure...cause that would up their payments even more.


To be fair, his profile does make it pretty clear he is a vet, and that alone increases the odds of his having some sort of disability I imagine. And why is it unbelievable that his wife might also be disabled? I mean, sure, this isn't the situation MOST Americans are in, but it certainly isn't unheard of... Now, not knowing the nature of the disabilities, we just have to trust they are legitimate, but it isn't really that wild to think it is true.

I still take issue with the idea that people on welfare are living the high life. Sure, there are definitely some fraudulent cases out there, and plenty of people gaming the system, but as a whole I don't think these programs are really the problem that they are held to be by many on the righter-side of the political spectrum.

Also, if you are both disabled with 3 kids...you sound like exactly the people that SHOULD be getting some assistance...
 
2012-11-28 02:44:07 PM  

thurstonxhowell: King Of The Monkeys: Brother A is perceived as a victim.
Brother B is perceived as an evil selfish bastard.

Neat strawmen. Have you ever tried shoving it up your ass?


It was almost as neat as your Ad Hominem attack earlier.
 
2012-11-28 02:44:36 PM  

my_cats_breath_smells_like_cat_food: thurstonxhowell: wingnut396: So knock yourself out. I'm sure I'm totally wrong about every part of your cunning plan and soon you, your ex-wife and the brood will be riding around in an iced out, brand new Escalade and laughing at all the rubes not living phat off the public dole.

It makes me sad that people exist who would take something like his post at face value. Thanks for taking the time to show how full of it he is.

BTW, why didn't you mention what a gold mine his profile is? That's some grade-A moron right there.

Actually there wasn't really anything in his profile that screams "moron" to me... I honestly kind of liked the phtoos, especially the tree in the desert.

It does bring up another question though, don't military members get free (gov. paid) healthcare for their families? Or at least a great rate on some of the best coverage available? Plus, with all that overseas/active duty/warzone pay, how are you only pulling in $50,000 combined?


That is true for active duty. I left active duty 7 years ago like an idiot to join the guard and spend more time with the family. I've been deployed twice since then and looking at a third next year, I'd go back active if I wouldn't lose rank.

I'm a civilian paid a salary based on an hourly wage. It's kinda like GS but not as glamorous, called WG or Wage-Grade. That great rate on the best coverage available is Tricare Reserve Select which we can not get because where we work offers Blue Cross/Blue Shield and GEHA so I pay high premiums on decent insurance, not great but decent.

All of this, by the way, was me trying to show how the system sucks. This thread is about taxes. I see where lots of tax money goes, and it ain't pretty. When I say I could get the benefits in my Boobies, I mean it. I really could. I would have to lie about alot, but those numbers are pretty accurate.

That's what people fail to understand. The only people that get the benefits as listed on websites or anything else are the people who tell the truth. (And there are very, very few of them) Everybody lies on their applications for benefits.

I want to be clear on one thing, I have no intention of doing any of it, but I wanted to show how it could be done. The government offices who control welfare pay are overworked, underpaid, and could give a shiat less about what you put on those forms. Some things have to be proven, like a pay stub. That's easy though, take a few sick days each week for a month, bring that stub in, and your income magically drops to less than 12k a year. Get a couple nieces and nephews, grandkids or whatever to move in to add to your own and wow! your benefits skyrocket. Hurt your back at work, it's easy, back pain is one of the hardest things to disprove BAM! disability.

My family could go on the dole making more money than we make now, and you would pay for it. I like to think I'm better than that. I wouldn't do it, but you'd be surprised at how many do.

This is the problem. once again, here's the choice:

1. Work every day,busting your ass and barely making it.

Or

2. Mom stays at home collecting benefits making more money than before and doesn't have to work at all to get it.


The problem is that too many people take option 2, and lie to do it.
 
2012-11-28 02:44:56 PM  

raversuck: thurstonxhowell: onyxruby: How can have everyone pay the same rate not be fair?

You can disagree with the answer to this question, but, if you don't know it, you should look it up. Until you can answer this question yourself, you should accept that taxation is not a subject on which you should have an opinion.

Again, it's fine to disagree with the answer, but to not be aware of the debate is to be completely ignorant of the discussion in which you are participating.

Wow! I'm glad you're on here. Now we can all stop having a discussion and you can just argue with yourself.


Would you debate the finer points of engine tuning with a guy who didn't know what a gas pedal was for and refused to find out?
 
2012-11-28 02:46:49 PM  

raversuck: thurstonxhowell: King Of The Monkeys: Brother A is perceived as a victim.
Brother B is perceived as an evil selfish bastard.

Neat strawmen. Have you ever tried shoving it up your ass?

It was almost as neat as your Ad Hominem attack earlier.


When I pointed out I was talking to a guy who refused to find out the basics of the topic on which he was debating? Was that the ad hominem?
 
2012-11-28 02:47:54 PM  

thurstonxhowell: Really, we're the dumb ones for working. Obviously, we should all just quit.


Agreed.

Once Sid_the_sadist explains how I can get unemployment after quitting my job (usually you have to be fired or laid off), I am so moving to the beach to live out my days in taxpayer-funded luxury.
 
2012-11-28 02:56:49 PM  

my_cats_breath_smells_like_cat_food: To be fair, his profile does make it pretty clear he is a vet, and that alone increases the odds of his having some sort of disability I imagine. And why is it unbelievable that his wife might also be disabled? I mean, sure, this isn't the situation MOST Americans are in, but it certainly isn't unheard of... Now, not knowing the nature of the disabilities, we just have to trust they are legitimate, but it isn't really that wild to think it is true.


If he or his wife was in a wheelchair but could still work, neither would qualify for SSI or SSDI. And, without being disabled to the degree preventing you from working, you're not going to qualify in many states for Medicaid -- regardless of you income. Their children would qualify for Medicaid if their income AND assets were low enough.

And, despite what you read in the right wingnut press, the government doesn't just take your word for it when you apply for benefits. The SSA, for example matches your SSN with the Treasury to find out whether you have assets like bank accounts, US savings bonds and life insurance. (Certain assets are exempt: e.g. burial plots and ONE automobile) They also collect your medical records to determine whether you're legitimately disabled. Plus, you have to recertify for these programs every few years.

The nonsense he shat out was just ridiculous.
 
2012-11-28 03:05:34 PM  

Sid_the_sadist: I want to be clear on one thing, I have no intention of doing any of it, but I wanted to show how it could be done.


Well, that is my problem. You didn't show it, you claimed it. Where are these expanded benefits coming from? I'm sure there are guidelines the offices have to use. If these are truly not pulled from the nether numbers, you must have had documentation from somewhere to do your calculations. If you are just relying on the word of other people, eh, people make shiat up all the time. Simply put, if you have such deep insight into the system, show us where those numbers came from. Be the whistle-blower, be the guy that shines the light on the dark of welfare abuse. PROVE us wrong. Otherwise all you have is a claim backed up only by the full faith and credit of your fark internet name.
 
2012-11-28 03:06:19 PM  

eraser8: my_cats_breath_smells_like_cat_food: To be fair, his profile does make it pretty clear he is a vet, and that alone increases the odds of his having some sort of disability I imagine. And why is it unbelievable that his wife might also be disabled? I mean, sure, this isn't the situation MOST Americans are in, but it certainly isn't unheard of... Now, not knowing the nature of the disabilities, we just have to trust they are legitimate, but it isn't really that wild to think it is true.

If he or his wife was in a wheelchair but could still work, neither would qualify for SSI or SSDI. And, without being disabled to the degree preventing you from working, you're not going to qualify in many states for Medicaid -- regardless of you income. Their children would qualify for Medicaid if their income AND assets were low enough.

And, despite what you read in the right wingnut press, the government doesn't just take your word for it when you apply for benefits. The SSA, for example matches your SSN with the Treasury to find out whether you have assets like bank accounts, US savings bonds and life insurance. (Certain assets are exempt: e.g. burial plots and ONE automobile) They also collect your medical records to determine whether you're legitimately disabled. Plus, you have to recertify for these programs every few years.

The nonsense he shat out was just ridiculous.


1. Right...it's impossible to close a bank account, that's why I still have that open account in Korea from '02
and we all know that cash is no longer accepted for anything, you have to have a bank account that magically shows thousands of dollars you receive from your nonexistent job.

2. Going to the doctor is step one in getting disability, doctors keep records, so there wouldn't be any medical records to substantiate your claims, got it.


Sorry...your nonsense has out-derped anything I could ever make up.
 
2012-11-28 03:18:57 PM  

IlGreven: genner: IlGreven: Dadoody: There is no real reason ANYONE should be forced to pay a 50% tax on anything. That's not taxation - that's outright theft of income. What governments need to do, but will not, is live within their budgets and means.

Greece is currently doing that. It's not working.

Umm no Greece was doing the opposite of that for so long that it doesn't matter what they do now.

So you're admitting austerity doesn't work?


Austerity isn't so much a plan to fix things as it is the only thing you can do when your country has been spending beyond it's means for decades.
 
2012-11-28 03:22:26 PM  

Sid_the_sadist: 1. Right...it's impossible to close a bank account, that's why I still have that open account in Korea from '02
and we all know that cash is no longer accepted for anything, you have to have a bank account that magically shows thousands of dollars you receive from your nonexistent job.


That would only work if you go without a job for several years before you apply. Keep in mind that while you're working, the SSA is keeping track of your earnings. If a person quits his job and has no assets and no bank account, no life insurance, that's going to raise immediate red flags.

Sid_the_sadist: 2. Going to the doctor is step one in getting disability, doctors keep records, so there wouldn't be any medical records to substantiate your claims, got it.


Absolutely. The important part is that the records must demonstrate total disability for you to qualify for SSI or SSDI. A lame leg isn't going to do. But, as I wrote earlier, renal failure automatically qualifies you. So, do you have that?

Plus, you still haven't explained how you plan to collect unemployment insurance if you quit your job. Most people have to be involuntarily dismissed to get that.
 
2012-11-28 03:24:36 PM  

eraser8: Keep in mind, also, that Sid_the_sadist is counting on both unmarried partners being disabled. There are just so many problems with the scenario he plotted out. I mean, I'm not sure why he didn't assume that both partners would be blind with kidney failure...cause that would up their payments even more.


That would make a huge difference; I believe that somebody who is honestly disabled should get more benefits than somebody who's merely unemployed.

Still, after working the math a bit more - $50k year combined, assuming an even split, is $2k/month per worker. $1600 + $200 in child care costs alone equals $1800. FICA alone adds another $153/month.

I hate to say it, but my mother(the accountant) would probably be recommending one of Sid's family quit as is, even without the benefits. You're probably spending more than $50 on gas, meaning him or his wife is effectively working for free.
 
2012-11-28 03:30:17 PM  

Firethorn: That would make a huge difference; I believe that somebody who is honestly disabled should get more benefits than somebody who's merely unemployed.


Well, in his scenario, someone quits. That means they're not eligible for unemployment insurance and probably not eligible for any disability benefit (e.g. SSI, SSDI) and, therefore, not eligible for Medicaid or Medicare.

Most people will always prefer work to dependence...for a variety of reasons. But, the idea that the government is just aching to hand over lots of money to lazy people is simply untrue. That isn't to say that some people don't get away with it. But, if they do, they're not living the life of Riley.
 
2012-11-28 03:35:58 PM  

eraser8: And, despite what you read in the right wingnut press, the government doesn't just take your word for it when you apply for benefits. The SSA, for example matches your SSN with the Treasury to find out whether you have assets like bank accounts, US savings bonds and life insurance. (Certain assets are exempt: e.g. burial plots and ONE automobile) They also collect your medical records to determine whether you're legitimately disabled. Plus, you have to recertify for these programs every few years.


It's a different story on the state level. The level of state government oversight on social services programs ebbs and flows depending on the political winds, and blowing off asset checks and other oversight is pitched for public consumption as "streamlining the application process".

Here's a fresh example from New York. We have a Medicaid program whose budget this year is $54 billion. You are not reading that number wrong. Take any two state Medicaid programs, add them up...New York's is bigger. (Despite this abundance of compassion far above that of the other 49 states, New York is not an astoundingly wonderful place for the poor. Hmm. But I digress.)

So with money being tight, you and I would think it would be a top priority to keep a close eye on how it was spent.

We would be wrong.

New audits are rare, investigations are stalled and productivity is meager.

Current and former employees are complaining privately and publicly about the Office of Medicaid Inspector General, calling it a highly politicized, dysfunctional, mismanaged and ineffective agency where many of the 500 or so employees have little to do. Several sources have more than two decades of experience as auditors at state agencies; they say they have never seen morale lower.

Although complaints about OMIG have popped up since its inception six years ago, the current problems run so deep that some employees have filed reports against supervisors with labor regulators and even the police. And the workplace has gotten so bizarre, employees say, that someone has been spreading feces in the bathrooms of what is supposed to be a secure headquarters.

The separately staffed office of the state Inspector General, which has been interviewing OMIG staff off and on for months, is exploring some of the allegations of misdeeds by supervisors - but that agency's investigators have been plodding, several interviewed by the Times Union say.

"For a year, we aren't doing anything," said Sonia Arroyo, an auditor and supervisor with a stellar 32-year work history at OMIG and its predecessor auditing agencies. "I know for a fact that people aren't working."
 

What's going to happen over the next few months as the state fiscal year ends in the spring is a series of stories quoting state officials professing to be amazed at how the state could be facing a multi-billion-dollar budget gap, and pointing the finger at anything except themselves.
 
2012-11-28 03:45:39 PM  

Sid_the_sadist: ficklefkrfark: Sid_the_sadist:

.......All my stuff.......

Pride? Responsibility? Self respect?

Yeah, go wait in line for hours at a social
services office, get treated like a subhuman by some automaton social worker. Fill out the intrusive and mind numbing paperwork, get assigned a caseworker that can investigate your claim at will, and get on that dole! Have fun using food stamps at the grocery store and enjoy the looks and judgmental stares from the clerks and fellow shoppers.
Or here's a good bootstrappy idea....get a farking non government job that pays more....nobody is for ing you to work that low paying job.

/sorry to be dickish...just can't stand the argument that welfare recipients are living the good life.
//my single mom was on welfare with 3 kids while she went to college ...


That's why.

And don't think getting ugly/judgmental looks is a detractor. I live in rural south Mississippi where the biggest city around here is Wal*Mart and paying for steaks, crab, and lobster with an EBT card is the norm.

I see hundreds of people every day collecting their checks while wearing gold chains that cost more than my monthly salary and driving a brand new Escalade on 24's

My point is, if you could choose between working your ass off and barely scraping by or doing nothing but smoking weed and collecting benefits and live better, what would you do? This is why the system is broken. There are far too many people who lack Pride, Responsibility, and Self Respect.


Don't get me wrong, the system is flawed and there are people who abuse it....but gutting it completely would take assistance away from a lot of children who truly need it...stricter regulations and more oversight of the program is needed. These stories of welfare recipients buying high dollar items...probably pretty isolated...and if they in fact are doing this they aren't getting much value out of their allotment...which isn't very much per month.
There is no way you can live this lifestyle you speak of on assistance...the people you claim to see doin this have to be supplementing their income by other illegal means (maybe your wife could sell drugs to supplement her welfare as well!)

The gold chain, escalade driving dog whistle comment...you mean black, right? Just say it dude, its chickenshiat and awkward using poorly disguised bigotry.
 
2012-11-28 03:47:37 PM  

Firethorn: eraser8: Keep in mind, also, that Sid_the_sadist is counting on both unmarried partners being disabled. There are just so many problems with the scenario he plotted out. I mean, I'm not sure why he didn't assume that both partners would be blind with kidney failure...cause that would up their payments even more.

That would make a huge difference; I believe that somebody who is honestly disabled should get more benefits than somebody who's merely unemployed.

Still, after working the math a bit more - $50k year combined, assuming an even split, is $2k/month per worker. $1600 + $200 in child care costs alone equals $1800. FICA alone adds another $153/month.

I hate to say it, but my mother(the accountant) would probably be recommending one of Sid's family quit as is, even without the benefits. You're probably spending more than $50 on gas, meaning him or his wife is effectively working for free.


That's assuming the job has no opportunities for promotion, no retirement plan and no medical benefits.

If that is the case I think I'd quit too, regardless of unemployment. I'd look for something else to do.
 
2012-11-28 03:57:22 PM  

Sid_the_sadist: When I say I could get the benefits in my Boobies, I mean it. I really could. I would have to lie about alot,


Or you could just go to stealing cars or conning old folks suffering from dementia into getting a bad second mortgage on their house. You know, as long as your discussing how profitable crime can be (and there's an obvious survivor bias to your sample - if 99% of people who perpetrate this kind of fraud were rejected or caught, you'd still only be seeing the stream of successful crooks).
 
2012-11-28 04:03:06 PM  

fo_sho!: That's assuming the job has no opportunities for promotion, no retirement plan and no medical benefits.

If that is the case I think I'd quit too, regardless of unemployment. I'd look for something else to do.


True, benefits might tip the scale, but unless there was a heavy prospect of promotion(which I didn't see given the tone of the post), and $25k/year jobs tend to not have the greatest retirement programs either. It's quite likely the spouse that quits can make up the difference in money saving ventures - more competitive shopping and such.
 
2012-11-28 04:03:50 PM  

eraser8: That 35 year experiment has simply not worked out.


Can you name a more prosperous period for a particular country/ organized group of people in the history of the world that lasted even half as long?
 
2012-11-28 04:14:19 PM  

SlothB77: eraser8: That 35 year experiment has simply not worked out.

Can you name a more prosperous period for a particular country/ organized group of people in the history of the world that lasted even half as long?


America 1950-1985?
America 1883-1928?
China 1977 - 2012?
Qatar 1977 - 2012?

/dunno, just pulling stuff from my ass
//Which I guess is all you can do without somehow defining "prosporous"
 
Displayed 50 of 281 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