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  
•       •       •

10789 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
 
2012-11-28 08:20:53 AM
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.
 
2012-11-28 08:21:57 AM
Put them on the terrorist and no fly list and deny them entry. That is what I would do.
 
2012-11-28 08:22:02 AM
Isn't the other possibility that 2/3rds of the UK's millionaires made significantly less money this year than last? It's a crappy economy.
 
2012-11-28 08:22:17 AM
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.
 
2012-11-28 08:22:56 AM
I'm sure that won't happen here

More free shiat for everybody!
 
2012-11-28 08:23:57 AM
If I'm understanding this correctly, the rich should pay less in taxes because when a recession is in full force, it even impacts them.
 
2012-11-28 08:25:03 AM
They all left? Good. Piss off, you psychopathic bastards.
 
2012-11-28 08:25:54 AM
What's English-English for "Screw you, I got mine"?
 
2012-11-28 08:26:03 AM
 
2012-11-28 08:26:06 AM
FTA: 50p

What the fark am I reading?
 
2012-11-28 08:26:10 AM
That a bunch of fine upstanding citizens. During WWII, they would have left the country, because the war would have cost them too much.
 
2012-11-28 08:27:42 AM

James F. Campbell: What the fark am I reading?


English... fast becoming a foreign language.
 
2012-11-28 08:28:50 AM

James F. Campbell: FTA: 50p

What the fark am I reading?


That's going to look really shiatty on my 1080p monitor.
 
2012-11-28 08:29:10 AM
And you shiatheads are arguing over the torygraph. That's fascinating.
 
2012-11-28 08:29:14 AM
Taxes should be viewed as a means of raising revenue for the government. When you raise taxes and revenue falls, you are doing it wrong! Why is that such a hard lesson to learn?
 
2012-11-28 08:29:59 AM
And here we are talking about allowing a (supposedly) temporary tax cut of 2% to expire and still allowing massive deductions. My God, what are we thinking?
 
2012-11-28 08:30:07 AM

Lord Summerisle: They all left? Good. Piss off, you psychopathic bastards.


Read the article. It turns out that when the recession was worst in the UK, far fewer people were earning seven figures. The number of people making at least seven figures has since rebounded while taxes have remained the same, but forget about that because it doesn't tell the story Rupert wants (this is one of his flagship papers).
 
2012-11-28 08:32:21 AM

Lord Summerisle: They all left? Good. Piss off, you psychopathic bastards.


Who's gonna pay for your free stuff now?

God forbid you get up off your ass and work for a living.
 
2012-11-28 08:32:59 AM

drb9: Isn't the other possibility that 2/3rds of the UK's millionaires made significantly less money this year than last? It's a crappy economy.


[notsureifserious.jpg]
 
2012-11-28 08:33:48 AM

digistil: but forget about that because it doesn't tell the story Rupert wants (this is one of his flagship papers).


That's the Sydney Telegraph you're thinking of.

Rupert's UK papers are the Times and the Sun.
 
2012-11-28 08:33:52 AM
Answer: Raise the top tax rate in all countries. Let "the rich" move to Somalia if they are really moving to escape taxes.
 
2012-11-28 08:34:07 AM

digistil: Lord Summerisle: They all left? Good. Piss off, you psychopathic bastards.

Read the article. It turns out that when the recession was worst in the UK, far fewer people were earning seven figures. The number of people making at least seven figures has since rebounded while taxes have remained the same, but forget about that because it doesn't tell the story Rupert wants (this is one of his flagship papers).


The Smellograph is a right wing propaganda rag, but it doesn't belong to Murdoch. You might be thinking of the Sun and the London Times.
 
2012-11-28 08:34:37 AM
3.bp.blogspot.com

Whoop. He's starting to shrug.
 
2012-11-28 08:35:18 AM

digistil: but forget about that because it doesn't tell the story Rupert wants (this is one of his flagship papers).


No, it's not. The Telegraph is owned by the Barclay Brothers.

Don't worry too much thought, they're just as coonty as Rupert.
 
2012-11-28 08:35:47 AM

digistil: Lord Summerisle: They all left? Good. Piss off, you psychopathic bastards.

Read the article. It turns out that when the recession was worst in the UK, far fewer people were earning seven figures. The number of people making at least seven figures has since rebounded while taxes have remained the same, but forget about that because it doesn't tell the story Rupert wants (this is one of his flagship papers).


Huh?

FTA: "However, the number of million-pound earners is still far below the level recorded even at the height of the recession and financial crisis. "
 
2012-11-28 08:36:57 AM

Fade2black: Lord Summerisle: They all left? Good. Piss off, you psychopathic bastards.

Who's gonna pay for your free stuff now?

God forbid you get up off your ass and work for a living.


1) God forbid Wallyworld should pay a decent wage, we gotta have that cheap Chinese crap.

2) Bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran?
i219.photobucket.com
 
2012-11-28 08:37:11 AM
Been working and paying a large chunk of my salary in tax and NI since I was 17, chum. Which is more than most of these rich coonts can say, most of whom owe their wealth to being born into the privileged classes and who use the loopholes and tax havens provided for them to avoid paying their share.
 
2012-11-28 08:39:20 AM
*shrug* weak laws allowed this. I would be willing to bet that those people who "no longer live in Britain" are still drawing income and benefits of British citizenship from there.
 
2012-11-28 08:39:32 AM
ampoliros




And here we are talking about allowing a (supposedly) temporary tax cut of 2% to expire and still allowing massive deductions. My God, what are we thinking?


No we are talking about raising tax rates.

As Buffett implied, its really a punitive measure made to make less successful people feel better about themselves.
 
2012-11-28 08:43:01 AM
Lord Summerisle


Been working and paying a large chunk of my salary in tax and NI since I was 17, chum. Which is more than most of these rich coonts can say, most of whom owe their wealth to being born into the privileged classes and who use the loopholes and tax havens provided for them to avoid paying their share.



Sorry your Lordship but you are clueless. "The privileged class", really.
 
2012-11-28 08:44:53 AM
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.
 
2012-11-28 08:45:45 AM
This is why you put up the Berlin Wall first, THEN you start hanging the one percent.

/can't commit genocide in the name of social justice if the designated oppressors can just run away
//wait, fix the economy? why would you want to do that? it's the population control, stupid
 
2012-11-28 08:48:00 AM
The US should do this. Try it for two years.

It won't solve any financial woes for business. Nor reduce our deficit, but it will give some folks a real morale boost to say that they socked it to the rich.
 
2012-11-28 08:48:04 AM

James F. Campbell: FTA: 50p

What the fark am I reading?


50 pence.

As in 50 pence in every pound.

Basically 50% income tax on all income above £150,000
 
2012-11-28 08:50:43 AM
I guess they'll be moving to Slovakia, the Czech Republic, Estonia or Poland? Why didn't they do that already?

Top marginal combined personal incomes tax rates in OECD countries (Excel file download)
 
2012-11-28 08:52:07 AM

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.


You're either really bad at math or really bad at sociology. Which is it?
 
2012-11-28 08:52:37 AM
Bono heard saying 'There goes the neighborhood'.

/He hides his money in Cyprus, then criticizes people for not doing their fair share.
 
2012-11-28 08:52:41 AM

Gulper Eel: digistil: but forget about that because it doesn't tell the story Rupert wants (this is one of his flagship papers).

That's the Sydney Telegraph you're thinking of.

Rupert's UK papers are the Times and the Sun.


Doh, you're right, I was thinking of the Times, not the Telegraph.
 
2012-11-28 08:52:59 AM

Lee Jackson Beauregard: 1) God forbid Wallyworld should pay a decent wage, we gotta have that cheap Chinese crap.


So, back when you couldn't get $8/hr at Best Buy, fast food was paying $6.50/hr, K-mart you could get $7.50... Wal-Mart was paying cashiers and backroom stock boys $11/hr and benefits. Wal-Mart always had the best retail wages, but everyone complains they don't pay a decent wage. WTF?
 
2012-11-28 08:55:42 AM

MarkEC: digistil: Lord Summerisle: They all left? Good. Piss off, you psychopathic bastards.

Read the article. It turns out that when the recession was worst in the UK, far fewer people were earning seven figures. The number of people making at least seven figures has since rebounded while taxes have remained the same, but forget about that because it doesn't tell the story Rupert wants (this is one of his flagship papers).

Huh?

FTA: "However, the number of million-pound earners is still far below the level recorded even at the height of the recession and financial crisis. "


The numbers have been climbing back since their economy hit rock bottom. Did I miss something else?
 
2012-11-28 08:56:13 AM

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.
 
2012-11-28 08:56:27 AM
Here in Maryland our Dear Leader O'Malley passed a special millionaires tax in the hopes of raising an additional $1 bil. of revenue. He forgot to build a wall around the state and as a result he ended up losing $1 bil of revenue with a stroke of his pen. He has since redefined "millionaire" to mean $500k. Eventually in MD you will only need to earn $100k per family to be evil rich in his eyes.

/btw
//This farking babbling economic idiot
///Is who so called progressives plan to have as our next president.
 
2012-11-28 08:56:50 AM
I believe the expression is, good riddance to bad rubbish.
 
2012-11-28 08:58:16 AM
Let them leave and be glad they're gone. Have them take all their schitt too. Believe me, the rich currently do not contribute to the world in almost any sense. Their money has already left long before the people that own it left.

They're clogging our roads with their delivery trucks, they're taking our shared natural resources for their own personal profit, they're polluting our water and air with their chemical effluent.

They drank your milkshake
 
2012-11-28 08:59:28 AM

onyxruby: Flat tax 20 regardless of income source. No penalty for success, fair for everyone.


Except that that's not fair for everyone, because there's a difference between taxing someone's grocery/rent/electricity money and taxing disposable income. Progressive taxation is the only system that can take into account externalities and the increased benefit the wealthy receive from the social contract.

Screw your Flat/"Fair" Tax nonsense.
 
2012-11-28 08:59:35 AM
This is why you change income/capital gains taxes such that they come off the top at the source; employers have to dock the income tax automatically, or investors have to pay capital gains tax on the dividends they pay out.

Then it doesn't matter WHERE the bastards are. If they invest in any company in Britain, or are in any British company's employ, they're taxed.

And to prevent those companies moving overseas to more tax-friendly nations, you impose tariffs on their goods and services that are even higher.

If the market will generate a reduced profit, they'll suck it up and accept it. That's why pharmaceutical companies still do business in Canada, even though we lobby and legislate for significantly lower price points than American insurance companies do. Sure, they can sell the same pill for 3x the price south of the border, but they still sell them here, because they still make some profit.
 
2012-11-28 09:01:01 AM

digistil: MarkEC: digistil: Lord Summerisle: They all left? Good. Piss off, you psychopathic bastards.

Read the article. It turns out that when the recession was worst in the UK, far fewer people were earning seven figures. The number of people making at least seven figures has since rebounded while taxes have remained the same, but forget about that because it doesn't tell the story Rupert wants (this is one of his flagship papers).

Huh?

FTA: "However, the number of million-pound earners is still far below the level recorded even at the height of the recession and financial crisis. "

The numbers have been climbing back since their economy hit rock bottom. Did I miss something else?


It says the numbers at the worst point in the recession were higher than today. Yes they are climbing, but not even back to that level yet.
 
2012-11-28 09:02:09 AM
If they already shelter their money offshore Romney-style and pay a lower tax percentage than what is left of the middle class, then why would even want to harbor them? They contribute nothing, and they draw more public resources as they take advantage of every public service and bend it to their will. They're the very definition of "takers".
 
2012-11-28 09:02:25 AM
How UnAmerican, maybe if they were reminded that they "need to pay their fair share" all will be ok..
 
2012-11-28 09:02:41 AM

Arkanaut: I guess they'll be moving to Slovakia, the Czech Republic, Estonia or Poland? Why didn't they do that already?

Top marginal combined personal incomes tax rates in OECD countries (Excel file download)


Cool file. Totes moving to Estonia to be a job creator. And hopefully mack on eastern European chicks.

/that income line is depressing.
 
2012-11-28 09:02:59 AM
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.
 
2012-11-28 09:03:14 AM

GoodyearPimp: Answer: Raise the top tax rate in all countries. Let "the rich" move to Somalia if they are really moving to escape taxes.


Did you know that Somalia is also a country? Also, they have taxes. If inconsistently applied/collected.
 
2012-11-28 09:04:31 AM
For a millionaire, this is a simple financial decision: what's the best tax rate for my residency dollars?

This is one of the many reasons that "tax the rich" is theft by wishful thinkers who will destroy their country with it.
 
2012-11-28 09:04:32 AM
It's pretty simple: if you've got the means to take off BUT think you're getting a decent value for what you pay in taxes, you're more likely to stay put.

There's high taxes in places like Norway but the Norwegian government isn't jammed with cronies, crooks, nitwits and farktards.
 
2012-11-28 09:05:30 AM

digistil: If I'm understanding this correctly, the rich should pay less in taxes because when a recession is in full force, it even impacts them.


Problem is those evil rich people are mixed up with investors and business owners. Also the presumption of people in favor of the tax hikes that those rich folks will just absorb the cost and, you know, not pass them down the line to their customers.

If the goal is to balance out the inequality of wealth, taxing Peter to pay Paul (whom Peter will also charge more to pay his taxes) is unlikely to have the desired effect.
 
2012-11-28 09:06:25 AM

bluefoxicy: Lee Jackson Beauregard: 1) God forbid Wallyworld should pay a decent wage, we gotta have that cheap Chinese crap.

So, back when you couldn't get $8/hr at Best Buy, fast food was paying $6.50/hr, K-mart you could get $7.50... Wal-Mart was paying cashiers and backroom stock boys $11/hr and benefits. Wal-Mart always had the best retail wages, but everyone complains they don't pay a decent wage. WTF?


That's all different varieties of poverty-level wages. Just because Wal-Mart's are the best of the worst doesn't mean they're good.

(Wal-Mart? Benefits? Good luck with that.)
 
2012-11-28 09:07:08 AM
How is it possible there are rich people in the UK? I was told it's a socialist hell hole.
 
2012-11-28 09:07:16 AM

GoodyearPimp: Answer: Raise the top tax rate in all countries. Let "the rich" move to Somalia if they are really moving to escape taxes.


This.
 
2012-11-28 09:08:10 AM

Gulper Eel: It's pretty simple: if you've got the means to take off BUT think you're getting a decent value for what you pay in taxes, you're more likely to stay put.

There's high taxes in places like Norway but the Norwegian government isn't jammed with cronies, crooks, nitwits and farktards.


Winner, winner chicken dinner.
 
2012-11-28 09:11:26 AM

david_gaithersburg: Here in Maryland our Dear Leader O'Malley passed a special millionaires tax in the hopes of raising an additional $1 bil. of revenue. He forgot to build a wall around the state and as a result he ended up losing $1 bil of revenue with a stroke of his pen. He has since redefined "millionaire" to mean $500k. Eventually in MD you will only need to earn $100k per family to be evil rich in his eyes.

/btw
//This farking babbling economic idiot
///Is who so called progressives plan to have as our next president.


California is about to learn this very hard lesson the usual way: increase taxes on the wealthiest members of society, and if they have other options (such as living where taxes are less) then they can afford to leave and enjoy that option, leaving the poor behind. California is about to learn that increasing estimated "revenue" while driving away the people who earn that revenue will in fact result in missing their projections by quite a lot. Also, the ones who actually choose to stay will find other ways around the problem:

"After the election, my wife and I are going partial Galt. We're in California, so our state income tax went up in addition to what's sure to come out of Washington.

My wife quit her job last week. I increased my participation in a tax deferment plan offered by my employer to bring my taxable income as close to $250K as possible. We'll be cutting back a little, but the government is going to getting a whole lot less.

My wife's entire salary barely covered our tax bill - she was 100% slave to the government, while I was a 10% slave. Now she is 100% free, and I'll be a ~35% slave As a couple, 17.5% of our time is slaving on the government plantation from an astounding 55% previously.

My wife is deliriously happy, our children are delighted to have mom home, the dog gets more walks, and I find not spending money rapturously satisfying. "
 
2012-11-28 09:12:24 AM

Lord Summerisle: Been working and paying a large chunk of my salary in tax and NI since I was 17, chum. Which is more than most of these rich coonts can say, most of whom owe their wealth to being born into the privileged classes and who use the loopholes and tax havens provided for them to avoid paying their share.


Someone sounds jealous.

Who gives a rats arse if the wealth was inherited? It still belongs to them, not the gov't. I work for my paycheck, but i don't begrudge those who don't have to. It's their money, they can do what they want with it.
 
2012-11-28 09:13:42 AM

david_gaithersburg: evil rich


You had a point. Then you had to go and stupid it up. Why did you do that?
 
2012-11-28 09:13:46 AM

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.


i.qkme.me
 
2012-11-28 09:15:18 AM

sodomizer: For a millionaire, this is a simple financial decision: what's the best tax rate for my residency dollars?

This is one of the many reasons that "tax the rich" is theft by wishful thinkers who will destroy their country with it.


I don't see the difference between "don't tax the rich" and "ZOMG the rich leave cuz taxes", except in the latter scenario they aren't around to fark everything up for the rest of us. Either way, they aren't paying taxes.
 
2012-11-28 09:15:37 AM
This reminds me a bit of the Flight of the Earls in Ireland 400 years ago.
 
2012-11-28 09:16:06 AM

drb9: Isn't the other possibility that 2/3rds of the UK's millionaires made significantly less money this year than last? It's a crappy economy.


No. A few maybe. 2/3 rds? No.
 
2012-11-28 09:16:42 AM

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.


No. Regressive, punishes the poor.
 
2012-11-28 09:17:32 AM
They are starting to run out other peoples money
 
2012-11-28 09:17:57 AM

MarkEC: It says the numbers at the worst point in the recession were higher than today. Yes they are climbing, but not even back to that level yet.


Funny how the same thing can be read two different ways. What you say was certainly implied, but that assumes the workforce of those making above six figures rises and falls in parallel with the strength of the economy. Generally speaking, those people are the last people to feel the impact of the recession.
 
2012-11-28 09:18:41 AM

JosephFinn: That's all different varieties of poverty-level wages. Just because Wal-Mart's are the best of the worst doesn't mean they're good.


Oh, so you're American then.

/minimum work for maximum gain
//It's not fair that the rich are doing it and you're just wishing you could flip burgers for $80k/year
 
2012-11-28 09:20:29 AM

thespindrifter: My wife's entire salary barely covered our tax bill - she was 100% slave to the government, while I was a 10% slave. Now she is 100% free, and I'll be a ~35% slave As a couple, 17.5% of our time is slaving on the government plantation from an astounding 55% previously.

My wife is deliriously happy, our children are delighted to have mom home, the dog gets more walks, and I find not spending money rapturously satisfying.


He's probably the same sort of person that derides pot-smoking neo-hippies for taking low paying jobs that offer them flexibility and free time in return for having to live a frugal lifestyle...
 
2012-11-28 09:20:39 AM
My country's top tax rate is 45 cents in every dollar over $180,000 plus the 1.5% healthcare levy on total income. No one is running away from here.

The Torygraph is living up to its name.
 
2012-11-28 09:24:04 AM

thespindrifter: david_gaithersburg: Here in Maryland our Dear Leader O'Malley passed a special millionaires tax in the hopes of raising an additional $1 bil. of revenue. He forgot to build a wall around the state and as a result he ended up losing $1 bil of revenue with a stroke of his pen. He has since redefined "millionaire" to mean $500k. Eventually in MD you will only need to earn $100k per family to be evil rich in his eyes.

/btw
//This farking babbling economic idiot
///Is who so called progressives plan to have as our next president.

California is about to learn this very hard lesson the usual way: increase taxes on the wealthiest members of society, and if they have other options (such as living where taxes are less) then they can afford to leave and enjoy that option, leaving the poor behind. California is about to learn that increasing estimated "revenue" while driving away the people who earn that revenue will in fact result in missing their projections by quite a lot. Also, the ones who actually choose to stay will find other ways around the problem:

"After the election, my wife and I are going partial Galt. We're in California, so our state income tax went up in addition to what's sure to come out of Washington.

My wife quit her job last week. I increased my participation in a tax deferment plan offered by my employer to bring my taxable income as close to $250K as possible. We'll be cutting back a little, but the government is going to getting a whole lot less.

My wife's entire salary barely covered our tax bill - she was 100% slave to the government, while I was a 10% slave. Now she is 100% free, and I'll be a ~35% slave As a couple, 17.5% of our time is slaving on the government plantation from an astounding 55% previously.

My wife is deliriously happy, our children are delighted to have mom home, the dog gets more walks, and I find not spending money rapturously satisfying. "


This sounds lke a win-win type of story? They still can live lavishly on $250,000/year, wife can stay home with kids and the dog, her old job can be filled by someone who actually NEEDS a job to support their family (and who will pay taxes on the money they earn so the government will still get theirs whether it comes from this woman or not). What is bad about this?
 
2012-11-28 09:26:46 AM

Joe Blowme: They are starting to run out other peoples money


I mentioned that statement a week or two ago and the Fark Dependents® went nugging futs about what an idiot Thatcher was to make such a statement. Ain't that a kick in the head?
 
2012-11-28 09:27:43 AM

my_cats_breath_smells_like_cat_food: What is bad about this?


Nothing, except his need to proclaim to the world about how he's going Galt turning what most people would consider reasonable decisions into a childish act of defiance.
 
2012-11-28 09:29:12 AM

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.


pro tip. Sim City is a pretty fun simulation but not everything in it is 1:1 usable in the real world.

flat taxes are not fair. They have a much larger impact on the working poor and middle class families then they do on the rich.
 
2012-11-28 09:29:56 AM

naturalbornposer: GoodyearPimp: Answer: Raise the top tax rate in all countries. Let "the rich" move to Somalia if they are really moving to escape taxes.

This.


Jelly, this is how it works
 
2012-11-28 09:30:05 AM

Zeb Hesselgresser: 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.

No. Regressive, punishes the poor.


Negative Income Tax. It combines a flat tax with a fixed annual subsidy/rebate to fix the regressive problems with the flat tax.

Basically, you tax everyone 30% and cut every household a check for $10,000 a year (or equivalent monthly payments).

It's demonstrably equitable, as it applies the same way to everyone. Thanks to the significant subsidy, you can eliminate traditional welfare (cutting every household an additional $100/person/month worth of discount coupons for food and essentials, which could be redeemed by retailers with the government, would serve to fill any gaps), and the very poor have no disincentive to find work, since additional income doesn't make you ineligible for the subsidy. Nor do high-income earners have any disincentive to make more, since they're never kicked into a higher tax bracket.

It's effectively a guaranteed minimum income system, but it doesn't disrupt markets the way raising the minimum wage does, since wages are effectively unlinked from basic survival. It also has a stabilizing effect during economic downturns, since the working class doesn't have to worry about whether it can meet a basic standard of living after taking a paycut, and so consumer confidence should remain higher, and the economy should recover faster.
 
2012-11-28 09:30:07 AM

Z-clipped: Except that that's not fair for everyone, because there's a difference between taxing someone's grocery/rent/electricity money and taxing disposable income


How can have everyone pay the same rate not be fair? That's like saying we should have different speed limits based on income.

Right now as it stands the rich pay far lower than 20% tax because they can take their income source at a different tax rate. If memory serves Romney's tax rate for his returns that made the news was something like 14%. Most corporations pay far less than 20% of their income as well. You'll note that my tax figure is a far greater tax rate than Herman Caine's 9/9/9 plan.

Simplifying the tax code would save the economy Billions of dollars a year in accounting costs alone.
 
2012-11-28 09:31:06 AM

Dancin_In_Anson: Joe Blowme: They are starting to run out other peoples money

I mentioned that statement a week or two ago and the Fark Dependents® went nugging futs about what an idiot Thatcher was to make such a statement. Ain't that a kick in the head?


That is no surprise to me. When i pull it out farkers usually scream Troll because facts make them uncomfortable.
 
2012-11-28 09:31:26 AM

sodomizer: For a millionaire, this is a simple financial decision: what's the best tax rate for my residency dollars?

This is one of the many reasons that "tax the rich" is theft by wishful thinkers who will destroy their country with it.


B....bu....but Obama!!!!
 
2012-11-28 09:32:28 AM

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.


Keep on pushing the myth that people on foodstamps and ssi are living the good life. Feel sorry for the rich MOAR.
 
2012-11-28 09:33:09 AM

tom baker's scarf: 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.

pro tip. Sim City is a pretty fun simulation but not everything in it is 1:1 usable in the real world.

flat taxes are not fair. They have a much larger impact on the working poor and middle class families then they do on the rich.


They bought their tickets Shayna, I say let em crash.
 
2012-11-28 09:33:56 AM

Dancin_In_Anson: Joe Blowme: They are starting to run out other peoples money

I mentioned that statement a week or two ago and the Fark Dependents® went nugging futs about what an idiot Thatcher was to make such a statement. Ain't that a kick in the head?


It's remarkable that, 30 years later, there are still rich people around... you know, with all that socialism going on.
 
2012-11-28 09:34:20 AM

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.


It's amusing, in a sad sort of way, that you think that governments can solve their debt problems that way. Or, that you think that governments can solve their debt problems, period.
 
2012-11-28 09:34:24 AM

Mija: 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.

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


Are you reading something no one else can see? I see no mention of why is making your butt hurt in his statement
 
2012-11-28 09:35:27 AM

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.


Immediately dive over the fiscal cliff, you say?
 
2012-11-28 09:39:07 AM

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.
 
2012-11-28 09:40:49 AM
This article is stupid. The article initially makes the claim that of the 16,000 Britons who previously filed tax returns showing that they have an income of over 1 Million GBP, 2/3rds have left for tax exile.

This claim is fallacious. Later on in the article, it admits that thus far, 10,000 Britons have filed a tax return showing incomes of greater than 1 GBP (so it's not 2/3rds - more like 1/3rd). Furthermore, has anyone bothered to point out that the deadline for filing one's taxes has not passed in the UK yet? All paper tax filings are due on October 31st, but electronic online filings are due on January 31. There's literally another 2 months (and several days) before the final deadline for all taxes to be filed.
 
2012-11-28 09:40:56 AM

JosephFinn: bluefoxicy: Lee Jackson Beauregard: 1) God forbid Wallyworld should pay a decent wage, we gotta have that cheap Chinese crap.

So, back when you couldn't get $8/hr at Best Buy, fast food was paying $6.50/hr, K-mart you could get $7.50... Wal-Mart was paying cashiers and backroom stock boys $11/hr and benefits. Wal-Mart always had the best retail wages, but everyone complains they don't pay a decent wage. WTF?

That's all different varieties of poverty-level wages. Just because Wal-Mart's are the best of the worst doesn't mean they're good.

(Wal-Mart? Benefits? Good luck with that.)


By benefits, he of course means Welfare benefits.

/The Waltons cry "Why should we have to pay for the "lazies" on welfare?"
//Answer: Because most of them work for you, you dolts!
 
2012-11-28 09:41:15 AM

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.


So, if they raised the income tax on everybody to 99.99% and eliminated all deductions, that wouldn't be theft? Because we have elections?

/"It's not the people who vote that count; it's the people who count the votes."
 
2012-11-28 09:42:07 AM

RexTalionis: This article is stupid. The article initially makes the claim that of the 16,000 Britons who previously filed tax returns showing that they have an income of over 1 Million GBP, 2/3rds have left for tax exile.

This claim is fallacious. Later on in the article, it admits that thus far, 10,000 Britons have filed a tax return showing incomes of greater than 1 million GBP (so it's not 2/3rds - more like 1/3rd). Furthermore, has anyone bothered to point out that the deadline for filing one's taxes has not passed in the UK yet? All paper tax filings are due on October 31st, but electronic online filings are due on January 31. There's literally another 2 months (and several days) before the final deadline for all taxes to be filed.


FTFM

Oh, and let's not forget that for most of 2012, the UK has been mired in a double-dip recession. Could that possibly have an impact on the number of individuals claiming incomes of over 1 million GBP?
 
2012-11-28 09:42:53 AM

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.


1. Accounting tricks do carry a certain cost of their own. They don't work for free.
2. People are lazy and opportunities have costs. As it turns out, below a certain tax rate, people tend to stop bothering going to the trouble of dodging taxes.
 
2012-11-28 09:45:54 AM

Z-clipped: onyxruby: Flat tax 20 regardless of income source. No penalty for success, fair for everyone.

Except that that's not fair for everyone, because there's a difference between taxing someone's grocery/rent/electricity money and taxing disposable income. Progressive taxation is the only system that can take into account externalities and the increased benefit the wealthy receive from the social contract.

Screw your Flat/"Fair" Tax nonsense.


Screw the poor. Screw the middle class. Screw "social justice." Screw "diversity." Screw "multiculturalism." Screw "every person's and every country's way of thinking, doing, believing, worshiping, sexing, and existing is equal and valid."
 
2012-11-28 09:46:20 AM

onyxruby: How can have everyone pay the same rate not be fair? That's like saying we should have different speed limits based on income.


The minimum cost of living is not zero. A true flat percentage tax fails to acknowledge this.
 
2012-11-28 09:46:44 AM

DrPainMD: 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.

So, if they raised the income tax on everybody to 99.99% and eliminated all deductions, that wouldn't be theft? Because we have elections?

/"It's not the people who vote that count; it's the people who count the votes."


No, the difference between taxation and theft is that, in theory, you get something of value for your taxes (schools, roads, police, your neighbors not having to rob your house so they can put food on the table). Theft is just theft, your money is gone and you'll never see it again.
 
2012-11-28 09:50:19 AM
Those that can - will vote with their feet, not surprising.

And it's not like they were paying not taxes to begin with. They were paying a hefty share. With the increase the logical step is a cost / benefit analysis. Can I live as comfortably and safely elsewhere and pay less taxes, if so, then off you go
 
2012-11-28 09:50:25 AM

dwrash: Gulper Eel: It's pretty simple: if you've got the means to take off BUT think you're getting a decent value for what you pay in taxes, you're more likely to stay put.

There's high taxes in places like Norway but the Norwegian government isn't jammed with cronies, crooks, nitwits and farktards.

Winner, winner chicken dinner.


Also, Norway doesn't have a lot of fried chicken lovers. So, its got that going for it...
 
2012-11-28 09:51:45 AM
Since the announcement the 50p top rate will be reduced to 45p from next April, the number of people declaring annual incomes of more than £1 million has risen to 10,000.

However, the number of million-pound earners is still far below the level recorded even at the height of the recession and financial crisis.


that is just damning. suck it, warren buffett.
 
2012-11-28 09:52:25 AM

my_cats_breath_smells_like_cat_food: This sounds lke a win-win type of story? They still can live lavishly on $250,000/year, wife can stay home with kids and the dog, her old job can be filled by someone who actually NEEDS a job to support their family (and who will pay taxes on the money they earn so the government will still get theirs whether it comes from this woman or not). What is bad about this?


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.
 
2012-11-28 09:52:51 AM

onyxruby: You'll note that my tax figure is a far greater tax rate than Herman Caine's 9/9/9 plan.


No it isn't. Under the 9-9-9 plan, an individual would pay 9% of their income as taxes. Then, that individual would pay 9% of the remainder as sales tax at point of sale. Then, that individual would also pay the mark-up businesses pass along for the 9% VAT tax (essentially sales tax). Income taken at 9% happens first; the other two 9% happen concurrently on the remainder, totalling 8.19% each or 16.38%, giving a total of 25.38% which is greater than your 20% flat income tax figure.
 
2012-11-28 09:53:36 AM

david_gaithersburg: Here in Maryland our Dear Leader O'Malley passed a special millionaires tax in the hopes of raising an additional $1 bil. of revenue. He forgot to build a wall around the state and as a result he ended up losing $1 bil of revenue with a stroke of his pen. He has since redefined "millionaire" to mean $500k. Eventually in MD you will only need to earn $100k per family to be evil rich in his eyes.


All wealth redistribution schemes end this way.

Take from the richest, and either they leave or they opt for less stressful but lower-paid positions.

So you keep moving on down the line, until you're taking from normal people.

And who are you paying for?

The chronic poor, disabled, drug-addled, etc. No offense to these folks, but they contribute nothing to society, and at some point, taking care of the makers is more important than taking care of the takers.
 
2012-11-28 09:54:15 AM
And it should be noted that the wealthy benefit disproportionately from taxes, as compared to the poor. The wealthy have much more to lose if police could no longer protect their houses from thieves, and they're likely to be the first targets when the starving masses revolt. The wealthy own businesses that depend on national infrastructure to move goods; the poor can always walk to their dead-end jobs. The wealthy benefit enormously from having an educated, high-earning middle class to buy their goods and services, which is difficult if not impossible to have without at least some government aid.
 
2012-11-28 09:54:24 AM

Cthulhu_is_my_homeboy: DrPainMD: 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.

So, if they raised the income tax on everybody to 99.99% and eliminated all deductions, that wouldn't be theft? Because we have elections?

/"It's not the people who vote that count; it's the people who count the votes."

No, the difference between taxation and theft is that, in theory, you get something of value for your taxes (schools, roads, police, your neighbors not having to rob your house so they can put food on the table). Theft is just theft, your money is gone and you'll never see it again.


By that definition, theft would be the proper word for the taxes taken from anybody making ~$75,000 or more.
 
2012-11-28 09:54:27 AM

incendi: my_cats_breath_smells_like_cat_food: What is bad about this?

Nothing, except his need to proclaim to the world about how he's going Galt turning what most people would consider reasonable decisions into a childish act of defiance.


No, it's not a childish act of defiance.

If you are being robbed, you do whatever you can to kill the robber.
 
2012-11-28 09:55:17 AM

onyxruby: Simplifying the tax code would save the economy Billions of dollars a year in accounting costs alone.


You think those dollars just disappear into Narnia now?
 
2012-11-28 09:55:24 AM

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.
 
2012-11-28 09:55:38 AM
A Tale Of Two Brothers

--Both born to humble lower middle class
--Brother A dropped out of school and spent all his money on cigarettes and drinking and now does not have a pot to piss in.
--Brother B studied hard, paid for his own education, worked hard, and is now successful.

Brother A is perceived as a victim.
Brother B is perceived as an evil selfish bastard.

Exceptions to every rule, but my experience with the poor is that laziness and poor decisions are responsible for the plight of many of them

Most of the 'rich' people I know are self-made.

//Willing to help anyone who is truly deserving of help, but no tolerance for all the 'Brother A's' out there.
 
2012-11-28 09:56:28 AM

theknuckler_33: Dancin_In_Anson: Joe Blowme: They are starting to run out other peoples money

I mentioned that statement a week or two ago and the Fark Dependents® went nugging futs about what an idiot Thatcher was to make such a statement. Ain't that a kick in the head?

It's remarkable that, 30 years later, there are still rich people around... you know, with all that socialism going on.


True. It's almost like some people of importance understand it to be true and govern accordingly.
 
2012-11-28 09:57:13 AM
hang the rich and take their money....then hang the politicians, lobbyists and journalists.
 
2012-11-28 09:58:05 AM

Cthulhu_is_my_homeboy: Zeb Hesselgresser: 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.

No. Regressive, punishes the poor.

Negative Income Tax. It combines a flat tax with a fixed annual subsidy/rebate to fix the regressive problems with the flat tax.

Basically, you tax everyone 30% and cut every household a check for $10,000 a year (or equivalent monthly payments).

It's demonstrably equitable, as it applies the same way to everyone. Thanks to the significant subsidy, you can eliminate traditional welfare (cutting every household an additional $100/person/month worth of discount coupons for food and essentials, which could be redeemed by retailers with the government, would serve to fill any gaps), and the very poor have no disincentive to find work, since additional income doesn't make you ineligible for the subsidy. Nor do high-income earners have any disincentive to make more, since they're never kicked into a higher tax bracket.

It's effectively a guaranteed minimum income system, but it doesn't disrupt markets the way raising the minimum wage does, since wages are effectively unlinked from basic survival. It also has a stabilizing effect during economic downturns, since the working class doesn't have to worry about whether it can meet a basic standard of living after taking a paycut, and so consumer confidence should remain higher, and the economy should recover faster.


Once we've finished automating pretty much everything, a system like this wouldn't be bad. We'll need some way to give the vast masses bearing skills no longer needed a way to keep surviving.
 
2012-11-28 09:58:25 AM

Cthulhu_is_my_homeboy: Negative Income Tax. It combines a flat tax with a fixed annual subsidy/rebate to fix the regressive problems with the flat tax.

Basically, you tax everyone 30% and cut every household a check for $10,000 a year (or equivalent monthly payments).



I'm not a communist or a fan of wealth redistribution, but I like this. Our current system charges 0% for people making less than a certain figure (something around $20k?), and makes up for it by charging the middle class 20%-30% and the bigger income earners 45%; then, it uses that money to provide public services that the poor, untaxed use, as well as to provide for things like welfare and food stamps which only the poor are allowed to use. That's taking the rich's money and giving it to the poor--wealth redistribution.

There is a lot of overhead in this complicated tax code, in the management of WIC and food stamps and welfare, and the like. Giving everyone a $10,000 tax credit and eliminating some of these services eliminates the overhead. Granted you have people like me, who can get by on $400/mo and so $10k is twice as much as I need; but there's no penalty to get a job, supplemental income would be good. Probably much more elective for me, though. And people could get room mates and afford rent.

It's a lot more straight-forward and cheaper to implement.
 
2012-11-28 09:58:30 AM

Cythraul: 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.

[i.qkme.me image 479x361]


Whats so funny? Have you seen some of the government employee pensions? Some of the employees are retiring on 200k/year (or more) on jobs that didnt pay that when the person was employed. I realize not every employee makes more in retirement but yeah some of them have quite high and lavish pensions.
 
2012-11-28 09:58:31 AM

SlothB77: Since the announcement the 50p top rate will be reduced to 45p from next April, the number of people declaring annual incomes of more than £1 million has risen to 10,000.

However, the number of million-pound earners is still far below the level recorded even at the height of the recession and financial crisis.

that is just damning. suck it, warren buffett.


Believe it or not, but the deadline to file one's taxes in the UK has not passed yet for electronic filers. Electronic filers have until January 31st. To make any proclamation as to the definitive number of people filing with annual incomes of greater than 1 million GBP is premature.

It's like assuming the amount of taxes collected in the US in by February is the absolute total number of taxes that will be collected for the year, despite the Tax day being a couple of months off. Believe it or not, people don't always file their taxes ahead of the deadline.
 
2012-11-28 09:58:40 AM

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?
 
2012-11-28 09:59:10 AM

drb9: Isn't the other possibility that 2/3rds of the UK's millionaires made significantly less money this year than last? It's a crappy economy.


actually, the year before the tax hike went into effect, 2009-2010, when there were 16,000 millionaires, was the peak of the recession.

The economy should have started to rebound the following year. The timing was such that the loss of millionaires due to the tax would have been severely understated - the control year they were using here should have had a significantly smaller number of millionaires than normal because of the recession.
 
2012-11-28 10:00:00 AM

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.
 
2012-11-28 10:00:01 AM

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


Mom and Dad's place sure is cheap.
 
2012-11-28 10:00:35 AM

tom baker's scarf: 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.

pro tip. Sim City is a pretty fun simulation but not everything in it is 1:1 usable in the real world.

flat taxes are not fair. They have a much larger impact on the working poor and middle class families then they do on the rich.


Sim city, haven't played that in at least 15 years, kind of fun for a little while.

As for not being fair, how can something that affects everyone proportionally be anything other than fair? Many working poor are ineligible for a lot of tax breaks and pay a 25-33% tax rate.
 
2012-11-28 10:00:49 AM
There is only one "fair" form of taxation. (all statements in this post and all future post are appended with BOCTAOE

National property tax.

4 steps.

1. ~15% tax on all currency exports (goods are not taxed at export, only currency)
2. end all income, sales, sin, and specific activity taxes (fees such as natural resource use rents are still OK and dealt with in point 4)
3. enact a ~2.3% tax on all property under the protection of the US government including intellectual property
4. take the proceeds of all non-tax revenue such as fees and fines and distributed them equally to all citizens

This works because the people who own stuff pay for the government whose primary purpose is property rights enforcement. The people who don't own stuff benefit from living in the society and being good workers and consumers supporting the people who do own stuff.

Because of a single tax rate politicians no longer have the power to help their friends and punish their enemies, and because all non-tax revenue is returned to the people the government does not have financial incentive to enforce laws for profit.
 
2012-11-28 10:02:05 AM

SlothB77: drb9: Isn't the other possibility that 2/3rds of the UK's millionaires made significantly less money this year than last? It's a crappy economy.

actually, the year before the tax hike went into effect, 2009-2010, when there were 16,000 millionaires, was the peak of the recession.

The economy should have started to rebound the following year. The timing was such that the loss of millionaires due to the tax would have been severely understated - the control year they were using here should have had a significantly smaller number of millionaires than normal because of the recession.


I like how you're supporting the Laffer curve in two threads at the same time.

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.
 
2012-11-28 10:02:33 AM
"or took steps to avoid paying the new levy by reducing their taxable incomes."

If those steps include legal manuevers like investing in business assets or donating to orphanages or supporting municipal bonds or whatever the British tax code incentivizes to aid the economy, then that is not an all bad thing. I gave an extra grand to Drs Without Borders last year to avoid getting hit by the AMT. Does that make the AMT a bad thing that hurt the country?
 
2012-11-28 10:02:38 AM

RexTalionis: Believe it or not, but the deadline to file one's taxes in the UK has not passed yet for electronic filers. Electronic filers have until January 31st. To make any proclamation as to the definitive number of people filing with annual incomes of greater than 1 million GBP is premature.

It's like assuming the amount of taxes collected in the US in by February is the absolute total number of taxes that will be collected for the year, despite the Tax day being a couple of months off. Believe it or not, people don't always file their taxes ahead of the deadline


Understood. But two things: it was announced tax rates were being decreased and there was no economic downturn like 09-10 this year.
 
2012-11-28 10:03:10 AM

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


This is so absurd it almost falls under Poe's law. It doesn't even apply to the real world.

What we have in the real world, are people who climbed to the top on everyone else's back, claim no one ever gave them a hand so why should they return the favor, and then try to pull the ladder up behind them. Those are the evil selfish bastards.
 
2012-11-28 10:03:15 AM

MoxieLover:
No, it's not a childish act of defiance.

If you are being robbed, you do whatever you can to kill the robber.


If you consider taxation robbery, go on and take up arms, turn that robbery in to a murder. Or you could grow the fark up, join civilized society, and acknowledge that taxation is a necessity.
 
2012-11-28 10:03:25 AM

Zeb Hesselgresser: theknuckler_33: Dancin_In_Anson: Joe Blowme: They are starting to run out other peoples money

I mentioned that statement a week or two ago and the Fark Dependents® went nugging futs about what an idiot Thatcher was to make such a statement. Ain't that a kick in the head?

It's remarkable that, 30 years later, there are still rich people around... you know, with all that socialism going on.

True. It's almost like some people of importance understand it to be true and govern accordingly.


That is EXACTLY the point.
 
2012-11-28 10:04:46 AM

bluefoxicy: Our current system charges 0% for people making less than a certain figure (something around $20k?),


Your ideas seem to be based on that blatant lie above. Our current system charges the poor social security and medicare at a higher rate than the rich, sales taxes, property taxes (rolled in rents in most cases), and assorted fees.

Only people who make literally $0 are charged no tax in the US.
 
2012-11-28 10:05:24 AM

onyxruby: As for not being fair, how can something that affects everyone proportionally be anything other than fair?


Look it up. Google "marginal utility" or "progressive taxation". You shouldn't have an opinion on this if you can't answer this question.

You can disagree with the reasoning. That's fine. Just shut the fark up about the issue entirely if you're not going to bother learning anything about it.
 
2012-11-28 10:06:05 AM

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.
 
2012-11-28 10:08:22 AM

Surpheon: bluefoxicy: Our current system charges 0% for people making less than a certain figure (something around $20k?),

Your ideas seem to be based on that blatant lie above. Our current system charges the poor social security and medicare at a higher rate than the rich, sales taxes, property taxes (rolled in rents in most cases), and assorted fees.

Only people who make literally $0 are charged no tax in the US.


(No I didn't read the thread, so yes I'm babbling irrelevancies if it's a bunch of Brits in here. Although it could be converted easily enough by discussing the regressive nature of the VAT.)
 
2012-11-28 10:09:13 AM

bluefoxicy: Under the 9-9-9 plan, an individual would pay 9% of their income as taxes. Then, that individual would pay 9% of the remainder as sales tax at point of sale. Then, that individual would also pay the mark-up businesses pass along for the 9% VAT tax (essentially sales tax). Income taken at 9% happens first; the other two 9% happen concurrently on the remainder, totalling 8.19% each or 16.38%, giving a total of 25.38% which is greater than your 20% flat income tax figure.


The problem with that is your assuming all of the salary gets spent at the point of sale. If you look at the IRS website you'll find standard deductions for sales tax or you can calculate your own. Sales tax disproportionality affects young working families since they spend more money at the point of sale.

By way of point think of the target demographic for most sales - people 21-35 years of age. These are people that are raising families and get hit the hardest by sales tax. Once you hit around 35 you have most of the stuff you need in life and don't buy nearly as many things. That is why Caine's tax proposal would have hit young working families the hardest.
 
2012-11-28 10:09:24 AM

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?
 
2012-11-28 10:09:42 AM

SlothB77: RexTalionis: Believe it or not, but the deadline to file one's taxes in the UK has not passed yet for electronic filers. Electronic filers have until January 31st. To make any proclamation as to the definitive number of people filing with annual incomes of greater than 1 million GBP is premature.

It's like assuming the amount of taxes collected in the US in by February is the absolute total number of taxes that will be collected for the year, despite the Tax day being a couple of months off. Believe it or not, people don't always file their taxes ahead of the deadline

Understood. But two things: it was announced tax rates were being decreased and there was no economic downturn like 09-10 this year.


Don't be a moron. The UK has been, for most of 2012, been in a double dip recession brought on by the current government's austerity measures.

Link
 
2012-11-28 10:09:47 AM

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.


Wait, you are saying that people adjust their behavior to better their own interests? pfffffffttttttttt
you are teh stupid.
 
2012-11-28 10:09:59 AM

incendi: MoxieLover:
No, it's not a childish act of defiance.

If you are being robbed, you do whatever you can to kill the robber.

If you consider taxation robbery, go on and take up arms, turn that robbery in to a murder. Or you could grow the fark up, join civilized society, and acknowledge that taxation is a necessity.


OK, then do whatever you can to block, prevent, or disable the robber. The point is, the government is trying to take too much of a person's income; that person should do whatever they can (like voting against those who support the robbery, enacting laws to block the robber, hide assets, reduce taxable income to just-below the higher percentage rate, move to a more tax-friendly place) to block the robber. If the taxation increases for the wealthy, and the government employment numbers would benefit, or the lazies would be given the fruits of the productives' efforts or inheritances or risks taken, or the wealth would be redistributed, then there is nothing wrong with doing whatever is necessary to block the robber.
 
2012-11-28 10:11:29 AM
Tax the rich and give that money to the lazy, no good, POS drains on society. Yea, that'll work.
 
2012-11-28 10:12:23 AM

SlothB77: The more evidence that is presented, like this article, that supports the Laffer Curve, the less people will think its total horseshiat


Laffer CURVE. The sooner folks like you learn what the fark that means and make any sort of rational argument that we're actually anywhere near t* on high income individuals, who haven't had tax rates this low in a generation, the sooner we might be able to have a rational discussion. Rather than this religious "taxes are evil!" and "markets will do fine with 20% of the participants in possession of 80% the total wealth - don't worry about it!".

If you look at the periods of America's greatest economic expansions, taxes were higher. What does that suggest about where we are on the Laffer Curve right now?
 
2012-11-28 10:12:27 AM
Funny how it NEVAR occurs to the rich to actually pay a decent wage to the lower classes, thereby raising their tax bracket (and resulting in their shouldering a larger burden of the total tax collected.)
 
2012-11-28 10:12:58 AM
It's unlikely they actually left the country. A lot of compensation was brought forward so that executives could bank it before the rate increase. A lot of it was delayed, betting that the new Conservative government would lower the rate (which they did). There was some complex fiddling with pension contributions.

Most people who earn £1 million in salary are directors of large companies. They can leave if they want, but there's a whole queue of underlings ready to take their place.
 
2012-11-28 10:14:55 AM

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?


Because all the hiding places are guarded by governments of questionable reliability and morality, and there's a very good chance any money hidden there will disappear forever.

/but the odds are better than those of keeping that money in the UK, it seems
//keep farking that chicken libs, you've poured too much spunk into it to give up now
 
2012-11-28 10:15:22 AM

HAMMERTOE: Funny how it NEVAR occurs to the rich to actually pay a decent wage to the lower classes, thereby raising their tax bracket (and resulting in their shouldering a larger burden of the total tax collected.)


It has, a few times. Henry Ford is probably the most famous example. But most of the rich are as shortsighted and greedy as the average human, just given the means to enact their will on others that the poor don't have.
 
2012-11-28 10:16:15 AM

Cthulhu_is_my_homeboy: Negative Income Tax. It combines a flat tax with a fixed annual subsidy/rebate to fix the regressive problems with the flat tax.

Basically, you tax everyone 30% and cut every household a check for $10,000 a year (or equivalent monthly payments).


As a fraud investigator, I have laughed at Fair Taxers when they suggest it. Creating fake people has been used for ages to seek lawful employment and apply for credit. Now imagine being able to get a $10k check for every fake person you can make? Yeah, the idea was thought-up by retards trying to shore-up some numbers in their highly flawed model. Flat taxes only work when there is very little wage disparity and no poverty.
 
2012-11-28 10:18:43 AM

Pair-o-Dice: Tax the rich and give that money to the lazy, no good, POS drains on society. Yea, that'll work.


Who suggested that?

I thought the left wanted to trim a few trillion from government spending and add a trillion or two in new revenue? You know, trying to be responsible instead of just borrowing it all. Reagan coined the term 'deficits don't matter'.
 
2012-11-28 10:19:32 AM

SlothB77: RexTalionis: Believe it or not, but the deadline to file one's taxes in the UK has not passed yet for electronic filers. Electronic filers have until January 31st. To make any proclamation as to the definitive number of people filing with annual incomes of greater than 1 million GBP is premature.

It's like assuming the amount of taxes collected in the US in by February is the absolute total number of taxes that will be collected for the year, despite the Tax day being a couple of months off. Believe it or not, people don't always file their taxes ahead of the deadline

Understood. But two things: it was announced tax rates were being decreased and there was no economic downturn like 09-10 this year.


Hell, the only reason the UK left the recession in Q3 is because of the enormous spending that accompanied the Olympic Games. According to manufacturing data, the UK is on track to go into a triple dip recession right now.
 
2012-11-28 10:19:37 AM

thespindrifter: david_gaithersburg: Here in Maryland our Dear Leader O'Malley passed a special millionaires tax in the hopes of raising an additional $1 bil. of revenue. He forgot to build a wall around the state and as a result he ended up losing $1 bil of revenue with a stroke of his pen. He has since redefined "millionaire" to mean $500k. Eventually in MD you will only need to earn $100k per family to be evil rich in his eyes.

/btw
//This farking babbling economic idiot
///Is who so called progressives plan to have as our next president.

California is about to learn this very hard lesson the usual way: increase taxes on the wealthiest members of society, and if they have other options (such as living where taxes are less) then they can afford to leave and enjoy that option, leaving the poor behind. California is about to learn that increasing estimated "revenue" while driving away the people who earn that revenue will in fact result in missing their projections by quite a lot. Also, the ones who actually choose to stay will find other ways around the problem:

"After the election, my wife and I are going partial Galt. We're in California, so our state income tax went up in addition to what's sure to come out of Washington.

My wife quit her job last week. I increased my participation in a tax deferment plan offered by my employer to bring my taxable income as close to $250K as possible. We'll be cutting back a little, but the government is going to getting a whole lot less.

My wife's entire salary barely covered our tax bill - she was 100% slave to the government, while I was a 10% slave. Now she is 100% free, and I'll be a ~35% slave As a couple, 17.5% of our time is slaving on the government plantation from an astounding 55% previously.

My wife is deliriously happy, our children are delighted to have mom home, the dog gets more walks, and I find not spending money rapturously satisfying. "


I hope you get pancreatic cancer and insurance only covers 200k, leaving you with 1.1M in medical bills. Or better yet, perhaps you could just die and allow someone willing to participate in improving our society to take your place, that would be far better yet.

/I made 400k last year, not crying about paying my fair share.
//donated an additional 100k to charity
 
2012-11-28 10:19:39 AM
Good heavens. The number of people declaring income of more than £1m per annum fell from 16,000 to 6,000 in the year the economy collapsed and has since climbed back to 10,000. How remarkable. Clearly it's because of aliens taxes.
 
2012-11-28 10:20:54 AM
Vegan Meat Popsicle: "You're either really bad at math or really bad at sociology. Which is it?"

It can be both.
And, odds are, it is.
 
2012-11-28 10:22:05 AM

Lord Summerisle: They all left? Good. Piss off, you psychopathic bastards.


exactly.

Nothing says "we've screwed this country plenty, so we're taking the money we effectively stole from you and are leaving" than exactly that happening.

It'd be nice if the UK actually stood up to this stuff by retaliating against the rich who left via disallowing them to have any interests in the UK or actually deeply examining their businesses properly, but then again the UK has about the same amount of balls as the US does when it comes to public interest vs corporations: none.
 
2012-11-28 10:23:35 AM

RexTalionis: Don't be a moron. The UK has been, for most of 2012, been in a double dip recession brought on by the current government's austerity measures.


keep raising taxes, thereby reducing revenues and they will have to enact even more drastic austerity measures.
 
2012-11-28 10:24:02 AM

madgonad: As a fraud investigator, I have laughed at Fair Taxers when they suggest it. Creating fake people has been used for ages to seek lawful employment and apply for credit. Now imagine being able to get a $10k check for every fake person you can make? Yeah, the idea was thought-up by retards trying to shore-up some numbers in their highly flawed model. Flat taxes only work when there is very little wage disparity and no poverty.


And the current system isn't vulnerable to fraud? Isn't that exactly what this thread is about? Rich people pretending not to owe taxes via a loophole?

Actually, is any system not subject to widescale fraud? Actually I'd tend to think handing out checks would be fairly easy to keep on the straight-and-narrow if you just require people to show up in-person with a photo ID to collect. I'm pretty sure a few fraudulent $10k checks here and there would be a lot smaller loss than millions upon millions in tax dodges.
 
2012-11-28 10:24:34 AM

MoxieLover: OK, then do whatever you can to block, prevent, or disable the robber. The point is, the government is trying to take too much of a person's income; that person should do whatever they can (like voting against those who support the robbery, enacting laws to block the robber, hide assets, reduce taxable income to just-below the higher percentage rate, move to a more tax-friendly place) to block the robber. If the taxation increases for the wealthy, and the government employment numbers would benefit, or the lazies would be given the fruits of the productives' efforts or inheritances or risks taken, or the wealth would be redistributed, then there is nothing wrong with doing whatever is necessary to block the robber.


My point is (besides that referring to taxation as robbery is silly) all those actions you just listed are reasonable responses if you think you're over-taxed. All the things the guy in the article did are reasonable things to do to maximize the enjoyment of your life. Doing a simple CBA on the work arrangement in your household in light of a changing tax structure is a reasonable and responsible thing to do. Proclaiming that you're doing it to "go Galt" and somehow stick it to the man is petulant and childish.
 
2012-11-28 10:25:33 AM

SlothB77: keep raising taxes, thereby reducing revenues


Say what?
 
2012-11-28 10:27:54 AM

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?


You sound like "Brother A"
 
2012-11-28 10:29:55 AM

Mr. Carpenter: My wife is deliriously happy, our children are delighted to have mom home, the dog gets more walks, and I find not spending money rapturously satisfying. "

I hope you get pancreatic cancer and insurance only covers 200k,


Why? Their math is pretty cocked up, but there is nothing wrong with their outcome of having a one income household, a bit of work-life balance, and participating in a legitimate tax deferment plan (which usually means putting money into retirement, which keeps you off the dole in the future). That's not going Galt, that's going Ward Cleever, and we should be pushing to create a society where that is enabled. The sad thing is that in this country, the majority of the wealthy aren't producing anything near their compensation, so if they quit in defiance they are lowering costs WAY more than output. It's a good deal. Now just let the inheritance tax come back (with a suitably high exemption) so we can get the Paris Hiltons' capital moving towards merit eventually and it's a good path.
 
2012-11-28 10:30:08 AM

Lord Summerisle: Been working and paying a large chunk of my salary in tax and NI since I was 17, chum. Which is more than most of these rich coonts can say, most of whom owe their wealth to being born into the privileged classes and who use the loopholes and tax havens provided for them to avoid paying their share.


You're so mad at their parents for being rich. Maybe you should be more angry with your parents for being so poor...
 
2012-11-28 10:30:26 AM

Cthulhu_is_my_homeboy: madgonad: As a fraud investigator, I have laughed at Fair Taxers when they suggest it. Creating fake people has been used for ages to seek lawful employment and apply for credit. Now imagine being able to get a $10k check for every fake person you can make? Yeah, the idea was thought-up by retards trying to shore-up some numbers in their highly flawed model. Flat taxes only work when there is very little wage disparity and no poverty.

And the current system isn't vulnerable to fraud? Isn't that exactly what this thread is about? Rich people pretending not to owe taxes via a loophole?

Actually, is any system not subject to widescale fraud? Actually I'd tend to think handing out checks would be fairly easy to keep on the straight-and-narrow if you just require people to show up in-person with a photo ID to collect. I'm pretty sure a few fraudulent $10k checks here and there would be a lot smaller loss than millions upon millions in tax dodges.


Why would you assume that system would eliminate tax dodges? Would people suddenly stop hiding income just to make the system make sense?
 
2012-11-28 10:30:29 AM
HAMMERTOE: Funny how it NEVAR occurs to the rich to actually pay a decent wage to the lower classes, thereby raising their tax bracket (and resulting in their shouldering

Cthulhu_is_my_homeboy: HAMMERTOE: Funny how it NEVAR occurs to the rich to actually pay a decent wage to the lower classes, thereby raising their tax bracket (and resulting in their shouldering a larger burden of the total tax collected.)

Try to get past your deluded view of the world for just a sec and admit that some rich people are assholes but some are decent people who deserve what success they have achieved.
Also admit that some poor people are poor because of they chose to be. They are lazy and not willing to work hard to be successful.

//And not all rich people are in a position to dictate the wages paid of other people.

//We applaud hard work and success in athletics but not in society. WTF?

 
2012-11-28 10:32:28 AM

Fade2black: Lord Summerisle: They all left? Good. Piss off, you psychopathic bastards.

Who's gonna pay for your free stuff now?

God forbid you get up off your ass and work for a living.


Where the fark is this free shiat you fine hard working real Americans keep going on about?
Seriously, what new handout from that scary Kenyan is currently responsible for crushing our democracy and makes life so radically different than America circa 2007....show your notes bro, share plz!
 
2012-11-28 10:32:50 AM

thespindrifter: California is about to learn this very hard lesson the usual way: increase taxes on the wealthiest members of society, and if they have other options (such as living where taxes are less) then they can afford to leave and enjoy that option, leaving the poor behind. California is about to learn that increasing estimated "revenue" while driving away the people who earn that revenue will in fact result in missing their projections by quite a lot. Also, the ones who actually choose to stay will find other ways around the problem:

"After the election, my wife and I are going partial Galt. We're in California, so our state income tax went up in addition to what's sure to come out of Washington.

My wife quit her job last week. I increased my participation in a tax deferment plan offered by my employer to bring my taxable income as close to $250K as possible. We'll be cutting back a little, but the government is going to getting a whole lot less.

My wife's entire salary barely covered our tax bill - she was 100% slave to the government, while I was a 10% slave. Now she is 100% free, and I'll be a ~35% slave As a couple, 17.5% of our time is slaving on the government plantation from an astounding 55% previously.

My wife is deliriously happy, our children are delighted to have mom home, the dog gets more walks, and I find not spending money rapturously satisfying. "




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

You do understand that you are taxed at the higher rates on the income OVER $250k right?

Tax deferment to make reported income around $250k makes sense. The wife taking time off to be with the kids makes sense. Stopping work because you think you will take home less if you earn more is pants on head retarded.

If you make $300k, only the $50k above 250 would be taxed at a higher rate.

Looking here:
(https://www.ftb.ca.gov/forms/2012_California_Tax_Rates_and_Exemption s .shtml)

...it looks like for a single income earner they are taxed at 9.3% up to $250k, then at 10.3% on any income OVER $250k. A Whole 1% difference! On additional income.


Stop derping.
 
2012-11-28 10:37:33 AM
So don't let them do business in the UK after they've expatriated. CEO of a widget manufacturer? If you leave the country to avoid taxes, you can no longer run the business. Any money made overseas must be taxed at the UK rate before it can be brought back into the country. Any product made overseas must be tariffed up to the level of what it would cost to make in the UK before it can be imported.

Now it won't cost anything. Millionaires can go retire somewhere else if they like, but they will leave their jobs behind them to someone who is happy to pay 50% for the opportunity to make seven figures.
 
2012-11-28 10:40:25 AM

madgonad: As a fraud investigator, I have laughed at Fair Taxers when they suggest it. Creating fake people has been used for ages to seek lawful employment and apply for credit. Now imagine being able to get a $10k check for every fake person you can make? Yeah, the idea was thought-up by retards trying to shore-up some numbers in their highly flawed model. Flat taxes only work when there is very little wage disparity and no poverty.


Social.

Security.

Numbers.

Computer databases.

Fake people won't pay off for them unless there's a fake SSN and "Taxes Paid" number in the appropriate slot in the database to go along with that name. In fact, there could be a cell, rather than a check for them.
 
2012-11-28 10:43:38 AM

HAMMERTOE: Fake people won't pay off for them unless there's a fake SSN and "Taxes Paid" number in the appropriate slot in the database to go along with that name. In fact, there could be a cell, rather than a check for them.


maki.page8productions.com
You want a fake SSN? I can get you a fake SSN, believe me. There are ways, Dude. You don't wanna know about it, believe me.
 
2012-11-28 10:43:41 AM

DrPainMD: my_cats_breath_smells_like_cat_food: This sounds lke a win-win type of story? They still can live lavishly on $250,000/year, wife can stay home with kids and the dog, her old job can be filled by someone who actually NEEDS a job to support their family (and who will pay taxes on the money they earn so the government will still get theirs whether it comes from this woman or not). What is bad about this?

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.


Nope, his wife isn't erasing her job, she is merely not working it anymore. There will be someone else filling her position. Spending her paycheck to increase the GDP and paying her taxes...all this situation did was oopen up a job for someone who obviously needs it more desperately and give the wife more time to spend with her family.
 
2012-11-28 10:45:26 AM

Thats No Moose: SlothB77: keep raising taxes, thereby reducing revenues

Say what?


Apparently you read neither this thread nor the article.

{16,000 x 0.45% x $1,000,000} > {6,000 x 0.50% x $1,000,000}

Notice how the one with the higher tax rate has the lower total?
 
2012-11-28 10:52:08 AM
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.
 
2012-11-28 10:57:48 AM

orbister: Good heavens. The number of people declaring income of more than £1m per annum fell from 16,000 to 6,000 in the year the economy collapsed and has since climbed back to 10,000. How remarkable. Clearly it's because of aliens taxes.


How can you get the facts wrong from something only 3 years ago? Are you just that young?
 
2012-11-28 11:03:27 AM
Scarry how many leftards here have wet dreams of putting up an Iron Curtain around the US.
 
2012-11-28 11:08:27 AM

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.


The dudes who robbed my house didn't pave my street last summer, or replace the aging water line on my block, or build the school where I bring my daughter to get an education, or patrol the national forest where I go to camp, and then save my sorry ass if I were to shanghai myself in the backcountry.

Yeah dude, just like theives
 
2012-11-28 11:09:56 AM

generallyso: I believe the expression is, good riddance to bad rubbish.


Now take away their citizenship.
 
2012-11-28 11:16:30 AM

thurstonxhowell: onyxruby: As for not being fair, how can something that affects everyone proportionally be anything other than fair?

Look it up. Google "marginal utility" or "progressive taxation". You shouldn't have an opinion on this if you can't answer this question.

You can disagree with the reasoning. That's fine. Just shut the fark up about the issue entirely if you're not going to bother learning anything about it.


Wow, by your logic I can tell anyone talking about the Bill of Rights to shut up and their not allowed an opinion until they have read the Federalist Papers.

/The derp is strong with you.
 
2012-11-28 11:17:26 AM
I am just wondering how long it will take before people realize that raising taxes is not going to fix anything and will actually compound the problems which will led to a collapse or reduction in the social programs. I would say that I will be sitting back laughing at the "free money" crowd when the well dries up, but sadly those of us working will also be made to suffer.
 
2012-11-28 11:19:42 AM

digistil: Generally speaking, those people are the last people to feel the impact of the recession.


Wrong again.
 
2012-11-28 11:21:21 AM
This started a long time ago. Here are just the top twelve of the music business. I think at least 4 of them were Knighted after they left! But don't worry our rich are not smart enough to figure this out! They didn't make their money daddy and mommy gave it to them!

Link
 
2012-11-28 11:25:16 AM
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.

At first, she'll collect unemployment.
She immediately qualifies for $850 a month in food stamps
We save $1600 in day care
Any kids in school get free lunches
Health insurance for her and the kids is now free (I save 480 a month in health insurance premiums)
We get free cell phones
We get welfare (roughly $1000 a month)
We get WIC- free baby food and other staples
All this increases as soon as we have another kid
She can watch kids in our house or clean houses for cash that's not reported as income.
We vote Democrat the rest of our lives.

What is our incentive to continue working?
 
2012-11-28 11:28:02 AM

Cythraul: 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.


Wait, just so we're clear, you think that high pensions for government workers is a myth? You obviously don't know what's going on in California. I have a friend who could have retired from his county Librarian job last year with a full pension. He's about 33 years old. Of course, many government workers in California aren't stupid enough to retire young with their pension, no no, they go find another government job and double-up on their pension at age 60. There's even a few instances where someone was legitimately collecting 3 pensions from various California Governments.
 
2012-11-28 11:36:32 AM

Sid_the_sadist: What is our incentive to continue working?


You tell us, you're the one who is doing it. Perhaps on some level you recognize that there is a time limit on many of those benefits plus it would qualify as fraud, a imprisionable offense (you are clearly proposing remaining a single household with her as a dependent and proposing she conceals her income from taxation).

And if you don't know the problems that it would raise, you should find a gay couple who is pissed off they can't get married and they'll fill you in on all the small and not so small benefits of an official marriage.

Actually, try it and report back next month how pulling down all those benefits is going for you. Welfare queens were killed by the Gingrich/Clinton overhaul.
 
2012-11-28 11:37:24 AM

onyxruby: thurstonxhowell: onyxruby: As for not being fair, how can something that affects everyone proportionally be anything other than fair?

Look it up. Google "marginal utility" or "progressive taxation". You shouldn't have an opinion on this if you can't answer this question.

You can disagree with the reasoning. That's fine. Just shut the fark up about the issue entirely if you're not going to bother learning anything about it.

Wow, by your logic I can tell anyone talking about the Bill of Rights to shut up and their not allowed an opinion until they have read the Federalist Papers.

/The derp is strong with you.


If demanding an answer that could be gotten within 2 minutes by typing "Federalist Papers" into Google, that sounds about right, yes.
 
2012-11-28 11:38:30 AM

thurstonxhowell: If demanding


I accidentally the word "they're".
 
2012-11-28 11:39:33 AM

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.


*sigh* Go look up the words regressive tax, go on we will wait.


/or don't and remain ignorant.
 
2012-11-28 11:41:39 AM

MarkEC: Taxes should be viewed as a means of raising revenue for the government. When you raise taxes and revenue falls, you are doing it wrong! Why is that such a hard lesson to learn?


Historically raising taxes rarely never caused revenue to fall, on the other hand lowering taxes has always caused used revenue to fall. Why is that such a hard lesson to learn?
 
2012-11-28 11:42:08 AM

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.

At first, she'll collect unemployment.
She immediately qualifies for $850 a month in food stamps
We save $1600 in day care
Any kids in school get free lunches
Health insurance for her and the kids is now free (I save 480 a month in health insurance premiums)
We get free cell phones
We get welfare (roughly $1000 a month)
We get WIC- free baby food and other staples
All this increases as soon as we have another kid
She can watch kids in our house or clean houses for cash that's not reported as income.
We vote Democrat the rest of our lives.

What is our incentive to continue working?


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 to become a RN...helped us get out of poverty, but it wasn't a fun time by any means
 
2012-11-28 11:46:30 AM

Cthulhu_is_my_homeboy: Zeb Hesselgresser: 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.

No. Regressive, punishes the poor.

Negative Income Tax. It combines a flat tax with a fixed annual subsidy/rebate to fix the regressive problems with the flat tax.

Basically, you tax everyone 30% and cut every household a check for $10,000 a year (or equivalent monthly payments).

It's demonstrably equitable, as it applies the same way to everyone. Thanks to the significant subsidy, you can eliminate traditional welfare (cutting every household an additional $100/person/month worth of discount coupons for food and essentials, which could be redeemed by retailers with the government, would serve to fill any gaps), and the very poor have no disincentive to find work, since additional income doesn't make you ineligible for the subsidy. Nor do high-income earners have any disincentive to make more, since they're never kicked into a higher tax bracket.

It's effectively a guaranteed minimum income system, but it doesn't disrupt markets the way raising the minimum wage does, since wages are effectively unlinked from basic survival. It also has a stabilizing effect during economic downturns, since the working class doesn't have to worry about whether it can meet a basic standard of living after taking a paycut, and so consumer confidence should remain higher, and the economy should recover faster.


Okay, but then why wouldn't we cut all US citizens over the age of 18 and under the age of 67 a 50,000 dollar check, set taxes at 65% of income over 50,000 and end welfare as we know it?

Oh wait, most people would stop working, driving wages up, and massively increasing inflation. Yep this sounds like another dumb dam idea.
 
2012-11-28 11:46:42 AM

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.

At first, she'll collect unemployment.
She immediately qualifies for $850 a month in food stamps
We save $1600 in day care
Any kids in school get free lunches
Health insurance for her and the kids is now free (I save 480 a month in health insurance premiums)
We get free cell phones
We get welfare (roughly $1000 a month)
We get WIC- free baby food and other staples
All this increases as soon as we have another kid
She can watch kids in our house or clean houses for cash that's not reported as income.
We vote Democrat the rest of our lives.

What is our incentive to continue working?


I dunno, you tell us? You have obviously planned it all out, why didn't you pull the trigger the first minute you did the math? By definition there is something stopping you from doing it, but YOU are the only one that could possibly know.

/I suspect it is because you don't actually believe any of what you typed, but like to dream.
//Or maybe you want to be a helpful, productive member of society in the interest of being a good role model for your 3 kids?
///Or because you would be embarrassed to pull out the food stamps and medicaid card, and pride is most important after all.
//Or because, as was mentioned, some of what you stated is illegal to actually do.
/Or because there is no clear path OUT once you are in, and what do you do when the kids are out of the house and the welfare train stops running?

/Or because there are also retirement and benefit advantages to your wife being employed?
//I could do this all day.
/But I won't.

/So, why DON'T you do it?
 
2012-11-28 11:51:02 AM

thespindrifter: After the election, my wife and I are going partial Galt. We're in California, so our state income tax went up in addition to what's sure to come out of Washington.

My wife quit her job last week. I increased my participation in a tax deferment plan offered by my employer to bring my taxable income as close to $250K as possible. We'll be cutting back a little, but the government is going to getting a whole lot less.


You realize that you pay the same tax rate on that first $250k of taxable income in both scenarios?

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.

There's also no reason to assume $250k is any kind of magic number. $70k, $200k, $250k and $1 million have all been proposed as the cutoff for tax cut expiration.

And it won't help you at all if all the tax cuts expire, which is another likely scenario.

You might want to consult a financial expert.
 
2012-11-28 11:52:21 AM

fickenchucker:

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

At first, she'll collect unemployment.
She immediately qualifies for $850 a month in food stamps
We save $1600 in day care
Any kids in school get free lunches
Health insurance for her and the kids is now free (I save 480 a month in health insurance premiums)
We get free cell phones
We get welfare (roughly $1000 a month)
We get WIC- free baby food and other staples
All this increases as soon as we have another kid
She can watch kids in our house or clean houses for cash that's not reported as income.
We vote Democrat the rest of our lives.

What is our incentive to continue working?


Self respect? A sense of duty to country? A desire to not be one of them?
 
2012-11-28 11:52:48 AM

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


For the reasons listed in the text you quoted. Did you actually read what I wrote, or just hit the comment button?

onyxruby: That's like saying we should have different speed limits based on income.


No, it's nothing at all like that.

onyxruby: Simplifying the tax code would save the economy Billions of dollars a year in accounting costs alone.


It certainly would. I'm not against simplifying the tax code, or taxing cap gains at the same rate as income, or eliminating tax incentives for behaviors that hurt our economy. However, you clearly have no concept of what taxing every individual at 20% would do to the bottom 50% of the country. It would be an extremely regressive system, more so than the one we have now. It would eliminate the disposable income of nearly half the country, and would put millions of American below the poverty line that are not there now.

It only sounds fair and simple because you're totally ignorant of the economic complexities involved. The wealthy benefit more from the societal structure than anyone else. Once you reach a certain threshold of wealth, it becomes almost impossible not to become wealthier, and it grows easier and easier to foist business externalities off on the populace, instead of paying for them. A properly implemented progressive tax system balances the tendency of wealth to concentrate, and ensures that everyone has the ability. through hard work and commitment, to amass a reasonable amount of wealth and security, not just a few lucky ones that beat odds on the order of winning the Powerball. Which is what the "American Dream" is supposed to be about in the first place.
 
2012-11-28 11:57:16 AM

Sid_the_sadist: What is our incentive to continue working?


If you are paying $19,200 a year in daycare and only make $50K combined then even without the other things (that I believe you have somewhat inflated in dollars but I don't know what state you live in) then you or your wife should definitely quit one of your jobs. In effect, one of you is only making about $5K a year. That sounds like a waste of your time.

My guess is that you qualify for some help as it stands right now.
 
2012-11-28 12:00:37 PM

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.
 
2012-11-28 12:03:02 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.


Bacon Hitler approves:

stokereport.s3.amazonaws.com
 
2012-11-28 12:03:55 PM

swahnhennessy: What's English-English for "Screw you, I got mine"?


"I'm all right, Jack" or perhaps "Sod off, you poxy wankers".
 
2012-11-28 12:10:55 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.


can someone tell me what a tax cut is to send a job overseas?

/would be better to start with incorporated status where your god damn headquarters is
//apple headquarters in California, everyone knows it
///incorporated in a one room office building in Nevada, so no state corporate taxes paid
 
2012-11-28 12:13:09 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.


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.
 
2012-11-28 12:15:52 PM
People who have the perspective the rich will always exist and pay taxes that will be transferred to someone else will find this very hard to understand: the rich do not exist for your benefit. If they feel they are getting a raw deal, they will leave. They are not a static quantity. If you cut them breaks, they will flock to you. If you screw them, they will abscond in droves.

I have to say, the pushback from the Fark Comrades in this thread has been relatively weak.
 
2012-11-28 12:16:40 PM

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.
 
2012-11-28 12:18:01 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.


They say the "Welfare Queen" is a myth. As this poster shows, and I've seen the EXACT SAME THING working retail, it's not. Does that mean we get rid of welfare, foodstamps, etc? No. But god damn do they need overhauled. Theres no reason on November 1 we should see people buying $100 worth of markdown candy with an EBT card while pulling out crisp $50's to buy 3 cartoons of cigarettes. And yes it happens EVERY YEAR.
 
2012-11-28 12:21:22 PM

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.
 
2012-11-28 12:25:24 PM

SlothB77: People who have the perspective the rich will always exist and pay taxes that will be transferred to someone else will find this very hard to understand: the rich do not exist for your benefit. If they feel they are getting a raw deal, they will leave.


Taxes are at historical lows for the highest earners.

But, tell me: when the top marginal rate was 90+% why didn't the top earners hop on a plane and flee the country?
 
2012-11-28 12:28:44 PM

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.
 
2012-11-28 12:29:34 PM

eraser8: SlothB77: People who have the perspective the rich will always exist and pay taxes that will be transferred to someone else will find this very hard to understand: the rich do not exist for your benefit. If they feel they are getting a raw deal, they will leave.

Taxes are at historical lows for the highest earners.

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


Because there were enough god damn deductions to drop the effective rate to next to nothing. The marginal rate means dick when you actually end up paying nothing. Which is why we need a complete wipe and start over of the tax code. From scratch. Keep your 6 rates. One deduction for the number of people in the household and that's it.
 
2012-11-28 12:30:49 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.

At first, she'll collect unemployment.
She immediately qualifies for $850 a month in food stamps
We save $1600 in day care
Any kids in school get free lunches
Health insurance for her and the kids is now free (I save 480 a month in health insurance premiums)
We get free cell phones
We get welfare (roughly $1000 a month)
We get WIC- free baby food and other staples
All this increases as soon as we have another kid
She can watch kids in our house or clean houses for cash that's not reported as income.
We vote Democrat the rest of our lives.

What is our incentive to continue working?


Again, truer words...
 
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"
 
2012-11-28 04:42:23 PM
Super-rich people don't live in London because they want low taxes. They live in London because they'd go to jail for life if they stayed in their native Moscow or Athens.

For one thing, the UK Government will finally get serious about cleaning up its overseas tax-havens, which will enable them to catch the rich on the re-bound.

You can run but you can't hide! If Cameron doesn't get you, Putin or the Greeks will get you!

Where are you gonna go? New Obamaland?

Well, there's an idea. Lowest taxes this side of Tokyo. Lots of luck buying a giant house in Tokyo. A $100 million apartment in Tokyo can be described as "cozy".

It's something unpredictable, but in the end it's right
I hope you had the time of your life

Read more: GREEN DAY - GOOD RIDDENCE LYRICS
 
2012-11-28 04:45:37 PM

my_cats_breath_smells_like_cat_food: "prosporous"


In favor of having spores?
 
2012-11-28 05:37:40 PM
Sell their land back to the state then.

"Taxes are up! Time to leave the nation that was kind enough to allow us to make millions."
 
2012-11-28 06:13:31 PM

SlothB77: 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?


China - 618AD - 1279AD
 
2012-11-28 06:28:30 PM
A pension is a contractual obligation that both the worker and the company paid into.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pension
Why are so many people frothing at the mouth trying to demonize people who collect pensions?

The company made a contractual promise and has an obligation to pay the employee their pension.

If the pension isn't funded properly, then it's the company's fault, NOT the employee for drawing the pension.
The employee is fulfilling their end of the contract - it's the company that is welching on their duty.

/sometimes I feel like I'm in bizarro world, where people should be paying companies for the honor of working, and companies can do no wrong.
 
2012-11-28 06:36:12 PM

Buffalo77: Lord Summerisle

Been working and paying a large chunk of my salary in tax and NI since I was 17, chum. Which is more than most of these rich coonts can say, most of whom owe their wealth to being born into the privileged classes and who use the loopholes and tax havens provided for them to avoid paying their share.

Sorry your Lordship but you are clueless. "The privileged class", really.


I wonder why he passed up the screenname Lord Schadenfreude.
 
2012-11-28 07:16:27 PM

thecpt: Arkanaut: I guess they'll be moving to Slovakia, the Czech Republic, Estonia or Poland? Why didn't they do that already?

Top marginal combined personal incomes tax rates in OECD countries (Excel file download)

Cool file. Totes moving to Estonia to be a job creator. And hopefully mack on eastern European chicks.

/that income line is depressing.


Did you mean for Estonia specifically? It's all about cost of living - There are lots of places in the world where salary is low, but so is just living. Granted, your savings will be shiat, but there are plenty of positives.

Estonia was already the most expensive of the three Baltic states and now is on the Euro. If it's anything like Slovakia, prices have climbed much faster than (rising) incomes. Anyway, if you're going to move so one of those places as a foreigner, you should probably be doing so with some specialized skill which will earn you more than the average income.

/would have a tough time choosin the ladies between Czech, Slovak, Estonian and Polish.
//OK, Slovak
 
2012-11-28 07:23:03 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.


That depends on whether a 20% tax rate would raise adequate revenue to meet expenditure. It's quite a low rate.
 
2012-11-28 07:25:39 PM

MarkEC: Taxes should be viewed as a means of raising revenue for the government. When you raise taxes and revenue falls, you are doing it wrong! Why is that such a hard lesson to learn?


It's more complicated than that. As someone already mentioned, it's possible that the wealthy are earning less because of the economic slowdown. So their tax contribution will also be less.
 
2012-11-28 07:26:23 PM

Fade2black: Lord Summerisle: They all left? Good. Piss off, you psychopathic bastards.

Who's gonna pay for your free stuff now?

God forbid you get up off your ass and work for a living.


What in the wide, wide world of sports are you talking about?
 
2012-11-28 07:28:03 PM

DeathByGeekSquad: 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?


FTFY

I think people in here also assume that tax havens charge NO taxes, when in fact they are lower tax rates. There are people with businesses outside of their home country who would prefer not to be taxed at high rates twice.
 
2012-11-28 07:54:31 PM
Who is John Gault?
 
2012-11-28 09:56:34 PM

Alonjar: *shrug* weak laws allowed this. I would be willing to bet that those people who "no longer live in Britain" are still drawing income and benefits of British citizenship from there.


Damn straight. They need stronger laws... Maybe a fence, too. Toss in some barbed wire and guard dogs and we're getting somewhere, right?
 
2012-11-28 10:16:46 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.


Ur a clown

Don't bite the hand that feeds you.
 
2012-11-29 01:19:12 AM
Lived off social welfare and willingly pays taxes in the UK: 

images.dailyexpress.co.uk
 
2012-11-29 02:19:56 AM
The simple solution is to out them; especially while they are away from their unprotected homes.
 
2012-11-29 03:29:51 AM

AaronSynn: Who is John Gault?


Willie's much slower cousin.
 
2012-11-29 03:57:27 AM
Keep in mind, people can simply work less and then they will disappear from the income rolls for their previous income. They don't need to move abroad.

Say you are a top notch heart surgeon and make a ton of money per operation, but each operation is a grueling 12 hour session, not to mention pre-op and post-op work.

If there were 0% taxes you would work as much as you liked compared to your love for leisure time.

Now imagine that there is a 100% tax rate. You would not do a single operation.

Now, in between, is where its gets tricky, but at the margin, there is always that "final" patient that is worth doing and the one that is not because you'd rather be home with the kids. When you increase taxes you change that calculation, ever so slightly, but the economy is huge, and so slight changes make a huge difference.

Many on the left cannot imagine these little marginal changes actually add up to affect the economy, but they do. Just imagine you are a comedian who makes $1,000 per gig, but you have to fly and travel and miss your kids and work week-ends...do you take that extra gig when the taxman takes 50%? 20%? 75%?

So, the claim that these bastards fled the country, and are not patriots may be false. They may instead they decide they love their wife and kids more than designing another building or whatever. I know, heartless rich bastards...I believe in times past we called them "wreckers" or "kulaks".
 
2012-11-29 04:46:01 AM

kronicfeld: onyxruby: Simplifying the tax code would save the economy Billions of dollars a year in accounting costs alone.

You think those dollars just disappear into Narnia now?


When a person pays for accounting services, he can't also use that money to buy other things. Get rid of all the accountants and we'd all have higher standards of living. So, in a way, yes, that money does disappear. Not all jobs benefit the economy; many jobs are parasites on the economy.
 
2012-11-29 04:48:39 AM

Cthulhu_is_my_homeboy: DrPainMD: 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.

So, if they raised the income tax on everybody to 99.99% and eliminated all deductions, that wouldn't be theft? Because we have elections?

/"It's not the people who vote that count; it's the people who count the votes."

No, the difference between taxation and theft is that, in theory, you get something of value for your taxes (schools, roads, police, your neighbors not having to rob your house so they can put food on the table). Theft is just theft, your money is gone and you'll never see it again.


All those things of value to the taxpayer could be paid for if taxes are cut by 75% or more. By that definition, it's still theft.
 
2012-11-29 04:49:54 AM

Cobataiwan: Keep in mind, people can simply work less and then they will disappear from the income rolls for their previous income. They don't need to move abroad.


It can get even MORE complicated. Human psychology is complex and varied. Take your surgeon. Let's say that he gets $10k per operation, including incidentals. As you say, it's grueling, he has to remain certified, etc...

Okay, let's say that his 'magic number' for being satisfied with life is $500k. With a 0% tax rate, he does 50 operations, with a 10% tax rate, he goes ahead and does 6 more operations. But, at 50% he can only reach 100 operations by getting perilously close to burning out, and may decide to 'settle' for $200k while only doing 40 operations a year. This can be especially pronounced with progressive tax rates - Only making $5k on that last operation might not be worth it for him, while the initial 1 at the full $10k is easily worth it.

Basically, a low tax rate can actually cause people to work more to meet what they consider a optimal quality of life/money supply.
 
2012-11-29 04:51:08 AM

my_cats_breath_smells_like_cat_food: DrPainMD: my_cats_breath_smells_like_cat_food: This sounds lke a win-win type of story? They still can live lavishly on $250,000/year, wife can stay home with kids and the dog, her old job can be filled by someone who actually NEEDS a job to support their family (and who will pay taxes on the money they earn so the government will still get theirs whether it comes from this woman or not). What is bad about this?

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.

Nope, his wife isn't erasing her job, she is merely not working it anymore. There will be someone else filling her position. Spending her paycheck to increase the GDP and paying her taxes...all this situation did was oopen up a job for someone who obviously needs it more desperately and give the wife more time to spend with her family.


Literally every economist on the planet would disagree with you.
 
2012-11-29 04:56:22 AM

DrPainMD: When a person pays for accounting services, he can't also use that money to buy other things. Get rid of all the accountants and we'd all have higher standards of living. So, in a way, yes, that money does disappear. Not all jobs benefit the economy; many jobs are parasites on the economy.


Hey! My parents are accountants... Still, even if you went to a tax system that takes a single billable hour for Exxon to prepare their tax return, there would be plenty of work for them, you'd just drop something like 10-20% of the demand for accountants.

You're still very much correct that the money could go towards more productive use though, and 20% of the national demand for accountants isn't a minor thing. I'd compare the benefit as comparable to the development of the cash register. Heck, put the accountants towards helping to audit stuff and stamp out fraud, waste, and abuse.
 
2012-11-29 06:06:08 AM

DrPainMD: my_cats_breath_smells_like_cat_food: DrPainMD: my_cats_breath_smells_like_cat_food: This sounds lke a win-win type of story? They still can live lavishly on $250,000/year, wife can stay home with kids and the dog, her old job can be filled by someone who actually NEEDS a job to support their family (and who will pay taxes on the money they earn so the government will still get theirs whether it comes from this woman or not). What is bad about this?

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.

Nope, his wife isn't erasing her job, she is merely not working it anymore. There will be someone else filling her position. Spending her paycheck to increase the GDP and paying her taxes...all this situation did was oopen up a job for someone who obviously needs it more desperately and give the wife more time to spend with her family.

Literally every economist on the planet would disagree with you.


Suuuuuure they do buddy. Suuuuure they do.

/Sorry for angering the self-appointed economic world-boss of the internet.
//I would have thought he wouldn't be such an idiot though...
 
2012-11-29 09:03:07 AM
My client has been declared dead for tax purposes.
 
2012-11-29 09:58:12 AM
This sounds legit and in no way like propaganda.
 
2012-11-29 02:49:32 PM
This is pathetic. Leaving your homeland because you see it as oppressive and you are against taxation without representation. You would never catch my country's founding fathers doing such a thing.

To everyone who say the rich should be taxed more: Did you fail at math? Do you understand how percentages work? Do you actually believe this statement: 25% of 20,000 = 25% 20,000,000 is true?
 
2012-11-29 03:22:01 PM

Keeve: This is pathetic. Leaving your homeland because you see it as oppressive and you are against taxation without representation. You would never catch my country's founding fathers doing such a thing.

To everyone who say the rich should be taxed more: Did you fail at math? Do you understand how percentages work? Do you actually believe this statement: 25% of 20,000 = 25% 20,000,000 is true?


I wasn't aware that the rich lost their right to vote. I wonder why they bother throwing billions of dollars into the political field then.
 
2012-11-29 05:47:23 PM

TheVeryDeadIanMartin: Lived off social welfare and willingly pays taxes in the UK: 

[images.dailyexpress.co.uk image 285x214]


Did you happen to see Rowling on the Daily Show, talking about that? Made the heart stir, someone who understands what taxes are for and they good they can do.
 
2012-11-29 07:00:17 PM

JosephFinn: Made the heart stir, someone who understands what taxes are for and they good they can do.


The operative word there is CAN.

As in "the Cubs CAN win the World Series" or "Kate WInslet and Vera Farmiga CAN decide they want to have a three-way with me tonight."
 
2012-11-30 08:24:18 AM

giftedmadness: 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.

Ur a clown

Don't bite the hand that feeds you.


You're a slave. Keep eating the shiat your 'betters' give you while telling them how good it tastes.
 
Displayed 281 of 281 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report