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.

(Yahoo)   Okay NOW it's a crisis: If Congress lets us go over the fiscal cliff, the next winner of a ginormous, half-a-billion dollar Powerball prize may have to pay $17 million more in taxes. Please, won't somebody think of the undeserving millionaires?   (news.yahoo.com) divider line 56
    More: Asinine, Powerball, congresses, fiscal policy, Clearly, income taxes, prizes, lump sums, Powerball winners  
•       •       •

473 clicks; posted to Politics » on 30 Nov 2012 at 10:21 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-11-30 10:21:38 AM  
No.
 
2012-11-30 10:22:58 AM  
That's like 2 extra months before they wind back up on the welfare rolls
 
2012-11-30 10:23:25 AM  
Can't congress just sell a state back to Europe?
 
2012-11-30 10:24:14 AM  
Think of the undeserving millionaires?! Why, good sir, who else is there to think about?

--- the Republican Party
 
2012-11-30 10:29:13 AM  
I'm ok with this.


I'm ok with this.


I'm ok with this.
 
2012-11-30 10:29:55 AM  
That sucks! When I'm rich I won't want to pay anything to support the country that made me rich!
 
2012-11-30 10:32:53 AM  
First it was the 'fiscal cliff'. Now it's the 'roller coaster ride to the fiscal cliff'.

There's a little over four weeks until the end of the year. What more witticisms will we be bombarded with every other hour?

Aaaarg. Make it stop.
 
2012-11-30 10:34:55 AM  
I've given up on watching any meaningful news programs at this point. Everything is just Republicans and Democrats blaming each other for this mess with no actual news getting reported.

It's almost making me wish for another embassy bombing or hurricane.
 
2012-11-30 10:35:00 AM  
static.environmentalgraffiti.com
 
2012-11-30 10:35:57 AM  
Just because I might win a jackpot with a 1:175 million chance means I should vote republican.
 
2012-11-30 10:36:41 AM  
The cliff nonsense is distracting.

Call it what it is, Congressionally mandated austerity.
 
2012-11-30 10:36:44 AM  
i.qkme.me
 
2012-11-30 10:36:46 AM  
If I won a Powerball jackpot, I'd be happy to pay half of it in taxes. The other half would still be enough so that I wouldn't have to work another day for the rest of my life.

/Think of it as a thank you gift to the states for making me rich.
//And yes, CEOs should also be paying such thank you gifts.
 
2012-11-30 10:36:54 AM  
It's a spending problem!

sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net 

If the feds doubled income tax rates on the 53% of us that actually pay them, they'd still be almost $500b short of the spending for this year alone. The biggest scam of all is that income tax revenue doesn't even fund the government!
 
2012-11-30 10:37:07 AM  
OK what's up with this cliff thing? It's been agreed that both revenue needs to go up and spending needs to be cut. The dems want more revenue, and have said their proposal is to raise the top marginal rate. the repubs want spending cuts, what is their proposal? seems pretty simple.
 
2012-11-30 10:38:02 AM  

Dog Welder: I've given up on watching any meaningful news programs at this point. Everything is just Republicans and Democrats blaming each other for this mess with no actual news getting reported.


The totality of the news:

Obama: "How about this?"
Republicans: "LOL WUT GTFO"
Media: BSABSVR.
 
2012-11-30 10:40:10 AM  

dofus: First it was the 'fiscal cliff'. Now it's the 'roller coaster ride to the fiscal cliff'.

There's a little over four weeks until the end of the year. What more witticisms will we be bombarded with every other hour?

Aaaarg. Make it stop.


You're in line for the roller coaster to the fiscal cliff which will hurtle you through the canyon of despair and into the tomb of horrors.
 
2012-11-30 10:41:48 AM  
Another way to think of it is this:

The govt takes some large portion of powerball sales right off the top. Say 40%. Then, because they either pay in installments or discount for the lump sum option, they take another 35% (TFA says headline jackpot of $587m is reduced to $384m for the lump sum). Then the winners are taxed on the $384m, at lets say 40% combined state federal, since jackpots would drive anyone into top tax brackets. Winners end up with about 23 or 24 cents for every dollar spent on the lottery, govt takes 76 or 77 cents. After the cliff, govt would take 78 cents.
 
2012-11-30 10:42:10 AM  

PonceAlyosha: dofus: First it was the 'fiscal cliff'. Now it's the 'roller coaster ride to the fiscal cliff'.

There's a little over four weeks until the end of the year. What more witticisms will we be bombarded with every other hour?

Aaaarg. Make it stop.

You're in line for the roller coaster to the fiscal cliff which will hurtle you through the canyon of despair and into the tomb of horrors.


Is that before or after the fire swamp?
 
2012-11-30 10:44:23 AM  

Debeo Summa Credo: Another way to think of it is this:

The govt takes some large portion of powerball sales right off the top. Say 40%. Then, because they either pay in installments or discount for the lump sum option, they take another 35% (TFA says headline jackpot of $587m is reduced to $384m for the lump sum). Then the winners are taxed on the $384m, at lets say 40% combined state federal, since jackpots would drive anyone into top tax brackets. Winners end up with about 23 or 24 cents for every dollar spent on the lottery, govt takes 76 or 77 cents. After the cliff, govt would take 78 cents.


The difference between lump sum and installments is the interest the principal would achieve at treasury bills rates. The government isn't getting that off the top.
 
2012-11-30 10:47:23 AM  

godofusa.com: It's a spending problem!

[sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net image 850x606] 

If the feds doubled income tax rates on the 53% of us that actually pay them, they'd still be almost $500b short of the spending for this year alone. The biggest scam of all is that income tax revenue doesn't even fund the government!


This cartoon makes a lot of sense if you don't understand numbers or third grade math. The federal government has to operate for everyone in the country. There are a lot of people in the country. If the powerball were distributed equally to everyone, it would be about a dollar fifty each. You'd probably spend your share in 80 minutes too. Te fact that the government can run a civilized country for about a dollar per person per hour is actually kind of a good deal.
 
2012-11-30 10:47:41 AM  
<tinfoil>

Speaking of expiring tax breaks, unless I'm mistaken the Bush Estate Tax cut is due to expire in a couple weeks, too. And I heard this week that 88 year old billionaire investor-former U.S. President George H.W. Bush was just in the hospital. I was surprised to hear he's back home, now -- I was expecting him to "die" before the end of the year, thereby saving his heirs $hundreds of millions.

</tinfoil>
 
2012-11-30 10:55:30 AM  

godofusa.com: It's a spending problem!

[sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net image 850x606] 

If the feds doubled income tax rates on the 53% of us that actually pay them, they'd still be almost $500b short of the spending for this year alone. The biggest scam of all is that income tax revenue doesn't even fund the government!


Yes, but getting rid of Big Bird and defunding Planned Parenthood will.
 
2012-11-30 10:56:52 AM  

godofusa.com: It's a spending problem!

[sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net image 850x606] 

If the feds doubled income tax rates on the 53% of us that actually pay them, they'd still be almost $500b short of the spending for this year alone. The biggest scam of all is that income tax revenue doesn't even fund the government!


So we should address who's spending more than they can afford.

i48.tinypic.com

Ah. Best we address those scammers.
 
2012-11-30 10:58:13 AM  

ddam: Debeo Summa Credo: Another way to think of it is this:

The govt takes some large portion of powerball sales right off the top. Say 40%. Then, because they either pay in installments or discount for the lump sum option, they take another 35% (TFA says headline jackpot of $587m is reduced to $384m for the lump sum). Then the winners are taxed on the $384m, at lets say 40% combined state federal, since jackpots would drive anyone into top tax brackets. Winners end up with about 23 or 24 cents for every dollar spent on the lottery, govt takes 76 or 77 cents. After the cliff, govt would take 78 cents.

The difference between lump sum and installments is the interest the principal would achieve at treasury bills rates. The government isn't getting that off the top.


Really, are you sure? So if 50%, let's say, of the proceeds go to the jackpot, the advertised jackpot is something above that (because of the implied growth of the principal). E.g, total ticket sales for this jackpot were $768m, 50% of which is the cash jackpot, increased due to expected investment income to the advertised $580m jackpot?

Well, if you are correct then I retract my previous math....the more I know...

I cannot find any links that describe how much of the proceeds go to prizes/jackpot.
 
2012-11-30 11:00:50 AM  

Hollie Maea: This cartoon makes a lot of sense if you don't understand numbers or third grade math. The federal government has to operate for everyone in the country. There are a lot of people in the country. If the powerball were distributed equally to everyone, it would be about a dollar fifty each. You'd probably spend your share in 80 minutes too. Te fact that the government can run a civilized country for about a dollar per person per hour is actually kind of a good deal.


Well put
 
2012-11-30 11:05:57 AM  

godofusa.com: It's a spending problem!

[sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net image 850x606] 

If the feds doubled income tax rates on the 53% of us that actually pay them, they'd still be almost $500b short of the spending for this year alone. The biggest scam of all is that income tax revenue doesn't even fund the government!


Revenue is $2T, spending is $3.5T.

Either revenue is 75% too low or spending is 40%. Spending generates revenue as it flows through the economy. If you reduced spending 20%, you would likely see a 10% drop in revenue. Where as if you increase revenue, spending doesn't increases.

The economy is a weak recovery right now so cutting spending is probably not a good idea.
 
2012-11-30 11:06:37 AM  

godofusa.com: It's a spending problem!

[sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net image 850x606] 

If the feds doubled income tax rates on the 53% of us that actually pay them, they'd still be almost $500b short of the spending for this year alone. The biggest scam of all is that income tax revenue doesn't even fund the government!


Oh jeebus someone busted out an inactive alt.

Fact: if the government cut PBS it would still be in debt. Ergo it's a revenue problem.
 
2012-11-30 11:07:12 AM  
What is Congress' approval rating again?
Perhaps they could raise it by siding with the newly re-elected President.
 
2012-11-30 11:11:44 AM  

Thats No Moose: godofusa.com: It's a spending problem!

[sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net image 850x606] 

If the feds doubled income tax rates on the 53% of us that actually pay them, they'd still be almost $500b short of the spending for this year alone. The biggest scam of all is that income tax revenue doesn't even fund the government!

Oh jeebus someone busted out an inactive alt.

Fact: if the government cut PBS it would still be in debt. Ergo it's a revenue problem.


PBS isn't necessary. We should only be using gov't for necessary services, like national defense (not keeping 900 bases in 120+ countries and meddling in everyone else's internal affairs). Cut half of gov't and no one would notice.
 
2012-11-30 11:16:31 AM  

godofusa.com: If the feds doubled income tax rates on the 53% of us that actually pay them, they'd still be almost $500b short of the spending for this year alone. The biggest scam of all is that income tax revenue doesn't even fund the government!


How much of the deficit disappears if you eliminate all discretionary spending? Entitlement spending? Military spending? Because any of those is a realistic option.
 
2012-11-30 11:17:43 AM  

GoodyearPimp: godofusa.com: If the feds doubled income tax rates on the 53% of us that actually pay them, they'd still be almost $500b short of the spending for this year alone. The biggest scam of all is that income tax revenue doesn't even fund the government!

How much of the deficit disappears if you eliminate all discretionary spending? Entitlement spending? Military spending? Because any of those is a realistic option.


Cut everything. Why can't we go back to the 1992 budget, as an absolute maximum?
 
2012-11-30 11:18:48 AM  

godofusa.com: Thats No Moose: godofusa.com: It's a spending problem!

[sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net image 850x606] 

If the feds doubled income tax rates on the 53% of us that actually pay them, they'd still be almost $500b short of the spending for this year alone. The biggest scam of all is that income tax revenue doesn't even fund the government!

Oh jeebus someone busted out an inactive alt.

Fact: if the government cut PBS it would still be in debt. Ergo it's a revenue problem.

PBS isn't necessary. We should only be using gov't for necessary services, like national defense (not keeping 900 bases in 120+ countries and meddling in everyone else's internal affairs). Cut half of gov't and no one would notice.


Half sounds like a good start. And everyone would notice.... the improvement in the economy and more liberty .
 
2012-11-30 11:19:14 AM  

godofusa.com: Cut half of gov't and no one would notice.


I think the economy would notice.
 
2012-11-30 11:20:04 AM  
@Moose

I used to be very active here, but the site got blocked at work and I absolutely can't stand typing on a smart phone touchscreen, so mostly just reading + laziness.
 
2012-11-30 11:21:12 AM  

godofusa.com: Why can't we go back to the 1992 budget, as an absolute maximum?


One problem would be the 60 million or so additional people.
 
2012-11-30 11:22:00 AM  

mrshowrules: godofusa.com: It's a spending problem!

[sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net image 850x606] 

If the feds doubled income tax rates on the 53% of us that actually pay them, they'd still be almost $500b short of the spending for this year alone. The biggest scam of all is that income tax revenue doesn't even fund the government!

Revenue is $2T, spending is $3.5T.

Either revenue is 75% too low or spending is 40%. Spending generates revenue as it flows through the economy. If you reduced spending 20%, you would likely see a 10% drop in revenue. Where as if you increase revenue, spending doesn't increases.

The economy is a weak recovery right now so cutting spending is probably not a good idea.


If you increase revenue, you are pulling money out of the economy in the same direction that you are if you decrease spending.

You say "decrease spending by 20%, revenues will go down by 10%", presumably because of negative implications for the economy. Regardless of which bodily orifice you pulled those numbers from, be aware that increasing revenue creates the same negative short term implications for the economy as decreasing spending, as indicated by the CBO in their analysis of the expiration of tax cuts.

If the economy is truly too weak right now to endure spending cuts, then it is too weak to endure tax increases as well. (I personally don't think it's too weak to endure either)
 
2012-11-30 11:22:13 AM  

godofusa.com: Thats No Moose: godofusa.com: It's a spending problem!

[sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net image 850x606] 

If the feds doubled income tax rates on the 53% of us that actually pay them, they'd still be almost $500b short of the spending for this year alone. The biggest scam of all is that income tax revenue doesn't even fund the government!

Oh jeebus someone busted out an inactive alt.

Fact: if the government cut PBS it would still be in debt. Ergo it's a revenue problem.

PBS isn't necessary. We should only be using gov't for necessary services, like national defense (not keeping 900 bases in 120+ countries and meddling in everyone else's internal affairs). Cut half of gov't and no one would notice.


Well, you know, except that half that just got fired.

Also, there are quite a few people out there that do consider 900 bases in 120+ countries to be part of national defense (specifically, there's a reason why many republicans do not want to cut spending on the military).
 
2012-11-30 11:29:41 AM  

Debeo Summa Credo: If the economy is truly too weak right now to endure spending cuts, then it is too weak to endure tax increases as well. (I personally don't think it's too weak to endure either)


If people don't participate in the American economy on a wide range of goods and services with those tax cuts then they are not the same as spending that ultimately ends with more robust social services or government jobs.
 
2012-11-30 11:46:25 AM  

godofusa.com: Thats No Moose: godofusa.com: It's a spending problem!

[sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net image 850x606] 

If the feds doubled income tax rates on the 53% of us that actually pay them, they'd still be almost $500b short of the spending for this year alone. The biggest scam of all is that income tax revenue doesn't even fund the government!

Oh jeebus someone busted out an inactive alt.

Fact: if the government cut PBS it would still be in debt. Ergo it's a revenue problem.

PBS isn't necessary. We should only be using gov't for necessary services, like national defense (not keeping 900 bases in 120+ countries and meddling in everyone else's internal affairs). Cut half of gov't and no one would notice.


The return we get from the paltry amount provided to PBS makes it well worth it.
Enough with that bullsh*t argument, already.
 
2012-11-30 11:49:01 AM  

Debeo Summa Credo: If you increase revenue, you are pulling money out of the economy in the same direction that you are if you decrease spending.

You say "decrease spending by 20%, revenues will go down by 10%", presumably because of negative implications for the economy. Regardless of which bodily orifice you pulled those numbers from, be aware that increasing revenue creates the same negative short term implications for the economy as decreasing spending, as indicated by the CBO in their analysis of the expiration of tax cuts.

If the economy is truly too weak right now to endure spending cuts, then it is too weak to endure tax increases as well. (I personally don't think it's too weak to endure either)


Tax increases or cuts on the rich, don't really have much effect on the economy. Tax increases on the poor and middle-class can slow the economy because it reduces consumption. There is no lack of investment liquidity right now. Businesses are not expanding because people aren't buying not because the rich don't have enough money to invest.
 
2012-11-30 12:24:47 PM  

Biff_Steel: OK what's up with this cliff thing? It's been agreed that both revenue needs to go up and spending needs to be cut. The dems want more revenue, and have said their proposal is to raise the top marginal rate. the repubs want spending cuts, what is their proposal? seems pretty simple.


I don't see Dems agreeing that spending needs to be cut. In fact, from what I am reading they want to spend an additional $50B. Get back to me when the Dems are truly serious about spending cuts. Otherwise, I say, Let It Burn. Let the 'Bush tax cuts' go back to 2000 levels and let the agreed upon cuts from 2011 happen. Then enjoy the results.
 
2012-11-30 12:37:45 PM  

godofusa.com: It's a spending problem!

[sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net image 850x606] 

If the feds doubled income tax rates on the 53% of us that actually pay them, they'd still be almost $500b short of the spending for this year alone. The biggest scam of all is that income tax revenue doesn't even fund the government!


BTW. That image is pretty much the opposite of perspective. This image is actual insightful perspective:

media.reason.com
 
2012-11-30 12:39:37 PM  
Call me when it's a catastrophe.
 
2012-11-30 12:46:32 PM  

mrshowrules: Debeo Summa Credo: If you increase revenue, you are pulling money out of the economy in the same direction that you are if you decrease spending.

You say "decrease spending by 20%, revenues will go down by 10%", presumably because of negative implications for the economy. Regardless of which bodily orifice you pulled those numbers from, be aware that increasing revenue creates the same negative short term implications for the economy as decreasing spending, as indicated by the CBO in their analysis of the expiration of tax cuts.

If the economy is truly too weak right now to endure spending cuts, then it is too weak to endure tax increases as well. (I personally don't think it's too weak to endure either)

Tax increases or cuts on the rich, don't really have much effect on the economy. Tax increases on the poor and middle-class can slow the economy because it reduces consumption. There is no lack of investment liquidity right now. Businesses are not expanding because people aren't buying not because the rich don't have enough money to invest.


Incorrect. The CBO estimates that allowing the top brackets to expire would cost 0.25% of GDP (as opposed to 1.5% for all the cuts, which would cost 5.6x as much in lost revenue to extend) and 200,000 jobs over the next year, a separate Ernst & young study claims that expiration of the cuts for the rich would cost 710,000 jobs over the long term.

Even if you look solely at the CBO study, the facts are that tax increases on the rich absolutely do have an effect on the economy, and the economic impact of tax hikes on the rich is nearly identical to the impact of tax hikes on the rest of us.
 
2012-11-30 12:49:37 PM  

Jackpot777: So we should address who's spending more than they can afford.

i48.tinypic.com


I'd like to see that chart modified to represent the margin by which each state went in the election. Hopefully they get the state data updated soon.



godofusa.com: Cut everything. Why can't we go back to the 1992 budget, as an absolute maximum?


Because it's not 1992 anymore? Just a thought.
=Smidge=
 
2012-11-30 12:54:29 PM  

mrshowrules: godofusa.com: It's a spending problem!

[sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net image 850x606] 

If the feds doubled income tax rates on the 53% of us that actually pay them, they'd still be almost $500b short of the spending for this year alone. The biggest scam of all is that income tax revenue doesn't even fund the government!

BTW. That image is pretty much the opposite of perspective. This image is actual insightful perspective:


That is insightful. It'd be interesting to see how that increase breaks down, i.e. what caused the increase during the bush/Obama years. War spending? Medicare part D or Other entitlement growth? Recession relief like unemployment that should be expected to start trending down now? Other increases?
 
2012-11-30 12:58:31 PM  

Debeo Summa Credo: mrshowrules: godofusa.com: It's a spending problem!

[sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net image 850x606] 

If the feds doubled income tax rates on the 53% of us that actually pay them, they'd still be almost $500b short of the spending for this year alone. The biggest scam of all is that income tax revenue doesn't even fund the government!

BTW. That image is pretty much the opposite of perspective. This image is actual insightful perspective:

That is insightful. It'd be interesting to see how that increase breaks down, i.e. what caused the increase during the bush/Obama years. War spending? Medicare part D or Other entitlement growth? Recession relief like unemployment that should be expected to start trending down now? Other increases?


Aging population, health care costs driven up by the private health care insurance regime and unemployment.
 
2012-11-30 01:15:13 PM  

Debeo Summa Credo: mrshowrules: Debeo Summa Credo: If you increase revenue, you are pulling money out of the economy in the same direction that you are if you decrease spending.

You say "decrease spending by 20%, revenues will go down by 10%", presumably because of negative implications for the economy. Regardless of which bodily orifice you pulled those numbers from, be aware that increasing revenue creates the same negative short term implications for the economy as decreasing spending, as indicated by the CBO in their analysis of the expiration of tax cuts.

If the economy is truly too weak right now to endure spending cuts, then it is too weak to endure tax increases as well. (I personally don't think it's too weak to endure either)

Tax increases or cuts on the rich, don't really have much effect on the economy. Tax increases on the poor and middle-class can slow the economy because it reduces consumption. There is no lack of investment liquidity right now. Businesses are not expanding because people aren't buying not because the rich don't have enough money to invest.

Incorrect. The CBO estimates that allowing the top brackets to expire would cost 0.25% of GDP (as opposed to 1.5% for all the cuts, which would cost 5.6x as much in lost revenue to extend) and 200,000 jobs over the next year, a separate Ernst & young study claims that expiration of the cuts for the rich would cost 710,000 jobs over the long term.

Even if you look solely at the CBO study, the facts are that tax increases on the rich absolutely do have an effect on the economy, and the economic impact of tax hikes on the rich is nearly identical to the impact of tax hikes on the rest of us.


So it would cost between 200K and 700K in jobs to cut taxes on the rich? When Dubya cut taxes on the rich, I assume there was a net increase of 200K to 700K jobs in the long term. I'm not even going to check b

A recent CBO study shows that there is no correlation between job growth and taxes on the rich.

reflectionsofarationalrepublican.files.wordpress.com
 
2012-11-30 02:05:57 PM  
So by Republican logic that means that nobody will play the lottery any more because we'll be taxing the "lottery enablers" to death.
 
Displayed 50 of 56 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report