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.

(Orange County Register)   We are Not facing the fiscal cliff because the rich are not paying their fair share. It's because you want too many freebies   (ocregister.com) divider line 133
    More: Unlikely, Mark Steyn, American Love, sissy, Charles Schumer, surrender monkeys, government expenditure, syndicated columnist, Party leaders of the United States Senate  
•       •       •

3571 clicks; posted to Politics » on 03 Dec 2012 at 2:15 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2012-12-03 11:37:38 AM
12 votes:
When rich people get freebies, it's subsidies for job creators. When poor people get freebies, it's ENTITLEMENT.
2012-12-03 11:33:59 AM
10 votes:
We already have a more severely redistributive taxation system than Europe


True, but Europe's spending is also progressive. Imagine if the average American middle class family paid zero or near zero for healthcare. Imagine if the average middle class family paid zero or near zero for college tuition. Imagine all that money back into their pockets, and back into our economy driving up aggregate demand.
2012-12-03 11:34:14 AM
7 votes:
Mitt Romney pays half of what I pay. Maybe taxing that farker at my rate won't balance the budget, but it would be a start.
2012-12-03 01:14:33 PM
5 votes:
We're facing the fiscal cliff because Republicans are morons.
2012-12-03 02:55:09 PM
4 votes:

Trivia Jockey: Captain_Sunshine: Didn't someone actually play around with the numbers a couple of years ago and estimate the peak of that curve at around a 70% tax rate for the top earners?

If any politician suggested that, the Koch brothers would sh*t an ingot.


I think a 70% tax rate on the top margin would be perfectly reasonable, certainly until the cost of the two wars is off set. Those wars were paid on credit. The lower and middle-classes paid in blood and tears. The elite should pay in treasure especially because the war was their idea.
2012-12-03 02:34:51 PM
4 votes:

doyner: vernonFL: We've spent $4 trillion in Iraq and Afghanistan. Plus thousands killed and tens of thousands injured.
FreedomTM isn't a freebie.


toppun.com
2012-12-03 11:32:01 AM
4 votes:
I just want to loot the system as much as possible before it collapses.

Is that so wrong?
2012-12-03 08:08:22 PM
3 votes:
Middle eastern guys running around in the desert yelling "death to america" are not my enemy. they are a nuisance and their capabilities are quite limited. they just got lucky on 9/11.

Republicans are my real enemy because the damage they do to this Nation would make any terrorist salivate with envy.
2012-12-03 05:26:55 PM
3 votes:
Have you even seen what rich people spend money on? Fast cars and shiat. Big houses, with multiple hot tubs. The latest, most expensive HDTV.

What they fark are they so passionately complaining about? There comes a point, let's say around 2 million a year income, that you really, really don't need any more money for yourself. You're just pissing it away on diamond encrusted toilet seats and whale penis leather toilet paper (whale penis leather is a real thing, btw, look it up).

The point is, there is only so much money to go around, and lots of people don't have enough of it. And then the people who have far, far too much of it, cry like little babies at the mention that they might want to give some more of it up.

I know you might say 'they worked really hard for their money', well so does a farking toilet cleaner, or a supermarket clerk, or any other depressing dead end worker, so maybe instead of buying that gold plated xbox for your shiatty kids, consider paying your workers a dollar more an hour so that they don't have to go to the food bank at Christmas, you tight-assed arrogant farking assholes.
DGS [TotalFark]
2012-12-03 03:43:48 PM
3 votes:

garron: un4gvn666:

What a colossal dumbfark you are.

Ah yes. The most precious debate tool in the arsenal of the enlightened liberal is name calling. My argument is completely invalid because I'm a "colossal dumbfark".

Oh please, please - I don't want to be a colossal dumbfark. I want to be like you. Thinking is such a waste - and working!! sheesh - who needs to do that? I want Obama to give me everything for free. He's such a savior - he can even forgive my sins, heal my diseases, stop global warming and cause everybody to share all they have with each other. Only the true sinners think they deserve what they work for. They didn't build that!!

I love you Obama!! I don't want to be a colossal dumbfark anymore!! Please save me!!! Please save us ALL!!  Please forgive me for thinking!!!


In other words: I will ignore all counterpoints and focus on how I was insulted. This proves I'm right!

Calling you a colossal dumbfark wasn't exactly kind, but you're making it harder to disagree with.
2012-12-03 03:07:14 PM
3 votes:

slayer199: Again, the populace gets sidelined by argument of the rich paying their fair share rather than the real problem. The farking government spends too damn much money. And it's not a Republican or Democrat issue...it's a U.S. Government issue as BOTH sides are to blame.

/facepalm

You can raise taxes to 90% on everyone above $100k and it's not going to do a damn thing unless BOTH sides can significantly cut spending. Budgets, how do they work?


TFA did raise a good point, though. In Europe, they tax and spend on very specific things--the rich pay out the ass, everyone has socialized health care, and the system works pretty damn well. People have tons of vacation time, realistic work hours, good jobs, and a better standard of living.

And their countries are completely, 100% functional.

Imagine if we did that here. And yes, it would mean the rich paid a hell of a lot more. But it would also mean the rich, like everyone else, would have a better quality of life, and America wouldn't be the embarrassment of civilized nations.
2012-12-03 03:01:00 PM
3 votes:
What someone who gets hundreds of billions in government handouts might look like:

upload.wikimedia.org
upload.wikimedia.org
upload.wikimedia.org
upload.wikimedia.org
upload.wikimedia.org
2012-12-03 02:40:54 PM
3 votes:

Captain_Sunshine: Taxes need to go up for everybody, and stay there for a while.


Shockingly (or not), history and economic theory demonstrates you can do this and still have a prosperous economy.

The biggest lie the GOP has spread, continues to spread and will continue to spread is that "higher taxes hurts the economy and eliminates jobs".
2012-12-03 02:14:41 PM
3 votes:
Mark Steyn

AAAAAAND I'm done reading.
2012-12-03 01:39:38 PM
3 votes:

Bontesla: I really hate how disingenuous the Republicans are. Their disingenuty creates unpleasant thoughts in my head.

We balanced the budget under Clinton and Bush Jr. Spent our surplus into oblivion. Now the Republicans are stamping their feet pouting about social spending the Democrats are pushing for. Ffs. Act like a grown ass adult.


That, and Obama has actually reduced the size of the federal government (not to mention the lowest spending of the last ten presidents). But they still believe some 1980s lie about tax-and-spend Democrats (instead of the reality of Clinton's balanced budget + surplus and Obama's reduction in spending), so they can label themselves as the party of fiscal responsibility.

Except their idea of fiscal responsibility is to keep the excess spending off the books, not to stop spending.
2012-12-03 12:52:42 PM
3 votes:

slayer199: Again, the populace gets sidelined by argument of the rich paying their fair share rather than the real problem. The farking government spends too damn much money. And it's not a Republican or Democrat issue...it's a U.S. Government issue as BOTH sides are to blame.

/facepalm

You can raise taxes to 90% on everyone above $100k and it's not going to do a damn thing unless BOTH sides can significantly cut spending. Budgets, how do they work?


An industrialized nation's government needs about 20% of GDP to function well, and if I am not mistaken we're well below that. Taxation is also at near historic lows.

Less government spending isn't going to educate our population or fix our crumbling infrastructure.
2012-12-03 12:50:13 PM
3 votes:
Again, the populace gets sidelined by argument of the rich paying their fair share rather than the real problem. The farking government spends too damn much money. And it's not a Republican or Democrat issue...it's a U.S. Government issue as BOTH sides are to blame.

/facepalm

You can raise taxes to 90% on everyone above $100k and it's not going to do a damn thing unless BOTH sides can significantly cut spending. Budgets, how do they work?
2012-12-03 12:26:09 PM
3 votes:
Fine. Let's end all the "entitlement programs" and let people f*cking die. I'm sick of all of this stupid bullish*t. Who needs Death Panels when all we have to do is let people starve?

America. F*ck yeah.
2012-12-03 11:43:26 AM
3 votes:

Marcus Aurelius: Mitt Romney pays half of what I pay. Maybe taxing that farker at my rate won't balance the budget, but it would be a start.


Look, we've been told that taxing the rich won't solve all budget problems instantly, so that's clearly off the table. After all, the Republicans have already suggested debt-solving options like removing the funding for NPR and Planned Parenthood.
2012-12-03 11:39:22 AM
3 votes:
That's the thing NEITHER side is talking about. Substantial reduction of spending. The Dems don't want to give up their social programs and the Republicans don't want to scale back on the military, Homeland Security or the War on Drugs.
2012-12-03 11:37:55 AM
3 votes:
Yeah, those free wars were awesome. Please sir, may I have another?
2012-12-03 07:30:33 PM
2 votes:
Cost of Iraq War to date: (over) $809,139,016,472 (costofwar.com)
Cost of Afghanistan War to date: (over) $590,141,342,791 (costofwar.com)
Cost of Plan D, the Medicare giveaway nobody asked George W. Bush, Jr. for: $1,000,000,000,000
ost to the U.S. Treasury from Tax Cuts for the Wealthiest Five Percent
First decade of Bush tax cuts, 2001 - 2010: $955 billion
Obama extension, 2011 - 2012: $229 billion
Proposed extension, 2013 - 2021: $2.02 trillion
Total cost, 2001 - 2021: $3.2 trillion

Total: over TRILLION. Enough to give the 99% who really create jobs and boost the economy a complete 100% tax holiday until the recession ends or Obama is booted out of office, which ever comes last.

Remember, the economy of the USA has been borne on the backs of the US consumer and taxpaper, not the super rich. The top 1000 US corporations have not made a single net job since before 1945. The US rich and corporations have not been the driving force of the economy--it is the wage and salary earnenrs who pulled the economy out of every recession, depression and slump in history. It is their work which makes all property and all income. It is their spending which drives the Consumer Society. Even though they pay disproportionately higher taxes (because capital gains are four times the salaries of the rich and taxed at a much lower rae, while corporate taxes are half of income taxes) these people, namely you and everybody you know, are America. The 400 SOBs (the 0.001%) and their families who own 25% of the wealth don't do a heck of a lot except collect passive income.

Republican rhetoric is not just Bullshiat. It is HITLERIAN BIG LIES.
2012-12-03 04:50:51 PM
2 votes:
While I am a democrat, i still think the size of the entitlement programs are too big. yes i understand they are largely important, but they are also largely bloated as alot of US programs are (*cough* Defense *cough*)

I wish that congress had more economists because the lack of them really bothers me.
2012-12-03 04:20:10 PM
2 votes:

garron: Corporatism and cronyism is just as damaging as Socialism


Yes, a safety net is SOOOOO damaging.
2012-12-03 04:15:16 PM
2 votes:

The Stealth Hippopotamus: The money is coming from China right now. There is no connection between what we pay and what the government spends. Zero! I wish this wasn't true but it is.


So you have no problem with deficits? Or only when rich people need to help out?

The Stealth Hippopotamus: Most of those things are provided on the state level and what isn't should be.


So then you have no problem with states taxing rich people? How does that have any bearing they still cost money. And no roads are paid a lot be the federal government. You seem completely clueless if you don't know that.

So will you answer my questions:

Will you voluntarily give up your government services so rich people can pay less in taxes or are you just asking for others to do so?
2012-12-03 04:00:22 PM
2 votes:

The Stealth Hippopotamus: No, I really wished they would means test for both social security and medicare. Bill Gates doesn't need a social security check but he gets one. But until they do he gets to collect it just alike everyone else.


So then you will voluntarily give back your social security check so rich people can keep their taxes low?

Will you give up your police service. your fire services, roads, public schools so you can keep their taxes low? Because you say it's their money. Or do you want only OTHER people to give things up?
2012-12-03 03:34:04 PM
2 votes:

The Stealth Hippopotamus: Corvus: I imagine you will move the goal posts once again.

Let me clear up. He made money. He was taxed. He then used that left over money to buy stuff. That is now his stuff. He then turned around and gave it to his kids.

None of this I have a problem with. I think you should be able to give away your stuff if you like especially to family members.

I hope that helps clear everything up, this didn't move a single thing but I just simplified it a little.


No he did not.

His company had private assets. They valued those assets as close to zero he paid NO TAXES on those. He gave them to kids they paid NO TAXES. Now those "worthless assets" are worth 100 million dollars and him nor his kids paid no taxes.

Why are you against people working for their own money? And you want people to get hand outs?

I believe in people working for their money.
2012-12-03 03:17:42 PM
2 votes:
2012-12-03 03:05:38 PM
2 votes:

doczoidberg: I just want to loot the system as much as possible before it collapses.

Is that so wrong?


That's definitely what the Baby Boomers are up to. They are perpetrating the greatest dine-and-dash in the history of mankind.
2012-12-03 03:03:05 PM
2 votes:

The Stealth Hippopotamus: Marcus Aurelius: Mitt Romney pays half of what I pay. Maybe taxing that farker at my rate won't balance the budget, but it would be a start.

I don't know for a fact. But I'm going to make a crazy guess and say Romney pays a hell of a lot more money than you do.


Unless RMoney releases his tax returns, we don't know if he paid a dime.
2012-12-03 02:57:50 PM
2 votes:
So the right has moved on from calling my desire to have the Social Security and Medicare that I've paid for an "entitlement" and now they're calling it a "freebie".

Are they still calling the guys lining their pockets by gutting American companies and loading them with debt after off-shoring all the workers "Job Creators"?
2012-12-03 02:56:16 PM
2 votes:

garron: ToxicMunkee: Fine. Let's end all the "entitlement programs" and let people f*cking die. I'm sick of all of this stupid bullish*t. Who needs Death Panels when all we have to do is let people starve?

America. F*ck yeah.

This is the type of ignorant hyperbole that completely defines the left.

Conservatives are not arguing to eliminate life saving entitlements. They are arguing to eliminate stupid ones like free cell phones and food stamps and welfare programs for healthy people who simply choose not to work. And I'll go ahead and throw in tax-payer funded, multi-million dollar vacations and star-studded parties for our "first family". Where exactly is their sacrifice for the greater good?

Seems like all good socialist leaders who preach sacrifice and condemn the rich have this weakness when it comes to their own personal wealth.


Tried getting a job without a phone recently?
2012-12-03 02:55:26 PM
2 votes:

garron: Conservatives are not arguing to eliminate life saving entitlements.


No, just to privatize them.

(See: Paul Ryan and his dumbass plan for Medicare)
2012-12-03 02:45:12 PM
2 votes:

Smeggy Smurf: Koggie: Yeah, those free wars were awesome. Please sir, may I have another?

The way Fartbongo is going we'll have another 20 of them by this time next year.


You're a tool.
2012-12-03 02:35:23 PM
2 votes:

slayer199: Again, the populace gets sidelined by argument of the rich paying their fair share rather than the real problem. The farking government spends too damn much money. And it's not a Republican or Democrat issue...it's a U.S. Government issue as BOTH sides are to blame.

/facepalm

You can raise taxes to 90% on everyone above $100k and it's not going to do a damn thing unless BOTH sides can significantly cut spending. Budgets, how do they work?


Well, to begin it does well from a PR standpoint when the lower-classes don't feel the need to rise up and behead the rich and ransack their possessions while the similarly affected groups responsible for keeping order stand back and say "they brought it upon themselves."

But it goes deeper than that. The "job creators" have spent almost ten years actively working to make their employees work harder for much less and still keep as much from them in the form of benefits as possible.

As a card-carrying member of the middle-class who does the job of three people while employed as a contractor so that my employer won't have to give me health insurance I can tell you that it wasn't always this way. There was a point in time where they understood that the longer I remained working for them the more valuable I was due to knowing the job. There was a time when that was incentivized by a pay raises at regular intervals, vacation pay, bonuses, GOOD health insurance and other amenities.

There was a time when I would bust my ass because I was treated well and fairly. I WANTED the company to succeed because I felt some sense of responsibility even if all I was getting was a fair wage. Stay late? Sure. Weekends? I'm down. An overnight? If you need me, let me know.

Now, that for a company that actively works to give me as little as he legally can with managers who specialize in trying to convince me that what I am getting is the best I could ever hope for?

Not bloody likely.
2012-12-03 02:29:25 PM
2 votes:

Il Douchey: ...the expiry of the deferment of the implementation of the adjustment of the correction of the extension of the reduction to the proposed increase of the Alternative Minimum Growth Sustainability Reduction Rate.

Mark Steyn, you magnificent bastard


Magnificent isn't a word I'd associate with the gigantic douchebag that is Mark Steyn.
2012-12-03 02:27:45 PM
2 votes:
So, lets say you're in debt. Is it easier/faster to get out of debt by cutting things out of your life? or by getting another job to raise revenue?
2012-12-03 01:32:40 PM
2 votes:
FTFDerp: "...but did you ever think the difference between America and the cheese-eating surrender monkeys would come down to quibbling over the fine print?"

It's one thing to use that term on the Simpsons, it's another when you're trying to make a rational contribution to our political discourse.

EABOD & DIAF.
2012-12-03 01:05:33 PM
2 votes:
I really hate how disingenuous the Republicans are. Their disingenuty creates unpleasant thoughts in my head.

We balanced the budget under Clinton and Bush Jr. Spent our surplus into oblivion. Now the Republicans are stamping their feet pouting about social spending the Democrats are pushing for. Ffs. Act like a grown ass adult.
2012-12-03 01:02:20 PM
2 votes:

vpb: No he doesn't, he only pays 15% IIRC.


To be revised down to 9% now that the election is over.
2012-12-03 12:39:42 PM
2 votes:

tallguywithglasseson: We already have a more severely redistributive taxation system than Europe, in which the wealthiest 20 percent of Americans pay 70 percent of income tax while the poorest 20 percent shoulder just three-fifths of 1 percent. By comparison, the Norwegian tax burden is relatively equitably distributed. Yet Obama now wishes "the rich" to pay their "fair share...

I'll make a deal with you, conservative writer.

If the income and wealth disparity in the U.S. reach the same levels as Norway, I'll support a Norwegian-style tax code.

Deal?


It's a thought provoking point he has. Suppose we've two people, one making $100,000 and the other is $20,000. If was tax them both 10%, that would be $10,000 and $2,000 respectively. In this scenario, the 'rich' guy is paying 83% of the taxes, and is therefore pay well more than his fair share under what I would assume would be Steyn's "logic". Imagine someone who puts less critical thinking into their article than Thomas Sowell, who is, coincidentally, just behind Steyn at the top of the Top 50 Conservative Writers on that there derplog.
2012-12-03 11:50:44 AM
2 votes:
Is that why we spend half of the world's military budget?
2012-12-03 11:48:32 AM
2 votes:
FTFA: We already have a more severely redistributive taxation system than Europe, in which the wealthiest 20 percent of Americans pay 70 percent of income tax while the poorest 20 percent shoulder just three-fifths of 1 percent. By comparison, the Norwegian tax burden is relatively equitably distributed.

Could that be, perhaps, because in Europe wealth and income are more even distributed? In Norway, does the top 10% control 80% of the wealth?

Here's the wealth distribution in the USA v. wealth distribution in Sweden (although, it's facetiously called "Equalden" in the chart):

apt46.net
2012-12-03 11:40:54 AM
2 votes:

Dusk-You-n-Me: We already have a more severely redistributive taxation system than Europe

True, but Europe's spending is also progressive. Imagine if the average American middle class family paid zero or near zero for healthcare. Imagine if the average middle class family paid zero or near zero for college tuition. Imagine all that money back into their pockets, and back into our economy driving up aggregate demand.


That and we have a larger military then all of Europe.
2012-12-04 02:48:41 AM
1 votes:

Diogenes The Cynic: log_jammin: Diogenes The Cynic: Either way. Its not many people, and its not that much money.

again, if it's not that much, why is it being fought against so hard?

Diogenes The Cynic: We're bleeding ourselves dry with the military, interest on the debt, and social security.

funny how we could afford all those things back when the tax rates were a tad higher.

Because there are people like me who see fleecing people richer than they as being envy driven.

No. We could never afford the military, social security, or interest on the debt. Learn to math.

Our unfunded liabilities are somewhere north of 50 trillion.


By "fleecing" do you mean "subsidize my industries and support an infrastructure that allows folks to continue to make ever larger amounts of money that will be then shipped out of local economies to prevent leaking of cash into said local economies"?

Because that's pretty much the model now. Folks aren't proposing even going back to the Reagan era rates, and not back to the "bad old days" when there was a 90% rate which oddly enough, saw a LOT of prosperity amongst a lot of those pesky "working class" folks who managed to build a middle class that actually supported a consumer economy and drove those pesky industries that folks feel are so beset upon to the top of the food chain.

Fleecing and returning tax rates back to the original proposed limits on the tax breaks are not quite the same, and THIS is really the false dilemma. Not overburdening the wealth "creators"--who actually don't create wealth, but rather harvest wealth by aggregating the end flow collections. Wealth has never trickled down, but flowed through the economy from the lowest to the highest rungs. From peasants working their fields--actually creating very real wealth in the form of crops by their labor, and maintaining the value of lands--to a service/consumer economy where millions of consumers pour dollars into the economy to be then whisked away--sometimes returned in wages, sometimes circulated a bit before banks, utility companies, and larger retail or industry concerns then take said cash to either turn those dollars into investments, or pour a jigger or ten into their own accounts, or the accounts of good friends.

Let's end the myth of wealth flowing down. It has never done that. It flows towards aggregates--like banking concerns, large corporate entities, or even those pesky nobility--but that is the way wealth works. It tends to congregate in only a few hands after sifting through the hands of folks on the lowest rungs--many of them to be sure--and returned in small percentages.

This isn't going to really change, but we do need to slow the aggregation of wealth a bit. Let it roll around in local and national economies for a bit longer. THAT is really the issue. Not a vast sea of folks with their hands out, but rather a vast sea of folks who see their dollars whisked out of their local area without much chance of being traded back and forth for a while, before taking the trip upstream. THAT is really the issue--faster and faster shipping out of cash from local economies, and folks are complaining that they can't just take the dollars from the rubes directly, and end the charade of government entirely.

Yes. Some people have a problem with the blatant corporatism that we are seeing, and that has nothing to do with "envy" as much as recognizing a broken economic function, and folks cheering that break.
2012-12-04 01:41:31 AM
1 votes:
For the sake of argument, lets say we took all the liquid assets of every billionaire in America away from them, and that that amount added up to a trillion dollars. If we redistributed it once to everyone, equally, it would only be about 300 bucks per person.

But in doing this we would lose our ability to make new factories. Capital is necessary to run an economy. You just have to accept that fact. I'm not saying that the income distribution we have here is ideal. But we should probably stop demonizing "the rich" and come up with real solutions to real problems.

Take the proposal to tax people earning over 250k per year for example. How many people are there like that? We have about a millionaires in this country and most of them did it through saving, not earning. So how much money would we collect from that new tax? Its a smokescreen sheeple. Wake up.

The USSR isn't about to drive tanks into West Germany anytime soon, so we can shutter our bases in Iceland, Italy, and Germany.

We can afford to cut out a lot of waste here.
2012-12-04 12:57:31 AM
1 votes:

Tumunga: You can't make deals, you're a nobody. Go back to suckin' on your beansprout shake,


blog.davidhoyle.com

POOF! Not only have you disappeared, but now you are a beautiful pink rose.
2012-12-04 12:19:48 AM
1 votes:
FTA: "According to the most recent (2009) OECD statistics: Government expenditures per person in France, $18,866.00; in the United States, $19,266.00."

I'm wondering how much of that is defense spending, how much of that is Medicare and Medicaid due to the outrageous costs of health care and insurance, and so on

ALSO:

Stealth Hippopotamus: Marcus Aurelius: Percentages, how the fark do they work? Are you on some kind of special taxation system where you pay a set amount? Because I personally have to pay this thing known as a "percentage".

There's a good article on Wikipedia about it, you should check it out.

And that's how we pay for roads and bridges, wages for employees and national defense? Do we pay for them with percentages?! No, we pay for them with dollars. Dollars are what count. Romney pays more dollars for you. Gratitude wouldn't be uncalled for.


No, percentages are what count for taxation, not dollar amounts. This is why we have a progressive tax system, because anyone with two brain cells to rub together (which excludes most republicans), can see that it takes a basic number of dollars to survive, and anything above that level is cake. The more cake you have, the more you are taxed. "Gratitude" can kiss my ass, and so can Rmoney. The more wealth you have, the more dependent on the system of laws, public works, and government you are in keeping that wealth.

AND:

The The Stealth Hippopotamus: Corvus: No one know but we DO now the 100 million he gave to his kids was tax free. And the hundred's of millions in his 401k that most of us "little people" can't do.

So I guess you'd have to admit the system is broken.


Of course you can't give your kids millions of dollars, you dont have millions of dollars. jk.

Sorry but I have no problem with a man giving his kids his hard earned money. I do it all the time, it's just in the form of 10s and 20s. Why would I care! That money was taxed once when he earned it, why would it get taxed again when it was given away?


Wrong again. Money doesn't get taxed, people do. This is how the system works. I work and am paid. That money is not my employer's money being taxed, I am being taxed on the money I earn. When I pay someone to do something for me, such as a plumber, "the money" I give them is not taxed, the plumber is being taxed on their earnings as I was taxed on mine.

The exchange is taxable, not the dollar itself. This means that a dollar (using your odd logic) can be taxed over a thousand times before it is shredded, when in the real world a thousand transactions are what was taxed every time that dollar changed hands. This is also why inheritance should always be taxed, because it is an exchange. There is no "double taxation", because when the money is yours you were taxed on it, and when it belongs to your heirs they were taxed on it because it is income to them.

One more time: you were taxed once. Your heirs were taxed once. That's it.
2012-12-03 11:53:50 PM
1 votes:

doczoidberg: I just want to loot the system as much as possible before it collapses.

Is that so wrong?


you sound like an old republican. Or a young democrat.

/six of one...
2012-12-03 07:55:15 PM
1 votes:

sprawl15: whidbey: Did I call that one or what?

It's not splitting hairs one bit. It's not like "oh, this was a CREDIT, not a DEDUCTION, oh oh ho!" They literally gain zero direct benefit from declaring those losses. If they declared eleventy billion dollars spent on Raflca's favorite douche loofa's, they wouldn't save a penny on their taxes.


Not true,
"PALs not allowed in the current year are carried forward to following years until they are allowed either against passive activity income, allowed against the special allowance if applicable, or accounted when the taxpayer sells or exchanges the entire interest in the passive activity in a fully taxable transaction to an unrelated party."
https://www.taxbrain.com/kb/default.asp?a=177

Romney's tax lawyers didn't go through all that trouble to save $50.
2012-12-03 07:46:28 PM
1 votes:
Look man, an apple and an orange are the same. Stop splitting hairs
2012-12-03 07:38:39 PM
1 votes:

sprawl15: whidbey: You're not going to deny that the Romneys took out a 78K deduction for their horse.

Yes, I am. They didn't take a deduction, they declared it as an unallowable loss on a passive activity.


whidbey: You're very likely splitting hairs about something.


Did I call that one or what?
2012-12-03 06:55:47 PM
1 votes:

slayer199: That's the thing NEITHER side is talking about. Substantial reduction of spending. The Dems don't want to give up their social programs and the Republicans don't want to scale back on the military, Homeland Security or the War on Drugs.


They shouldn't have to. But keep pretending that both parties are the problem here, and not just the far-right nutcases in Congress--who happen to be Republican.
2012-12-03 06:35:18 PM
1 votes:
I was reading a Free Republic thread the other day and makers and takers. They were talking about what a bunch of parasites the 47% who don't pay income taxes are, and proposed mandatory military service as a solution.

Apparently it never occurred to them that there are veterans in that 47% because the job creators don't feel like hiring them.
2012-12-03 06:12:48 PM
1 votes:
Everyone who makes more money than me is racist and deserves to be taxed for all of their income and possessions. That's what fair means, you racist.

/This is what Fark Libs actually believe
2012-12-03 06:10:32 PM
1 votes:
80k tax breaks ^for dancing horses
2012-12-03 06:09:45 PM
1 votes:

epoc_tnac: firefly212: I love how when government wastes money on defense contractors, FTC investigations protecting shareholders, and SEC protections for the rich, it's necessary, but if I want the government to do something with my money that might be useful to me, it's a "freebie" or a "gift," and I'm a "taker" not a "make." Talk to me about freebies when Mitt Romney's tax rate is as high as mine... until then, shove it.

Doublespeak of the highest order. And it works. 

/keep big government freebies out of my medicare


It's just surreal, people who get 80k tax breaks chiding people struggling to get enough food to survive over how they're taking advantage of the system. Orwell lives.
2012-12-03 05:56:23 PM
1 votes:
I love how when government wastes money on defense contractors, FTC investigations protecting shareholders, and SEC protections for the rich, it's necessary, but if I want the government to do something with my money that might be useful to me, it's a "freebie" or a "gift," and I'm a "taker" not a "make." Talk to me about freebies when Mitt Romney's tax rate is as high as mine... until then, shove it.
2012-12-03 05:29:35 PM
1 votes:

epoc_tnac: Have you even seen what rich people spend money on? Fast cars and shiat. Big houses, with multiple hot tubs. The latest, most expensive HDTV.

What they fark are they so passionately complaining about? There comes a point, let's say around 2 million a year income, that you really, really don't need any more money for yourself. You're just pissing it away on diamond encrusted toilet seats and whale penis leather toilet paper (whale penis leather is a real thing, btw, look it up).

The point is, there is only so much money to go around, and lots of people don't have enough of it. And then the people who have far, far too much of it, cry like little babies at the mention that they might want to give some more of it up.

I know you might say 'they worked really hard for their money', well so does a farking toilet cleaner, or a supermarket clerk, or any other depressing dead end worker, so maybe instead of buying that gold plated xbox for your shiatty kids, consider paying your workers a dollar more an hour so that they don't have to go to the food bank at Christmas, you tight-assed arrogant farking assholes.


Every time we have our septic tank pumped, I think to myself "no matter how much we're paying that man, he's not making enough."

But yes, anyone who says that the rich deserve their money need to look at Paris Hilton. She has done nothing for her money but be born to the right parents. Hereditary nobility is something we should not encourage in this country.
2012-12-03 05:23:05 PM
1 votes:

bradkanus: cameroncrazy1984: bradkanus: I'm just giving your dumb ass a history lesson why we tax income and not assets.

Capital gains are....what is that word you used? Oh yes. Income.

Now explain why that income is taxed at half the rate of earned income.

I have no idea other than what I remember the rhetoric being at teh time - encourage investment. Again, I'm not defending the cap gains tax rate. I will point out that the 15% applies to everyone.


So you decided to argue about something else entirely?
2012-12-03 04:59:51 PM
1 votes:

garron: Welfare programs and food stamps are a waste for healthy people who choose not to work.


How many recipients of "welfare programs and food stamps" are "healthy people who choose not to work", and how many *do* work at places like Walmart that are too damn tightfisted to pay their staff enough to live on?
2012-12-03 04:57:22 PM
1 votes:

eraser8: pciszek: eraser8: Here's the wealth distribution in the USA v. wealth distribution in Sweden (although, it's facetiously called "Equalden" in the chart):

Um, what do the colors represent? Without that information, this chart is very uninformative. The numbers are clearly the size of each pie slice, but what fraction of the US controls 84% of the wealth?

Yeah. It's not the greatest chart...but, as I wrote earlier, it comes straight from a paper written by Michael I. Norton of the Harvard Business School and Dan Ariely of Duke University (PDF). And, even there, it's not spectacular. In any case, according to the paper, "in the United States, the top wealth quintile owns 84% of the total wealth, the second highest 11%, and so on."


It still doesn't work. According to what you just said, the cyan must represent the top quintile and the off-white the next quintile. But the pie chart for Equalden shows the off-white pie piece twice as big as the cyan one. By definition, each quintile contains the same number of people. If the top quintile has 18% of the wealth and the next quintile has 36%, then each person in the second quintile is twice as wealthy as each person in the top quintile, in which case, they should be the top quintile. I will attempt to repeat the chart for easy reference:
apt46.net 
In short, the fraction of the wealth controlled by each quintile must be greater than the fraction controlled by the quintile beneath it, and the top quintile must control at least 20% of the wealth, or the math doesn't work.
2012-12-03 04:46:12 PM
1 votes:

bradkanus: I'm just giving your dumb ass a history lesson why we tax income and not assets.


Capital gains are....what is that word you used? Oh yes. Income.

Now explain why that income is taxed at half the rate of earned income.
2012-12-03 04:45:23 PM
1 votes:

bradkanus: You don't know enough about the tax system to be arguing with me about it.


LMAO. Yeah dude, you're a regular font of intellectualism.
2012-12-03 04:35:29 PM
1 votes:

The Jami Turman Fan Club: Elzar: These farkclowns in Washington DC just need to use the NY Times Balanced Budget calculator and we can avoid all the fiscal cliff nastiness. Its only been around for the last 2 years...

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/11/13/weekinreview/deficits- gr aphic.html(Pops Like a motherfarker)

Wow, I picked:
Eliminate Earmarks
Reduce Federal workforce by 10% and cut 250,000 government contractors.
Reduce Military to pre-Iraq War size, Reduce Navy and Air Force Fleets, Cancel or Delay some weapons programs.
Reduce the number of troops in Iraq and Afghanistan to 30,000
President Obama's proposals on the taxes.
Reduce mortgage deduction for high-income households
And the bank tax.

And that virtually balanced the budget. I thought it would take a lot more than that.


Yeah it doesn't take much and instead we get this fiscal cliff Bukake Theatre. Throw in a few more things like rolling back tax rates to clinton levels, raise eligibility for SS and Medicare and we are not only balanced, but we are motherfarking paying down the deficit in a meaningful way...
2012-12-03 04:21:49 PM
1 votes:

garron: Corporatism and cronyism is just as damaging as Socialism


I know right? Look at that vile shiathole going on over there in Scandinavia.
2012-12-03 04:16:03 PM
1 votes:

vernonFL: We've spent $4 trillion in Iraq and Afghanistan. Plus thousands killed and tens of thousands injured.


Hundreds of thousands killed, when you actually consider brown people.
2012-12-03 04:11:14 PM
1 votes:

Elzar: These farkclowns in Washington DC just need to use the NY Times Balanced Budget calculator and we can avoid all the fiscal cliff nastiness. Its only been around for the last 2 years...

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/11/13/weekinreview/deficits- gr aphic.html(Pops Like a motherfarker)


Wow, I picked:
Eliminate Earmarks
Reduce Federal workforce by 10% and cut 250,000 government contractors.
Reduce Military to pre-Iraq War size, Reduce Navy and Air Force Fleets, Cancel or Delay some weapons programs.
Reduce the number of troops in Iraq and Afghanistan to 30,000
President Obama's proposals on the taxes.
Reduce mortgage deduction for high-income households
And the bank tax.

And that virtually balanced the budget. I thought it would take a lot more than that.
2012-12-03 04:10:44 PM
1 votes:

bradkanus: Corvus: The Stealth Hippopotamus: No, I really wished they would means test for both social security and medicare. Bill Gates doesn't need a social security check but he gets one. But until they do he gets to collect it just alike everyone else.

So then you will voluntarily give back your social security check so rich people can keep their taxes low?

Will you give up your police service. your fire services, roads, public schools so you can keep their taxes low? Because you say it's their money. Or do you want only OTHER people to give things up?

Rich people pay more in taxes than you do. Wealthy people don't. You keep mixing that up. We are talking earnings, not assets.


No I pay a higher tax rate than people who are hedge fund managers. You are wrong. Because they can count there income as capital gains. I can't.

Even the company stock I get I have to pay income tax on while hedge fund managers get to pay capital gains on most of their income.

Really read this:

Carried interest

Hedge fund managers who are making hundreds of millions a year are paying less percent than I do. And less than many Americans.

You don't seem to get it.
2012-12-03 04:06:21 PM
1 votes:

The Stealth Hippopotamus: He paid taxes on those items and he paid taxes on his income. Unless you are saying that Bane Capital was set up as a church.


NO HE DID NOT.

He had Bane declare the assets as being worthless (or close to worthless) then he had Bane give it to him (he paid no taxes) and then he put them in his 401k and gave it to his kids (paying no taxes).

HE PAID ZERO TAXES ON HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS.

He used a loop hole to make on paper assets to be worthless so he could pay no taxes on them. How many times does this need to be explained to you.

And on his income he paid capital gains on most of it even though he risked none of his own money.
2012-12-03 04:03:24 PM
1 votes:

bradkanus: Cap gains are different than income taxes all togehter and that percentage is available to you as well. I see what you are trying to argue here, but lower cap gains was supposed to inspire you to invest.


Except if you are hedge fund manager like Mitt where you can get paid in assets where you get to pay capital gains on your income (or even less),

And why should we encourage investing? That has shown to lead to bubble economies. Besides most of the money is not even used for the company it is to pay off someone else who owns the stock not for new investments.

That is such a BS excuse.
2012-12-03 04:02:52 PM
1 votes:

cameroncrazy1984: bradkanus: joonyer: bradkanus: Marcus Aurelius: Mitt Romney pays half of what I pay. Maybe taxing that farker at my rate won't balance the budget, but it would be a start.

You pay $6million in taxes? My God that must suck.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/mitt-romney-releases-tax-retur n s/2012/01/23/gIQAj5bUMQ_story.html

Here at FARK we encourage readers to READ the post they are quoting. Have a great day.

I would take your own advice before giving it to others. Obviously you're sticking up for someone who was not clear or consistent in their claim. Two stupids can't save a dumb comment. You have great day too, sir.

What's not clear about that? Romney pays 13-15%. He likely paid 30%. What's so hard to understand about that?


You're purposely forgetting that his first sentence was a pure lie. He does not pay twice what romney pays. It's a fact. His rate compared to the rate romney pays is greater (in a basic sense) -
2012-12-03 03:53:39 PM
1 votes:

The Jami Turman Fan Club: Jackson Herring: garron: healthy people who choose not to work

hahahhahaahhahhahahahahahah ahhhhh

It wouldn't matter. We're in a period of high unemployment.

Let's say that there's 107 people and 100 jobs available.

If 7 people choose not to work, then 100 people work and 7 people are unemployed.
If everybody chooses to work, then 100 people work and 7 people are unemployed.
The only change is that in the first case the unemployed are self-selected.

If we get down to the point that everybody who wants a job has a job, we'll see serious wage inflation. Until we get that, there's no reason to worry about whether some people choose to be unemployed.


It's not even that complicated. In the right-wing mind, we are both in a time of high unemployment because of P. Fart Baracka's policies, AND millions of people are also too lazy to get a job.
2012-12-03 03:53:21 PM
1 votes:

bradkanus: cameroncrazy1984: bradkanus: Marcus Aurelius: Mitt Romney pays half of what I pay. Maybe taxing that farker at my rate won't balance the budget, but it would be a start.

You pay $6million in taxes? My God that must suck.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/mitt-romney-releases-tax-retur n s/2012/01/23/gIQAj5bUMQ_story.html

Why does Romney get to pay 13% while the rest of us have to pay 30? Especially considering that he does no work.

Because the wealthy men who instituted the income tax in the early 1900s knew the difference between earnings and wealth. Protecting their wealth was their first priority. farking over high earners looking to join their ranks was the second priority. And third on the list was securring the country against a major disaster like the fire in San Francisco that inspired their need for an income tax.


None of that explains why the capital gains rate was lowered to 15% by the Republicans.
2012-12-03 03:52:29 PM
1 votes:

slayer199:
You can raise taxes to 90% on everyone above $100k and it's not going to do a damn thing unless BOTH sides can significantly cut spending. Budgets, how do they work?


Lolwut? Go on and find me a cite. Find the total income over 100K in the US, take 90% of that, and tell me its not even a trillion dollars. In an economy of $16 trillion GDP, tell me that all salary and hourly workers over $100K a year put together don't add up to even $1.2 trillion a year .

Show me that or STFU, you lying sack of right wing hyperbole
2012-12-03 03:50:39 PM
1 votes:

Jackson Herring: When rich people get freebies, it's subsidies for job creators.


Which, if they really do create jobs, (a) they don't need subsidies, and (b) any subsidy we give them doesn't generate enough extra revenue to pay for itself. So STOP DOING IT, CONGRESS.
2012-12-03 03:46:58 PM
1 votes:

garron: un4gvn666:

All those words and not a single shred of logic to back up the colossal dumbfarkery of claiming that welfare and food stamps are "stupid" entitlements.

Don't worry, I forgive you.

Welfare programs and food stamps are a waste for healthy people who choose not to work. There was no need to back that up since it was in the original statement. Maybe you missed that part.



How do you cut it for just that subset? How large is that subset as a percentage of the whole?


Difficulty: It can't cost more to determine who they are than it saves in benefits extended.

Please show your work.
2012-12-03 03:46:15 PM
1 votes:
I spent Thanksgiving in the OC with relatives. Laughed my way through the Register editorials. I'm sending a case of Preparation H for Christmas.
2012-12-03 03:43:19 PM
1 votes:
Right. This whole fiscal cliff thing would go away if we'd all just agree to let our infrastructure collapse and eliminate all semblance of ordered society. DUH GUYZ!
2012-12-03 03:40:03 PM
1 votes:

The Stealth Hippopotamus: Corvus: I imagine you will move the goal posts once again.

Let me clear up. He made money. He was taxed. He then used that left over money to buy stuff. That is now his stuff. He then turned around and gave it to his kids.

None of this I have a problem with. I think you should be able to give away your stuff if you like especially to family members.

I hope that helps clear everything up, this didn't move a single thing but I just simplified it a little.


Wow you have such no clue on how you are being ripped off. You should just voluntarily donate you social security and medicare you paid for to hand over to rich people since you are so for it.
2012-12-03 03:37:43 PM
1 votes:

fracto: un4gvn666: fracto: While I am being facetious, there are many people for whom this will be true. If the option is to scrape by on a tiny amount of help from the government or turn to illegal activities, many people will suffer through it. If the option is starvation or crime, crime will increase. Even if we were able to stop each of these people before they hurt someone the cost of law enforcement and taking their kids into the system would be higher than the cost of food stamps.

Surely, in an age where the food stamp rolls are the highest we've ever seen, yet crime has been steadily declining for the past 20 years, you can come up with some other rationale besides this ridiculous horseshiat.

Your numbers would support my assertion. My giving more assistance fewer people are turning to crime.


Ok, WHOA, I had a severe reading-comprehension-brain fart there. I misread your post. Yes, I agree with you. I thought you were arguing the other way.

My apologies.
2012-12-03 03:37:23 PM
1 votes:

The Stealth Hippopotamus: Let me clear up. He made money. He was taxed.


He was NOT taxed. You keep pretending this is true is wrong. He used a scheme of declaring the assets as "worthless" when they were not so he didn't have to pay taxes on it.

Also he got to have his other income taxed as if it was capital gains even though he wasn't risking his own money. He gets to pay a lower percent on his taxes than I do and on top of that he gets to funnel more money to his 401k and children tax free with no limit unlike anyone else can.
2012-12-03 03:36:05 PM
1 votes:

tenpoundsofcheese: But he contributed a lot more to the economy than you, so don't complain.


What, exactly, does a blind trust contribute to the economy?
2012-12-03 03:34:16 PM
1 votes:
I'm as liberal as they come, and entitlements are certainly a problem. Of course, any plan that discusses only cutting those programs that help liberal and/or poor people while ignoring the things that help Republican's cronies in industry (and which, BTW, are the largest expenditures by our government) is a disingenuous plan.
2012-12-03 03:32:38 PM
1 votes:

sweetmelissa31: mksmith: "THEIR social programs"? Republicans get no benefits from Social Security, Medicare, college loans, food stamps, or disaster relief -- is that what you're saying? Because I have an unemployed, fundamentalist, Obama-hating sister-in-law who was delighted to get in line for food stamps when she qualified following the most recent hurricane.

The difference is, Republicans deserve the benefits they get, while Democrats think they are entitled.


So Repubs are entitled, while dems only think they are?
2012-12-03 03:30:43 PM
1 votes:
All of the worlds problems are the fault of poor people, brown people, liberals and unions. Wealthy white people are not responsible for anything.

If you disagree you're going to hell.


-every conservative ever
2012-12-03 03:28:32 PM
1 votes:

garron: healthy people who choose not to work


hahahhahaahhahhahahahahahah ahhhhh
2012-12-03 03:27:46 PM
1 votes:

vartian: Dusk-You-n-Me: We already have a more severely redistributive taxation system than Europe

True, but Europe's spending is also progressive. Imagine if the average American middle class family paid zero or near zero for healthcare. Imagine if the average middle class family paid zero or near zero for college tuition. Imagine all that money back into their pockets, and back into our economy driving up aggregate demand.

That and we have a larger military then all of Europe.


That's right. Boehner doesn't want to give up those sweet, sweet defense contracts for his constituents. Whether or not they are militarily justified is irrelevant.
2012-12-03 03:25:41 PM
1 votes:

garron: un4gvn666:

All those words and not a single shred of logic to back up the colossal dumbfarkery of claiming that welfare and food stamps are "stupid" entitlements.

Don't worry, I forgive you.

Welfare programs and food stamps are a waste for healthy people who choose not to work. There was no need to back that up since it was in the original statement. Maybe you missed that part.


How many people on welfare "choose" not to work? Surely you must have some proof, some statistics, something.
2012-12-03 03:25:01 PM
1 votes:

bradkanus: Marcus Aurelius: Mitt Romney pays half of what I pay. Maybe taxing that farker at my rate won't balance the budget, but it would be a start.

You pay $6million in taxes? My God that must suck.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/mitt-romney-releases-tax-retur n s/2012/01/23/gIQAj5bUMQ_story.html


Why does Romney get to pay 13% while the rest of us have to pay 30? Especially considering that he does no work.
2012-12-03 03:19:49 PM
1 votes:

SlothB77: The wealthiest 20 percent of Americans pay 70 percent of income tax while the poorest 20 percent shoulder just three-fifths of 1 percent. By comparison, the Norwegian tax burden is relatively equitably distributed. Yet Obama now wishes "the rich" to pay their "fair share" - presumably 80 percent or 90 percent.

What else is there to say? Obviously that is not enough for people.

A couple of years back, Andrew Biggs of the American Enterprise Institute calculated that, if Washington were to increase every single tax by 30 percent, it would be enough to balance the books - in 25 years. If you were to raise taxes by 50 percent, it would be enough to fund our entitlement liabilities - just our current ones, not our future liabilities, which would require further increases. This is the scale of course correction needed.

we need to have cuts too.


Who are these mythical Democrats who are calling for no cuts? Seriously. Name them.
2012-12-03 03:18:35 PM
1 votes:
It's true, I want a lot of freebies. Free wars, free oil, free tax cuts.

Gimme.
2012-12-03 03:18:32 PM
1 votes:

garron: un4gvn666:

What a colossal dumbfark you are.

Ah yes. The most precious debate tool in the arsenal of the enlightened liberal is name calling. My argument is completely invalid because I'm a "colossal dumbfark".

Oh please, please - I don't want to be a colossal dumbfark. I want to be like you. Thinking is such a waste - and working!! sheesh - who needs to do that? I want Obama to give me everything for free. He's such a savior - he can even forgive my sins, heal my diseases, stop global warming and cause everybody to share all they have with each other. Only the true sinners think they deserve what they work for. They didn't build that!!

I love you Obama!! I don't want to be a colossal dumbfark anymore!! Please save me!!! Please save us ALL!!  Please forgive me for thinking!!!


All those words and not a single shred of logic to back up the colossal dumbfarkery of claiming that welfare and food stamps are "stupid" entitlements.

Don't worry, I forgive you.
2012-12-03 03:12:37 PM
1 votes:

Jackson Herring: sprawl15: im grateful theres not enough dicks in the world for Romney to choke on, because that would be a whole lot of dicks and i don't want to see that kind of thing when I'm out eating or chopping lumber

Don't worry, the Voyager space probe has ventured beyond the solar system in search of sufficient dicks


Let the market create more dicks, I say.
2012-12-03 03:12:14 PM
1 votes:

Corvus: Defense contractors are the worst in the world. You have meetings about hit the right "burn rate" so you can go through all the money you can.


That's a side effect of FFP and post award auditing; if you don't hit the right burn rate, you risk significant money being zoinked from you, and your profit is a flat percentage on whatever your costs are, so you lose out on negotiated profit as well. It's generally a systemic problem when the system says it's a better move to piss away excess money than to return it.

FFP is a farking disaster anyway, and after the Druyun scandal contracting departments got a raging boner for it because it covers their ass if (when) things go wrong.
2012-12-03 03:11:56 PM
1 votes:

jigger: Dusk-You-n-Me: jigger: Yeah, then we would be on solid economic footing, just like Europe.

You're snarking a claim I did not make. Go you.

You said if the US government taxed and spent like Eurpoean governments, that would drive up aggregate demand. Why would you want to drive up aggregate demand? What do you believe that would accomplish?


You don't see the benefit of driving up consumer demand?

Really?
2012-12-03 03:11:10 PM
1 votes:

PsiChick: slayer199: Again, the populace gets sidelined by argument of the rich paying their fair share rather than the real problem. The farking government spends too damn much money. And it's not a Republican or Democrat issue...it's a U.S. Government issue as BOTH sides are to blame.

/facepalm

You can raise taxes to 90% on everyone above $100k and it's not going to do a damn thing unless BOTH sides can significantly cut spending. Budgets, how do they work?

TFA did raise a good point, though. In Europe, they tax and spend on very specific things--the rich pay out the ass, everyone has socialized health care, and the system works pretty damn well. People have tons of vacation time, realistic work hours, good jobs, and a better standard of living.

And their countries are completely, 100% functional.

Imagine if we did that here. And yes, it would mean the rich paid a hell of a lot more. But it would also mean the rich, like everyone else, would have a better quality of life, and America wouldn't be the embarrassment of civilized nations.


Europe makes use of the VAT a lot more than we do, also. It makes goods more expensive but it does feed back into social spending.

Strangely enough the European countries doing the worst, are the ones who borrowed cheaply on high risk, and created bubbles in their economies. Libertarians like to point out Greece but the fact is, Greece doesn't print its own money, and it is an example of spending run amok at the cost of production. The US isn't Greece but pointing out reality doesn't penetrate the gold bug's bubble.
2012-12-03 03:08:53 PM
1 votes:

verbaltoxin: Corvus: What someone who gets hundreds of billions in government handouts might look like:

[upload.wikimedia.org image 250x42]
[upload.wikimedia.org image 250x62]
[upload.wikimedia.org image 176x30]
[upload.wikimedia.org image 300x22]
[upload.wikimedia.org image 200x39]

Not changing anytime soon either. We talk about defense cuts, but all that really means once it hits the street is a decrease in recruiting and kicking out lots of active duty military before they hit 20. DoD knows it too, which is why early retirements are now a thing. The easiest way to make cuts are to slash down on recruits, boot out the old E-6's and O-4's who aren't making rank, and get rid of some of the niceties on the base.


I know it's crazy. Everytime there is cuts in DOD it happens to troops while we still keep doing million dollar contracts that are just some admirals pet project that they have no clue about.

I worked in defense contract work. People think public employes waste money? Defense contractors are the worst in the world. You have meetings about hit the right "burn rate" so you can go through all the money you can.
2012-12-03 03:05:35 PM
1 votes:

The Stealth Hippopotamus: I don't know for a fact. But I'm going to make a crazy guess and say Romney pays a hell of a lot more money than you do.


No one know but we DO now the 100 million he gave to his kids was tax free. And the hundred's of millions in his 401k that most of us "little people" can't do.

So I guess you'd have to admit the system is broken.
2012-12-03 03:05:19 PM
1 votes:
It's not spending if the Republicans do it.
2012-12-03 03:03:37 PM
1 votes:

The Stealth Hippopotamus: Romney pays more dollars for you. Gratitude wouldn't be uncalled for.


im grateful theres not enough dicks in the world for Romney to choke on, because that would be a whole lot of dicks and i don't want to see that kind of thing when I'm out eating or chopping lumber
2012-12-03 03:03:00 PM
1 votes:

sprawl15: Captain_Sunshine: Didn't someone actually play around with the numbers a couple of years ago and estimate the peak of that curve at around a 70% tax rate for the top earners? I seem to remember that, but I can't find it (and I have to get back to work).

[i.imgur.com image 455x270] 

as you can see on this chart it is actually highest at 0%


Are you a troll, trying to be funny and it not working, or just dumb. I can never really tell.
2012-12-03 03:00:29 PM
1 votes:

Marcus Aurelius: Percentages, how the fark do they work? Are you on some kind of special taxation system where you pay a set amount? Because I personally have to pay this thing known as a "percentage".

There's a good article on Wikipedia about it, you should check it out.



And that's how we pay for roads and bridges, wages for employees and national defense? Do we pay for them with percentages?! No, we pay for them with dollars. Dollars are what count. Romney pays more dollars for you. Gratitude wouldn't be uncalled for.

gilgigamesh: Hey, if you don't ever have the occasion to use those federally regulated air traffic routes for your private jet, that's on you.


Actually you have to pay extra for that.
2012-12-03 02:58:08 PM
1 votes:

garron: They are arguing to eliminate stupid ones like free cell phones and food stamps and welfare programs for healthy people who simply choose not to work. And I'll go ahead and throw in tax-payer funded, multi-million dollar vacations and star-studded parties for our "first family". Where exactly is their sacrifice for the greater good?


How much of the budget do you think all that crap consists of in comparison to things like SS, Medicare, and Defense?

You guys worry about petty bullcrap like this while protecting and growing sacred cows like the Defense budget.

This is why I laugh my ass off when they say that Conservatives care about the budget.
2012-12-03 02:57:40 PM
1 votes:

mrshowrules: I think a 70% tax rate on the top margin would be perfectly reasonable, certainly until the cost of the two wars is off set. Those wars were paid on credit. The lower and middle-classes paid in blood and tears. The elite should pay in treasure especially because the war was their idea.


it worked in the 1950s. the greatest generation!
2012-12-03 02:56:07 PM
1 votes:
Ok Republicans then I don't want to hear you biatching about cutting ANYTHING less then what these revenues raises.

You can no longer ask to cut things like NPR or Planned Parenthood deal?

Oh of course not you are hypocritical bastards who shift your justification based on if you like something or not.
2012-12-03 02:55:49 PM
1 votes:
Let's not forget that the one sacred cow that nobody seems to be even talking about cutting is the Military, which is basically just a glorified jobs program that produces no real benefit to the nation.

I have no real philisophical problem with jobs programs - as long as they benefit the country and its citizens. If we were spending that amount to make sure health care and education are top-notch and free then I would be OK cutting elsewhere to keep it. But instead it's being poured into useless wars, pointless R&D and millions of salaried positions that benefit the country not one bit.
2012-12-03 02:54:54 PM
1 votes:

garron:
This is the type of ignorant hyperbole that completely defines the left.

Conservatives are not arguing to eliminate life saving entitlements. They are arguing to eliminate stupid ones like free cell phones and food stamps and welfare programs for healthy people who simply choose not to work. And I'll go ahead and throw in tax-payer funded, multi-million dollar vacations and star-studded parties for our "first family". Where exactly is their sacrifice for the greater good?

Seems like all good socialist leaders who preach sacrifice and condemn the rich have this weakness when it comes to their own personal wealth.


Close the free cell phone loophole and welfare, and stop letting the lazy, shiftless blah president go on vacation and we will totes solve the budget crisis! Protip: You are dumb.
2012-12-03 02:54:35 PM
1 votes:

garron: ToxicMunkee: Fine. Let's end all the "entitlement programs" and let people f*cking die. I'm sick of all of this stupid bullish*t. Who needs Death Panels when all we have to do is let people starve?

America. F*ck yeah.

This is the type of ignorant hyperbole that completely defines the left.

Conservatives are not arguing to eliminate life saving entitlements. They are arguing to eliminate stupid ones like free cell phones and food stamps and welfare programs for healthy people who simply choose not to work. And I'll go ahead and throw in tax-payer funded, multi-million dollar vacations and star-studded parties for our "first family". Where exactly is their sacrifice for the greater good?

Seems like all good socialist leaders who preach sacrifice and condemn the rich have this weakness when it comes to their own personal wealth.


So food stamps and welfare are part of the "stupid" "life saving entitlements"? We have a "socialist leader", you say?

What a colossal dumbfark you are.
2012-12-03 02:54:01 PM
1 votes:

garron: Seems like all good socialist leaders who preach sacrifice and condemn the rich have this weakness when it comes to their own personal wealth.


That is a very brave card to play.
2012-12-03 02:53:59 PM
1 votes:

Captain_Sunshine: Didn't someone actually play around with the numbers a couple of years ago and estimate the peak of that curve at around a 70% tax rate for the top earners? I seem to remember that, but I can't find it (and I have to get back to work).


The paper examined the Swedish economy.

Swedish Tax Rates, Labor Supply, and Tax Revenues

Charles E. Stuart
Journal of Political Economy
Vol. 89, No. 5 (Oct., 1981), pp. 1020-1038
2012-12-03 02:49:53 PM
1 votes:

Captain_Sunshine: Trivia Jockey: Shockingly (or not), history and economic theory demonstrates you can do this and still have a prosperous economy.

Absolutely. The idea that none of these conservatives will even entertain the idea that we are still on the left side of their oh-so-descriptive Laffer Curve is extremely dishonest. It's their treatment of supply-side economics as religion showing through.

Didn't someone actually play around with the numbers a couple of years ago and estimate the peak of that curve at around a 70% tax rate for the top earners? I seem to remember that, but I can't find it (and I have to get back to work).


Here you go.
2012-12-03 02:49:36 PM
1 votes:

Captain_Sunshine: Didn't someone actually play around with the numbers a couple of years ago and estimate the peak of that curve at around a 70% tax rate for the top earners?


If any politician suggested that, the Koch brothers would sh*t an ingot.
2012-12-03 02:48:46 PM
1 votes:
Subby, those two ideas are not exactly mutually exclusive.

Actually, I think they are one and the same. The rich people are enjoying their freebies and reduced rates.
2012-12-03 02:48:22 PM
1 votes:

Trivia Jockey: Shockingly (or not), history and economic theory demonstrates you can do this and still have a prosperous economy.


Absolutely. The idea that none of these conservatives will even entertain the idea that we are still on the left side of their oh-so-descriptive Laffer Curve is extremely dishonest. It's their treatment of supply-side economics as religion showing through.

Didn't someone actually play around with the numbers a couple of years ago and estimate the peak of that curve at around a 70% tax rate for the top earners? I seem to remember that, but I can't find it (and I have to get back to work).
2012-12-03 02:44:29 PM
1 votes:

mksmith: "THEIR social programs"? Republicans get no benefits from Social Security, Medicare, college loans, food stamps, or disaster relief -- is that what you're saying? Because I have an unemployed, fundamentalist, Obama-hating sister-in-law who was delighted to get in line for food stamps when she qualified following the most recent hurricane.


The difference is, Republicans deserve the benefits they get, while Democrats think they are entitled.
2012-12-03 02:42:53 PM
1 votes:
And by "you", he means Defense contractors and oil companies right?
2012-12-03 02:40:52 PM
1 votes:

slayer199: That's the thing NEITHER side is talking about. Substantial reduction of spending. The Dems don't want to give up their social programs and the Republicans don't want to scale back on the military, Homeland Security or the War on Drugs.


"THEIR social programs"? Republicans get no benefits from Social Security, Medicare, college loans, food stamps, or disaster relief -- is that what you're saying? Because I have an unemployed, fundamentalist, Obama-hating sister-in-law who was delighted to get in line for food stamps when she qualified following the most recent hurricane.
2012-12-03 02:36:01 PM
1 votes:

CPennypacker: Everyone wants freebies. The issue is some people only think the freebies that they get are valid regardless of how much the other ones may be needed or useful.


Keeping American families afloat in this "jobless recovery" is more important than corporate contractor pork.
2012-12-03 02:24:08 PM
1 votes:

The Stealth Hippopotamus: Marcus Aurelius: Mitt Romney pays half of what I pay. Maybe taxing that farker at my rate won't balance the budget, but it would be a start.

I don't know for a fact. But I'm going to make a crazy guess and say Romney pays a hell of a lot more money than you do.


If he was a Real Patriotic American, he would get out of paying anything at all.
2012-12-03 02:01:22 PM
1 votes:

tallguywithglasseson: You just have to accept that 90% of libertarian arguments are prefaced with them being ordained with some sort of special vision that everyone else lacks.


That's pretty much true because in a bi-partisan world there isn't a third way that's valid. If you're a True Believer in the one of the two parties you tend to see the world as "My party is right and the other party is wrong, and anything else is dumb." The way Democrats look at libertarianism is "Lol, Somalia.' They way Republicans look at libertarians is "Godless heathens pushing drugs and hookers." Both views are caricatures of libertarianism.

I'm pragmatic enough to realize that taxes need to be raised...but I also believe the government wastes a TON of money and we're not going to get out of it without significant spending cuts. I'm not talking about the traditional way government talks about cutting spending either (which is to say, they won't increase the budgets of departments). I'm talking about actually cutting the budgets and eliminating departments altogether (lets start with DHS). If you understand how the government spends money, there's no incentive for them to be efficient. In other words, if you run an efficient department and actually save money that means the following year you get less money (well, they obviously don't need as much).

Keep flag-waving for your party...right off the cliff like a bunch of lemmings.
2012-12-03 01:32:53 PM
1 votes:

cameroncrazy1984: Who are these Democrats that are not calling for spending cuts? Certainly Obama isn't one of them.


On Libertarian Planet, nobody here on Earth sees the things that need doing, except the liberty-loving few who were blessed with Common Sense®. The sheeple blindly root for their side, but can't see the Truth: both sides are bad.

You just have to accept that 90% of libertarian arguments are prefaced with them being ordained with some sort of special vision that everyone else lacks. 

"Nobody is talking about spending cuts". Lol.
2012-12-03 01:20:54 PM
1 votes:

Lando Lincoln: We're facing the fiscal cliff because Republicans are morons.


At this point the GOP has to accept that taxes will go up. There's no way around it.
2012-12-03 01:14:33 PM
1 votes:

vernonFL: We've spent $4 trillion in Iraq and Afghanistan. Plus thousands killed and tens of thousands injured.



Probably closer to $6 trillion and more troops have come home to commit suicide than were killed in combat
2012-12-03 01:02:12 PM
1 votes:

eraser8: FTFA: We already have a more severely redistributive taxation system than Europe, in which the wealthiest 20 percent of Americans pay 70 percent of income tax while the poorest 20 percent shoulder just three-fifths of 1 percent. By comparison, the Norwegian tax burden is relatively equitably distributed.

Could that be, perhaps, because in Europe wealth and income are more even distributed? In Norway, does the top 10% control 80% of the wealth?

Here's the wealth distribution in the USA v. wealth distribution in Sweden (although, it's facetiously called "Equalden" in the chart):

[apt46.net image 615x396]



US wealth distribution is much more closely aligned with that of a 3rd world country.
2012-12-03 12:58:57 PM
1 votes:
www.usgovernmentspending.com
2012-12-03 12:55:42 PM
1 votes:

Marcus Aurelius: Krymson Tyde: doczoidberg: I just want to loot the system as much as possible before it collapses.

Is that so wrong?

I'm with you, dude. I just need to figure out a way to get unemployment while collecting disability, food stamps, and welfare. If anyone can help me also get into government housing I'd be willing to split my first month's food stamps.

You really should consider defense contracting, especially on a cost-plus basis. It's a lot more lucrative.


I'm too lazy for that. I really just want to stay stoned while having plenty of time for video games. Netflix, and having unlimited funyons.
vpb [TotalFark]
2012-12-03 12:17:01 PM
1 votes:

The Stealth Hippopotamus: Marcus Aurelius: Mitt Romney pays half of what I pay. Maybe taxing that farker at my rate won't balance the budget, but it would be a start.

I don't know for a fact. But I'm going to make a crazy guess and say Romney pays a hell of a lot more money than you do.


No he doesn't, he only pays 15% IIRC.
2012-12-03 12:09:26 PM
1 votes:

Marcus Aurelius: Mitt Romney pays half of what I pay. Maybe taxing that farker at my rate won't balance the budget, but it would be a start.


I don't know for a fact. But I'm going to make a crazy guess and say Romney pays a hell of a lot more money than you do.
2012-12-03 12:07:53 PM
1 votes:
We already have a more severely redistributive taxation system than Europe, in which the wealthiest 20 percent of Americans pay 70 percent of income tax while the poorest 20 percent shoulder just three-fifths of 1 percent. By comparison, the Norwegian tax burden is relatively equitably distributed. Yet Obama now wishes "the rich" to pay their "fair share...

I'll make a deal with you, conservative writer.

If the income and wealth disparity in the U.S. reach the same levels as Norway, I'll support a Norwegian-style tax code.

Deal?
2012-12-03 11:53:43 AM
1 votes:

Koggie: Yeah, those free wars were awesome. Please sir, may I have another?


"I'd like Two Unpaid Wars, please. Oh, and a side of Unregulated Banking Industry. That many calories, really? Okay, just shave off a few with a Frank / Dodd salad. Yeah, go ahead and super-size it. Thanks!"
2012-12-03 11:51:39 AM
1 votes:

vernonFL: We've spent $4 trillion in Iraq and Afghanistan. Plus thousands killed and tens of thousands injured.


I had no issue with Afghanistan as 9/11 was staged from there. Had we just gone there we'd likely be finished there by now. Because we were spread so thin and fought the war in the north by proxy, we ended up losing most of the Taliban leadership (as well as Bin Laden). So yeah, it's a waste at this point.
2012-12-03 11:40:49 AM
1 votes:
We've spent $4 trillion in Iraq and Afghanistan. Plus thousands killed and tens of thousands injured.
 
Displayed 133 of 133 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report