Posted by bad_luck on 6/9/2014 10:55:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 6/9/2014 10:33:00 PM (view original):
You don't see how the difference matters?  I'm not sure how I can explain it any more clearly than I already have.  You asking the same question over and over because you don't like the answer (I really don't believe that you "don't understand") is kind of pointless, because I'm just going to give you the same answers that you'll disregard.  How many more pages should we continue doing that?

You've suggested that we should add yet another tax bracket to the top, to tax the upper class at an even higher tax rate than they are currently paying, while not affecting anybody else, correct?  Because "they can afford it"?

Is that correct?

Tell me how "because they're rich and they can afford it" is "fair".

You've never answered, biz.

Look, obviously no one will go through all the trouble to revise the tax code if the result is the status quo. It's pointless to go to a flat tax to be more "fair" if everyone will still end up paying the same amount. That would just prove that the system was already fair.

So the tax burden is going to be shifted one way or the other. I'm asking you, which way do you think it should go?

When you answer that I'll answer any and all the questions that you have.

Posted by stinenavy on 6/10/2014 2:02:00 AM (view original):
HOW TO FIX AMERICA

1) Scrap every ******* bullshit loophole where millionaires don't pay ****. You get to pay 35%, not ******* 0% like the ******* NFL or Facebook or GE or whatever mother ******* are out are there. Only exceptions are you get $1500 rebate for every employee that got paid more than $30K for the year, but a limit of 100 employees total. Everyone can also get the mortgage interest claim thing, IF YOU LIVE IN THE HOME. **** your beach house. Everyone gets $1000 per kid on the Earned Income Credit, but a limit of 3. So you and your wife and kids can be the starters for the basketball team, but the 6th man isn't worth ****.

2) Unemployment. You get 3 months to figure out what the **** you're going to do after you got fired even though you thought you were the BESTEST employee ever. Go do whatever the you want, you might even want to you know, LOOK FOR A NEW JOB!!! Day #91, the GOV'MINT gets to find a job for you. They will find something at your skill level (CART PUSHER!) and get you interviews. You get offered a job, you have to take it, or the money is cut off. Shouldn't have wasted those 90 days, *******!

3) Drug policy! Stop locking up people for doing drugs. Guess what. REAGAN DRUG POLICY DIDN'T ******* WORK. We filled are prisons with small time drug losers. Money down the drain.

4) Government Spending. Oh great billions more for airplanes the military doesn't ******* want because the planes are being built in Representative Fucknuggets district. Oh look Louisiana/Florida/Mississippi got hit by hurricane. NO ONE COULD HAVE SEEN THAT COMING! As far as the military budget, just make like 100,000 more drones.

5) Medical Care. S-I-N-G-L-E P-A-Y-E-R     I know it'll be the downfall of the ******* country. Those people in Canada and the UK only live until they're like 12, but sacrifices must be made. I don't have time for your dumbshit arguments about how bad it will be. Health care costs are crazy. Oh and stop being so ******* fat. If you are fat, get healthier, or swamphawk yourself.

6) Immigration. Make everyone that's here a citizen ASAP. Yes they broke the law, that sucks, but there's zero chance of shipping everyone out, just make it so no one else comes in. Laser fence? Drones that shoot mace into their eyes. I don't ******* care.

7) Gun control. You can't do anything. Sorry libs.

8) Energy Policy. Every politician says the want an "All of the above approach". How about nuclear power? It's cheap and long lasting, other countries use it to perfection, but in America it's treated like trying to power the country through dog fighting.

AMERICA IS SAVED!

I'd also like to address the end of number 5.   "Oh and stop being so ******* fat. If you are fat, get healthier, or swamphawk yourself."

We're fat because kids are fat.  Back when I was a kid, you'd say "Hey, fatass, go eat another twinkie, you fat ****."   Now, if you do that, you'd be suspended 3 days for bullying.   Let kids be kids.   They'll call the fat kids "fat ****" and peer pressure will stop the fat kid from having a lunch of ice cream, cotton candy and a 44 oz Mountain Dew.   Then the 13 y/o girl in the belly shirt won't have a gut the size of a middle-aged man.

You're welcome.

 

Posted by burnsy483 on 6/9/2014 4:59:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 6/9/2014 4:54:00 PM (view original):

Posted by burnsy483 on 6/9/2014 4:09:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 6/9/2014 4:02:00 PM (view original):

Posted by burnsy483 on 6/9/2014 3:59:00 PM (view original):
Yea, tec's saying that raising the tax rate on the rich and lowering on the lower and middle class is a bad thing, but he's not really giving us what he wants.  The example he gives is actually a more extreme example of what I'm suggesting.

Raising the tax rate on the rich (and the rich alone) is a bad thing because there's no justification for it other than "they're rich, they can afford it".

You know, the class warfare thing that the left loves to push.

How is class warfare good for society?

The example you gave? Is a higher tax rate on the rich. Much higher, actually. It's great for the lower and middle class. You would strike that down immediately.

So what is it you're looking for?

Why are you saying I would "strike that down immediately"?

I've already stated what I'm looking for.  Something that's done fairly.

You want what's fair.  OK.  If I make exactly $75,000 this year, If I paid 0 dollars in taxes, and you make $150,000 and pay $45,000 in taxes, would you say that's fair?  You're generating a scenario that you call fair in which this happens.

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/10/2014 8:06:00 AM (view original):
Why is the tax burden going to be shifted?

Posted by tecwrg on 6/10/2014 7:03:00 AM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/9/2014 10:55:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 6/9/2014 10:33:00 PM (view original):
You don't see how the difference matters?  I'm not sure how I can explain it any more clearly than I already have.  You asking the same question over and over because you don't like the answer (I really don't believe that you "don't understand") is kind of pointless, because I'm just going to give you the same answers that you'll disregard.  How many more pages should we continue doing that?

You've suggested that we should add yet another tax bracket to the top, to tax the upper class at an even higher tax rate than they are currently paying, while not affecting anybody else, correct?  Because "they can afford it"?

Is that correct?

Tell me how "because they're rich and they can afford it" is "fair".

You've never answered, biz.

Look, obviously no one will go through all the trouble to revise the tax code if the result is the status quo. It's pointless to go to a flat tax to be more "fair" if everyone will still end up paying the same amount. That would just prove that the system was already fair.

So the tax burden is going to be shifted one way or the other. I'm asking you, which way do you think it should go?

When you answer that I'll answer any and all the questions that you have.

I've answered your question at least a half dozen times.  Stop pretending that I haven't.

I'm assuming that you're refusing to answer mine because you don't have an answer.  You just want to raise taxes on the rich because they're rich.

If that's the case, just admit it.  "I don't like rich people.  **** 'em".

Posted by bad_luck on 6/10/2014 9:17:00 AM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 6/10/2014 7:03:00 AM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/9/2014 10:55:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 6/9/2014 10:33:00 PM (view original):
You don't see how the difference matters?  I'm not sure how I can explain it any more clearly than I already have.  You asking the same question over and over because you don't like the answer (I really don't believe that you "don't understand") is kind of pointless, because I'm just going to give you the same answers that you'll disregard.  How many more pages should we continue doing that?

You've suggested that we should add yet another tax bracket to the top, to tax the upper class at an even higher tax rate than they are currently paying, while not affecting anybody else, correct?  Because "they can afford it"?

Is that correct?

Tell me how "because they're rich and they can afford it" is "fair".

You've never answered, biz.

Look, obviously no one will go through all the trouble to revise the tax code if the result is the status quo. It's pointless to go to a flat tax to be more "fair" if everyone will still end up paying the same amount. That would just prove that the system was already fair.

So the tax burden is going to be shifted one way or the other. I'm asking you, which way do you think it should go?

When you answer that I'll answer any and all the questions that you have.

I've answered your question at least a half dozen times.  Stop pretending that I haven't.

I'm assuming that you're refusing to answer mine because you don't have an answer.  You just want to raise taxes on the rich because they're rich.

If that's the case, just admit it.  "I don't like rich people.  **** 'em".

You've never answered. You've only dodged.

Posted by burnsy483 on 6/10/2014 9:10:00 AM (view original):

Posted by burnsy483 on 6/9/2014 4:59:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 6/9/2014 4:54:00 PM (view original):

Posted by burnsy483 on 6/9/2014 4:09:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 6/9/2014 4:02:00 PM (view original):

Posted by burnsy483 on 6/9/2014 3:59:00 PM (view original):
Yea, tec's saying that raising the tax rate on the rich and lowering on the lower and middle class is a bad thing, but he's not really giving us what he wants.  The example he gives is actually a more extreme example of what I'm suggesting.

Raising the tax rate on the rich (and the rich alone) is a bad thing because there's no justification for it other than "they're rich, they can afford it".

You know, the class warfare thing that the left loves to push.

How is class warfare good for society?

The example you gave? Is a higher tax rate on the rich. Much higher, actually. It's great for the lower and middle class. You would strike that down immediately.

So what is it you're looking for?

Why are you saying I would "strike that down immediately"?

I've already stated what I'm looking for.  Something that's done fairly.

You want what's fair.  OK.  If I make exactly $75,000 this year, If I paid 0 dollars in taxes, and you make $150,000 and pay $45,000 in taxes, would you say that's fair?  You're generating a scenario that you call fair in which this happens.

You missed this.

Posted by tecwrg on 6/9/2014 5:00:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/9/2014 4:10:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 6/9/2014 4:04:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/9/2014 3:56:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 6/9/2014 3:52:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/9/2014 3:42:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 6/9/2014 3:39:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/9/2014 3:30:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 6/9/2014 3:26:00 PM (view original):
That's not the goal.  A simplified and fair tax system is the goal. 

You're assuming that what you posted above is an inevitable consequence.  Not sure if that's necessarily the case.

Yes or no. Do you want the lower and middle to pay more and the upper class to pay less?

I just want the system to be fair, with equal rules for everybody.

Why do you think I have some sort of evil ulterior motive other than that one simple goal?

I don't think you have an ulterior motive. I'm asking what you think the result of your plan will be.

Will the dollars that the lower class pay in taxes go up or down?
Will the dollars that the middle class pay in taxes go up or down?
Will the dollars that the upper class pay in taxes go up or down?

What's the exemption number?  What's the tax rate?

Those two variables will determine whose taxes go up or down.

Let's play "what if".

The exemption is $75k.  The tax rate is 60%.

The guy making $75k or lower pays no income taxes.
The guy making $150k pays $45k in taxes (30% rate).
The guy making $1m pays $555k in taxes (55.5% rate).

Change the numbers, and you get drastically different results.

Somebody would have to model the numbers to come up with something that (a) keeps the revenue stream going, and (b) doesn't kill the middle/lower class.

Ok. So what do you want to happen?

Do you want the tax dollars paid by the lower class to stay the same, go up,or go down?
Middle class?
Upper class?

Again, you're assuming that I have some sort of "goal" that I want to achieve with respect to taxes going up for some and down for others.

I don't.  So I can't answer your question.

So you can stop asking.

So you're advocating for a plan but don't know what the effect will be? That's not very smart.

You do realize that if you put a flat tax into place, taxes will have to go up for some and down for others, right?

Otherwise, it's pointless.

You might be surprised to learn that I don't set laws and policies in this country.

Numbers would need to be crunched.  Models would need to be created and evaluated.  A lot of work would need to be done to determine the various combinations of exemption amounts and the tax rates that would make this plan work.  Then, and only then, would you be able to determine (a) the impact on the upper, middle and lower classes; and (b) if it's even feasible.

You just seem to want to dismiss it out of hand because it doesn't come with an automatic "hells yeah, **** the rich!" provision.