Don't like the snow? You can make a bookmark with the following text instead of a url: javascript:snowStorm.toggleSnow(). Clicking it will toggle the snow on and off.
Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

Forming a More Perfect Union

18182848687101

Posts

  • FearghaillFearghaill Midgard I hear some secret agents only get cars.Registered User regular
    Jasconius wrote: »
    that bar graph really isn't all that offensive to me, actually

    if you feel that paying for tax breaks primarily for the wealthy with massive cuts to programs that help the poor is totally okay I'm not sure what to say

  • JasconiusJasconius sword criminal Flo-ridaRegistered User regular
    hold up hold up


    you are telling me that someone making 950,000 will make 4% more after taxes (read the graph)

    and there will also be a total abolition of tax loopholes???

    send this man to a gas chamber immediately



    I will confess the actual budget that passed two weeks ago DOES keep certain tax subsidies in place, but that was because it needed to pass. Paul Ryan is on record as being in favor of abolishing all corporate subsidy (via ThinkProgress)

  • AneurhythmiaAneurhythmia Registered User regular
    Butters wrote: »
    Jasconius wrote: »
    Pharezon wrote: »
    Jasconius wrote: »
    MrMonroe wrote: »
    a nice person would have to not understand Ryan's proposal in order to see it another way

    would you be interested in sharing with the class exactly how Paul Ryan will destroy america?

    Killing the poor?

    Yeah but he's not really doing that.

    O415D.jpg

    Destroying SNAP, Pell, Medicaid and giving ye old Trickle Down Economics another try should qualify as voluntary manslaughter.

    Bush was able to collect record-high tax revenue after his cuts. It's not really about "Trickle Down Economics" its about trying to bolster economic growth which leads to more taxable income.

    So theoretically even if the rich is getting richer from tax cuts the fact that they get richer leads to them paying more in taxes.

    So, how does all that extra federal revenue help the people who've had their safety nets cut?

    1LRdqui.png
  • JasconiusJasconius sword criminal Flo-ridaRegistered User regular
    edited April 2012
    Butters wrote: »
    Jasconius wrote: »
    Pharezon wrote: »
    Jasconius wrote: »
    MrMonroe wrote: »
    a nice person would have to not understand Ryan's proposal in order to see it another way

    would you be interested in sharing with the class exactly how Paul Ryan will destroy america?

    Killing the poor?

    Yeah but he's not really doing that.

    O415D.jpg

    Destroying SNAP, Pell, Medicaid and giving ye old Trickle Down Economics another try should qualify as voluntary manslaughter.

    Bush was able to collect record-high tax revenue after his cuts. It's not really about "Trickle Down Economics" its about trying to bolster economic growth which leads to more taxable income.

    So theoretically even if the rich is getting richer from tax cuts the fact that they get richer leads to them paying more in taxes.

    So, how does all that extra federal revenue help the people who've had their safety nets cut?

    yeah, how DID poor people survive before pell grants

    answer THAT, Butters

    Jasconius on
  • AneurhythmiaAneurhythmia Registered User regular
    Jasconius wrote: »
    Butters wrote: »
    Jasconius wrote: »
    Pharezon wrote: »
    Jasconius wrote: »
    MrMonroe wrote: »
    a nice person would have to not understand Ryan's proposal in order to see it another way

    would you be interested in sharing with the class exactly how Paul Ryan will destroy america?

    Killing the poor?

    Yeah but he's not really doing that.

    O415D.jpg

    Destroying SNAP, Pell, Medicaid and giving ye old Trickle Down Economics another try should qualify as voluntary manslaughter.

    Bush was able to collect record-high tax revenue after his cuts. It's not really about "Trickle Down Economics" its about trying to bolster economic growth which leads to more taxable income.

    So theoretically even if the rich is getting richer from tax cuts the fact that they get richer leads to them paying more in taxes.

    So, how does all that extra federal revenue help the people who've had their safety nets cut?

    yeah, how DID poor people survive before pell grants

    answer THAT, Butters

    Protip: a lot of poor people die as a direct result of economic condition. For real. Dead.

    1LRdqui.png
  • ButtersButters A glass of some milks Registered User regular
    Butters wrote: »
    Jasconius wrote: »
    Pharezon wrote: »
    Jasconius wrote: »
    MrMonroe wrote: »
    a nice person would have to not understand Ryan's proposal in order to see it another way

    would you be interested in sharing with the class exactly how Paul Ryan will destroy america?

    Killing the poor?

    Yeah but he's not really doing that.

    O415D.jpg

    Destroying SNAP, Pell, Medicaid and giving ye old Trickle Down Economics another try should qualify as voluntary manslaughter.

    Bush was able to collect record-high tax revenue after his cuts. It's not really about "Trickle Down Economics" its about trying to bolster economic growth which leads to more taxable income.

    So theoretically even if the rich is getting richer from tax cuts the fact that they get richer leads to them paying more in taxes.

    So, how does all that extra federal revenue help the people who've had their safety nets cut?

    Notice that I did not specifically mention and thus did not support those specific cuts. I'm just clarifying the intent of top-heavy tax cuts and pointing out that ratio of tax rates to tax revenue isn't linear. There are many other factors that effect revenue.

    League of Legends: Lamby Cakes | XBox Live: Jon Butters
  • HunterHunter Chemist with a heart of Au Registered User regular
    Jasconius wrote: »
    hold up hold up


    you are telling me that someone making 950,000 will make 4% more after taxes (read the graph)

    and there will also be a total abolition of tax loopholes???

    send this man to a gas chamber immediately



    I will confess the actual budget that passed two weeks ago DOES keep certain tax subsidies in place, but that was because it needed to pass. Paul Ryan is on record as being in favor of abolishing all corporate subsidy (via ThinkProgress)

    You do realize that the largest group of taxpayers around the median income in the US will only make like 2% more after taxes. They get 1/2 as much 'tax relief' even though by sheer numbers there are a fuckton more of them. They also make about 1/10 of the income of those getting 4% more after taxes.

    So basically the rich get richer. The middle class carries the burden. The poor are there to scare the shit out of the middle class so they keep showing up to those jobs and accepting the lower pay and shittier benefits.

  • AneurhythmiaAneurhythmia Registered User regular
    Butters wrote: »
    Butters wrote: »
    Jasconius wrote: »
    Pharezon wrote: »
    Jasconius wrote: »
    MrMonroe wrote: »
    a nice person would have to not understand Ryan's proposal in order to see it another way

    would you be interested in sharing with the class exactly how Paul Ryan will destroy america?

    Killing the poor?

    Yeah but he's not really doing that.

    O415D.jpg

    Destroying SNAP, Pell, Medicaid and giving ye old Trickle Down Economics another try should qualify as voluntary manslaughter.

    Bush was able to collect record-high tax revenue after his cuts. It's not really about "Trickle Down Economics" its about trying to bolster economic growth which leads to more taxable income.

    So theoretically even if the rich is getting richer from tax cuts the fact that they get richer leads to them paying more in taxes.

    So, how does all that extra federal revenue help the people who've had their safety nets cut?

    Notice that I did not specifically mention and thus did not support those specific cuts. I'm just clarifying the intent of top-heavy tax cuts and pointing out that ratio of tax rates to tax revenue isn't linear. There are many other factors that effect revenue.

    Oh, well, I got that, but you responded to a quote tree about the negative effects of the tax cuts on lower classes. There were other posts about whether or not the budget would actually be effective for managing federal deficits or whatever that you probs should have quoted instead.

    1LRdqui.png
  • JasconiusJasconius sword criminal Flo-ridaRegistered User regular
    Hunter wrote: »
    Jasconius wrote: »
    hold up hold up


    you are telling me that someone making 950,000 will make 4% more after taxes (read the graph)

    and there will also be a total abolition of tax loopholes???

    send this man to a gas chamber immediately



    I will confess the actual budget that passed two weeks ago DOES keep certain tax subsidies in place, but that was because it needed to pass. Paul Ryan is on record as being in favor of abolishing all corporate subsidy (via ThinkProgress)

    You do realize that the largest group of taxpayers around the median income in the US will only make like 2% more after taxes. They get 1/2 as much 'tax relief' even though by sheer numbers there are a fuckton more of them. They also make about 1/10 of the income of those getting 4% more after taxes.

    So basically the rich get richer. The middle class carries the burden. The poor are there to scare the shit out of the middle class so they keep showing up to those jobs and accepting the lower pay and shittier benefits.

    that's a great george carlin outlook on sovereign finance

  • mensch-o-maticmensch-o-matic Registered User regular
    d

    did jasc really say that pell grants arent a big deal as long as the govt has more money

    what do you think the govt does with money, if not support people trying to survive and better themselves

  • HunterHunter Chemist with a heart of Au Registered User regular
    Jasconius wrote: »
    Hunter wrote: »
    Jasconius wrote: »
    hold up hold up


    you are telling me that someone making 950,000 will make 4% more after taxes (read the graph)

    and there will also be a total abolition of tax loopholes???

    send this man to a gas chamber immediately



    I will confess the actual budget that passed two weeks ago DOES keep certain tax subsidies in place, but that was because it needed to pass. Paul Ryan is on record as being in favor of abolishing all corporate subsidy (via ThinkProgress)

    You do realize that the largest group of taxpayers around the median income in the US will only make like 2% more after taxes. They get 1/2 as much 'tax relief' even though by sheer numbers there are a fuckton more of them. They also make about 1/10 of the income of those getting 4% more after taxes.

    So basically the rich get richer. The middle class carries the burden. The poor are there to scare the shit out of the middle class so they keep showing up to those jobs and accepting the lower pay and shittier benefits.

    that's a great george carlin outlook on sovereign finance

    It's also supported by empirical evidence. Income gaps are wider than ever, middle class people have less and less disposable income, which means they can't buy as many [insert consumer goods and services]. Which means those businesses make less money because sales are down. Which leads to them reducing man hours. Which means job loss. Which leads to less money.

    Keep cutting taxes for the rich though. Eventually they'll have so much money that they'll drop some of it and it may fall down from their ivory towers and trickle onto the masses below.

  • JasconiusJasconius sword criminal Flo-ridaRegistered User regular
    Guys here's how we help poor people



    Let's bankrupt social security in a couple decades by defaulting on the 2 trillion in bonds it holds because we can't afford to pay them out

    DONT YOU SEE

    it's BRILLIANT


    the poor people will appreciate that we obscured the demise of their safety net with clever accounting, rather than act to solve the problem ahead of time


    it works on so many levels

  • ButtersButters A glass of some milks Registered User regular
    edited April 2012
    Butters wrote: »
    Butters wrote: »
    Jasconius wrote: »
    Pharezon wrote: »
    Jasconius wrote: »
    MrMonroe wrote: »
    a nice person would have to not understand Ryan's proposal in order to see it another way

    would you be interested in sharing with the class exactly how Paul Ryan will destroy america?

    Killing the poor?

    Yeah but he's not really doing that.

    O415D.jpg

    Destroying SNAP, Pell, Medicaid and giving ye old Trickle Down Economics another try should qualify as voluntary manslaughter.

    Bush was able to collect record-high tax revenue after his cuts. It's not really about "Trickle Down Economics" its about trying to bolster economic growth which leads to more taxable income.

    So theoretically even if the rich is getting richer from tax cuts the fact that they get richer leads to them paying more in taxes.

    So, how does all that extra federal revenue help the people who've had their safety nets cut?

    Notice that I did not specifically mention and thus did not support those specific cuts. I'm just clarifying the intent of top-heavy tax cuts and pointing out that ratio of tax rates to tax revenue isn't linear. There are many other factors that effect revenue.

    Oh, well, I got that, but you responded to a quote tree about the negative effects of the tax cuts on lower classes. There were other posts about whether or not the budget would actually be effective for managing federal deficits or whatever that you probs should have quoted instead.

    I don't see anything wrong with my choice of quote tree. The monkey guy mentioned "Trickle Down" theory and I explained that's not the philosophy behind the tax cuts in a direct reply by quoting his post.
    Spoiler:

    Butters on
    League of Legends: Lamby Cakes | XBox Live: Jon Butters
  • ButtlordButtlord Fornicus Lord of Bondage and PainRegistered User regular
    Jasconius wrote: »
    Guys here's how we help poor people



    Let's bankrupt social security in a couple decades by defaulting on the 2 trillion in bonds it holds because we can't afford to pay them out

    DONT YOU SEE

    it's BRILLIANT


    the poor people will appreciate that we obscured the demise of their safety net with clever accounting, rather than act to solve the problem ahead of time


    it works on so many levels

    clearly the answer is to just destroy the safety net now instead of waiting

    4si81Yt.png
    http://comicschat.tumblr.com/ - Buttlord Chats about Comics
  • Metzger MeisterMetzger Meister Registered User regular
    edited April 2012
    seriously though, fuck the wealthy.

    edit: usually they're pretty old and then when they die, who gets the yacht and the ski chateau in Vale?

    you do, you clever duck.

    Metzger Meister on
    www.facebook.com/itgetsworseska
    Spoiler:
  • LanglyLangly Registered User regular
    Jasconius wrote: »
    Butters wrote: »
    Jasconius wrote: »
    Pharezon wrote: »
    Jasconius wrote: »
    MrMonroe wrote: »
    a nice person would have to not understand Ryan's proposal in order to see it another way

    would you be interested in sharing with the class exactly how Paul Ryan will destroy america?

    Killing the poor?

    Yeah but he's not really doing that.

    O415D.jpg

    Destroying SNAP, Pell, Medicaid and giving ye old Trickle Down Economics another try should qualify as voluntary manslaughter.

    Bush was able to collect record-high tax revenue after his cuts. It's not really about "Trickle Down Economics" its about trying to bolster economic growth which leads to more taxable income.

    So theoretically even if the rich is getting richer from tax cuts the fact that they get richer leads to them paying more in taxes.

    So, how does all that extra federal revenue help the people who've had their safety nets cut?

    yeah, how DID poor people survive before pell grants

    answer THAT, Butters

    they survived without access to a college education.

  • FandyienFandyien But Otto, what about us? Registered User regular
    in my experience the only people who are in favor of not taxing the rich more are people with rich families or people deluded enough to think they, one day, will be rich (most americans)

    like once i tried to explain why i think we need more significant estate taxes and the only argument i could heard in favor of no estate tax was "but then my parents would give me less money"

    reposig.jpg
  • ButtersButters A glass of some milks Registered User regular
    edited April 2012
    Fandyien wrote: »
    in my experience the only people who are in favor of not taxing the rich more are people with rich families or people deluded enough to think they, one day, will be rich (most americans)

    like once i tried to explain why i think we need more significant estate taxes and the only argument i could heard in favor of no estate tax was "but then my parents would give me less money"

    Then you need to find more people to have more intelligent conversations with. Though I personally don't have a problem with estate taxes there are perfectly logical arguments to be made against them.

    Butters on
    League of Legends: Lamby Cakes | XBox Live: Jon Butters
  • HunterHunter Chemist with a heart of Au Registered User regular
    Fandyien wrote: »
    in my experience the only people who are in favor of not taxing the rich more are people with rich families or people deluded enough to think they, one day, will be rich (most americans)

    like once i tried to explain why i think we need more significant estate taxes and the only argument i could heard in favor of no estate tax was "but then my parents would give me less money"

    Gladiatorial games should decide who earns an estate, not bloodlines or wills. That would fix everything, including TV.

  • HunterHunter Chemist with a heart of Au Registered User regular
    Butters wrote: »
    Fandyien wrote: »
    in my experience the only people who are in favor of not taxing the rich more are people with rich families or people deluded enough to think they, one day, will be rich (most americans)

    like once i tried to explain why i think we need more significant estate taxes and the only argument i could heard in favor of no estate tax was "but then my parents would give me less money"

    Then you need to find more people to have more intelligent conversations with. Though I personally don't have a problem with estate taxes there are perfectly logical arguments to be made against them.

    The only argument needed to be pro estate taxes is Paris Hilton.

    There's no reason she should benefit in any way at all in life, especially if it's only because of a cosmic coincidence she was born into that family.

  • LuvTheMonkeyLuvTheMonkey High Sierra Serenade Registered User regular
    Butters wrote: »
    Jasconius wrote: »
    Pharezon wrote: »
    Jasconius wrote: »
    MrMonroe wrote: »
    a nice person would have to not understand Ryan's proposal in order to see it another way

    would you be interested in sharing with the class exactly how Paul Ryan will destroy america?

    Killing the poor?

    Yeah but he's not really doing that.

    O415D.jpg

    Destroying SNAP, Pell, Medicaid and giving ye old Trickle Down Economics another try should qualify as voluntary manslaughter.

    Bush was able to collect record-high tax revenue after his cuts. It's not really about "Trickle Down Economics" its about trying to bolster economic growth which leads to more taxable income.

    So theoretically even if the rich is getting richer from tax cuts the fact that they get richer leads to them paying more in taxes.

    Yes yes the Laffer curve. OH WAIT.

    Tax revenues off by $35 billion in FY 2001 vs 2000.

    Tax revenues off by $138 billion in FY 2002 vs 2001

    Tax revenues of by $71 billion in FY 2003 vs 2002

    The majority of those decreases can be directly linked with Bush's 2001 tax cuts.

    Molten variables hiss and roar. On my mind-forge, I hammer them into the greatsword Epistemology. Many are my foes this night.
    STEAM | GW2: Thalys
  • JasconiusJasconius sword criminal Flo-ridaRegistered User regular
    The estate tax threshold, like most arcane thresholds, needs to be increased, but conceptually I'm fine with it.


    But I think people need to let go of this fantasy where the rich will pay an exact proportionate share of the total tax revenue of the united states, or even close to it

    and especially get rid of the fantasy that any intermediate failure to achieve that ideal is akin to the slaughter of the lower class

  • ButtlordButtlord Fornicus Lord of Bondage and PainRegistered User regular
    Hunter wrote: »
    Fandyien wrote: »
    in my experience the only people who are in favor of not taxing the rich more are people with rich families or people deluded enough to think they, one day, will be rich (most americans)

    like once i tried to explain why i think we need more significant estate taxes and the only argument i could heard in favor of no estate tax was "but then my parents would give me less money"

    Gladiatorial games should decide who earns an estate, not bloodlines or wills. That would fix everything, including TV.

    i think the presidential election should be determined by either gladiator combat or a literal race, Wacky Races style

    obama and biden in a jalopy racing down the backroads of yennessee is a good image

    4si81Yt.png
    http://comicschat.tumblr.com/ - Buttlord Chats about Comics
  • Metzger MeisterMetzger Meister Registered User regular
    the burden of paying higher taxes SHOULD fall on the rich, and it should fall on 'em a hell of a lot fucking harder than it does. fuck 'em, they can afford it.

    www.facebook.com/itgetsworseska
    Spoiler:
  • HunterHunter Chemist with a heart of Au Registered User regular
    Buttlord wrote: »
    Hunter wrote: »
    Fandyien wrote: »
    in my experience the only people who are in favor of not taxing the rich more are people with rich families or people deluded enough to think they, one day, will be rich (most americans)

    like once i tried to explain why i think we need more significant estate taxes and the only argument i could heard in favor of no estate tax was "but then my parents would give me less money"

    Gladiatorial games should decide who earns an estate, not bloodlines or wills. That would fix everything, including TV.

    i think the presidential election should be determined by either gladiator combat or a literal race, Wacky Races style

    obama and biden in a jalopy racing down the backroads of yennessee is a good image

    First presidential candidate with their choice of VP that eats 100 hard boiled eggs between the two of them wins the executive branch for 4 years. GO!

  • JasconiusJasconius sword criminal Flo-ridaRegistered User regular
    the burden of paying higher taxes SHOULD fall on the rich, and it should fall on 'em a hell of a lot fucking harder than it does. fuck 'em, they can afford it.

    yeah, like... totally dude

  • MysstMysst King Monkey of Hedonism IslandRegistered User regular
    I love the argument 'well if you have to pay more, why would anyone want to try and be rich?'

    cause you'd still be rich, dummy

  • ButtlordButtlord Fornicus Lord of Bondage and PainRegistered User regular
    Hunter wrote: »
    Buttlord wrote: »
    Hunter wrote: »
    Fandyien wrote: »
    in my experience the only people who are in favor of not taxing the rich more are people with rich families or people deluded enough to think they, one day, will be rich (most americans)

    like once i tried to explain why i think we need more significant estate taxes and the only argument i could heard in favor of no estate tax was "but then my parents would give me less money"

    Gladiatorial games should decide who earns an estate, not bloodlines or wills. That would fix everything, including TV.

    i think the presidential election should be determined by either gladiator combat or a literal race, Wacky Races style

    obama and biden in a jalopy racing down the backroads of yennessee is a good image

    First presidential candidate with their choice of VP that eats 100 hard boiled eggs between the two of them wins the executive branch for 4 years. GO!

    make it a hot-dog eating contest

    4si81Yt.png
    http://comicschat.tumblr.com/ - Buttlord Chats about Comics
  • ButtlordButtlord Fornicus Lord of Bondage and PainRegistered User regular
    Jasconius wrote: »
    the burden of paying higher taxes SHOULD fall on the rich, and it should fall on 'em a hell of a lot fucking harder than it does. fuck 'em, they can afford it.

    yeah, like... totally dude

    a sterling rebuttal from a guy who doesn't relaly have a problem with ron paul

    4si81Yt.png
    http://comicschat.tumblr.com/ - Buttlord Chats about Comics
  • PiptheFairPiptheFair Registered User regular
    Pretty sure Israel wouldn't need our help killin Ay-rabs.

    iran isn't fucking arabic

    STEAM
    Spoiler:
  • Metzger MeisterMetzger Meister Registered User regular
    PiptheFair wrote: »
    Pretty sure Israel wouldn't need our help killin Ay-rabs.

    iran isn't fucking arabic

    i was speaking facetiously :(

    www.facebook.com/itgetsworseska
    Spoiler:
  • HunterHunter Chemist with a heart of Au Registered User regular
    the burden of paying higher taxes SHOULD fall on the rich, and it should fall on 'em a hell of a lot fucking harder than it does. fuck 'em, they can afford it.

    The rich should not pay higher taxes, they should pay proportional taxes. The issue is the types of ways the super rich make money and hold their money is far different than your average middle class wage earner. That's where % of total income vs total dollars payed in taxes comes into play.

  • JasconiusJasconius sword criminal Flo-ridaRegistered User regular
    edited April 2012
    most of the real tax crime, the real moral and ethical damage re: taxes in this country is not perpetrated by individual rich citizens

    it's done by corporations who use the US tax code to their advantage

    GE, Exxon, etc, etc... companies who make massive profits and pay literally zero taxes for a variety of tax code/subsidy reasons (every time you see one of those Exxon biofuel commercials, just picture a poor person being kicked in the face)

    Exxon doing business under the total safety of the United States and paying zero taxes hurts a lot more than someone who cashed out on google stock paying 100k in taxes instead of 110k.

    Jasconius on
  • MaximumMaximum Registered User regular
    Mysst wrote: »
    I love the argument 'well if you have to pay more, why would anyone want to try and be rich?'

    cause you'd still be rich, dummy

    My dumbshit mother turned down a promotion at her work. Why?, I asked.

    "Because it would just put me in a higher tax bracket"...seriously?

    Her dumbshit boyfriend is refusing to sell his mineral rights in West Virginia because he'd have to pay taxes on them, leaving him only a couple hundred dollars in profit and he's fucking unemployed.

    Long story short, I am surrounded by idiots.

  • PharezonPharezon Struggle is an illusion. Victory is in the Qun.Registered User regular
    PiptheFair wrote: »
    Pretty sure Israel wouldn't need our help killin Ay-rabs.

    iran isn't fucking arabic

    lmao you took this at face value

    jkZziGc.png
  • PiptheFairPiptheFair Registered User regular
    Buttlord wrote: »
    Jasconius wrote: »
    the burden of paying higher taxes SHOULD fall on the rich, and it should fall on 'em a hell of a lot fucking harder than it does. fuck 'em, they can afford it.

    yeah, like... totally dude

    a sterling rebuttal from a guy who doesn't relaly have a problem with ron paul

    what

    pretty sure he does

    and YEAH TAX THE RICH A LOT MORE is not exactly a solid argument either?

    the proposed tax cuts are fucking awful though

    STEAM
    Spoiler:
  • ButtersButters A glass of some milks Registered User regular
    Butters wrote: »
    Jasconius wrote: »
    Pharezon wrote: »
    Jasconius wrote: »
    MrMonroe wrote: »
    a nice person would have to not understand Ryan's proposal in order to see it another way

    would you be interested in sharing with the class exactly how Paul Ryan will destroy america?

    Killing the poor?

    Yeah but he's not really doing that.

    O415D.jpg

    Destroying SNAP, Pell, Medicaid and giving ye old Trickle Down Economics another try should qualify as voluntary manslaughter.

    Bush was able to collect record-high tax revenue after his cuts. It's not really about "Trickle Down Economics" its about trying to bolster economic growth which leads to more taxable income.

    So theoretically even if the rich is getting richer from tax cuts the fact that they get richer leads to them paying more in taxes.

    Yes yes the Laffer curve. OH WAIT.

    Tax revenues off by $35 billion in FY 2001 vs 2000.

    Tax revenues off by $138 billion in FY 2002 vs 2001

    Tax revenues of by $71 billion in FY 2003 vs 2002

    The majority of those decreases can be directly linked with Bush's 2001 tax cuts.

    We were still suffering from a recession from 2000 to 2003 that started on Clinton's watch. You're pretty smug for someone with a tenuous grasp of economics.

    League of Legends: Lamby Cakes | XBox Live: Jon Butters
  • PiptheFairPiptheFair Registered User regular
    Pharezon wrote: »
    PiptheFair wrote: »
    Pretty sure Israel wouldn't need our help killin Ay-rabs.

    iran isn't fucking arabic

    lmao you took this at face value

    with metz?

    yeah

    STEAM
    Spoiler:
  • PiptheFairPiptheFair Registered User regular
    Maximum wrote: »
    Mysst wrote: »
    I love the argument 'well if you have to pay more, why would anyone want to try and be rich?'

    cause you'd still be rich, dummy

    My dumbshit mother turned down a promotion at her work. Why?, I asked.

    "Because it would just put me in a higher tax bracket"...seriously?

    Her dumbshit boyfriend is refusing to sell his mineral rights in West Virginia because he'd have to pay taxes on them, leaving him only a couple hundred dollars in profit and he's fucking unemployed.

    Long story short, I am surrounded by idiots.

    yo, in these situations where you are on the cusp of an income bracket, it is actually possible to make less money after taxes by taking a raise

    plz to be learning about taxes tia

    STEAM
    Spoiler:
  • LuvTheMonkeyLuvTheMonkey High Sierra Serenade Registered User regular
    That I can mostly agree with Jasconius.

    I think the tax rate on the richest individual brackets is way too low (lowest since 1925), but corporate taxes are another clusterfuck that needs dealt with.

    Molten variables hiss and roar. On my mind-forge, I hammer them into the greatsword Epistemology. Many are my foes this night.
    STEAM | GW2: Thalys
This discussion has been closed.