Hey guys, hundreds of thousands of people in the US are literally starving, but it's not a big deal because some inbred moron from Nebraska says it's not worth worrying about.
You people are chronically and painfully stupid.
Interesting tax proposal
- Thread starter Crazyhole
- Start date
Hey guys, hundreds of thousands of people in the US are literally starving, but it's not a big deal because some inbred moron from Nebraska says it's not worth worrying about.
You people are chronically and painfully stupid.
I guess it’s a good thing that conservatives actually donate to charities that feed families in poverty and volunteer their time to do so. Unlike you and the lefties here who think mindlessly complaining about Federal tax rates is somehow the determinant as to whether kids get a meal per day or not. Complaining about the government not doing something releases you from doing something yourself, it seems.
You keep posting this lie, no matter how many times I've disproven it.
You donate to "charities" that spend their money on huge monstrosity buildings and paying to settle cases where you and your kind molest children.
We donate to charities that actually help people in need. Feeding the hungry that crazy says don't exist. Doctors without borders. Foster homes.
I'm just naming one single service bub. There's an unlimited amount of individual situations out there.
honestly im not sure why its taken so long to implement this. normally thats the one thing gov is good at, taxing shit to death.
Let's make this simple: when you claimed that your own grandmother was "middle class" with $2M in savings and investments, you forfeited all future ability to talk about wealth or tax policy. Please stop talking out of your ass on things you don't understand. Your pathetic little repetition of stuff you've read on HuffPo or DailyKos combined with a pathetic personal attack on Sir G won't mask the fact that you're illiterate on these matters.
Sales tax is a state provenance. There were SCOTUS rulings (last one in 1992) that require the seller to have a physical presence in the state of sale in order for the state to be able to collect sales tax. There were a number of bills attempting to address this, but the questions seem to be (a) does the seller's state or the buyer's state collect the sales taxes and (b) how do we handle small businesses that would have a harder time competing with the volume seller's pricing?
Then in 2018, SCOTUS overturned their 1992 decision when they ruled against Wayfair and said South Dakota and the other 44 states with sales taxes could force online retailers to collect sales tax on transactions. Since then over 40 states have put legislation in place to do just this. Most of the states that have started collecting are saying they're reaping more revenue than expected. But you're left with every state doing things their own way; a situation that should be ripe for federal standardization. Unfortunately, I don't think there is anything in the works on that front right now (This isn't really my business area so I may have missed it).
Dude I'm a damn teacher.... I know what it's like to make 30's and bust your ass to do it. I know and work with plenty of people that work their damn ass off for 10 bucks an hour. Yes, it's easier to make money if you have some to start with, no shit - it also doesn't mean if you have money you're responsible for anyone else.
My school hands out 3 FREE (err... taxpayer funded.... but the kids don't have to pay at the end of the line) meals to every single kid in the school. Many schools in the area do the same.
That's awesome. Aren't taxes great, thanks @Sir Galahad, I hope you didn't take too big of a hit to make sure kids got food.
Eh, I don't argue against taxes. I argue against excessive taxes and treating people that have businesses (and generally pay people for work so they can take care of their families) like it's illegal to have money.
I never claimed to be from a middle class family you goon. I have no idea if I'm middle class or not. Maybe 3 or 4 years ago before I started my business I would have said I was middle class. I assume that's like 65k per year or something. I know I'm over middle class now by a little bit but that doesn't even really matter here.
I'm happy to pay my taxes. I'm not some dumb chud business owner who calls himself a self made man. I'm not a self made man. I'm a collection of experiences that I wouldn't have received if I was born in Compton. Do I work hard? Yes. Do any of you who have less than me work harder than I do? 100% without a doubt.
So why would I whine and bitch about taxes when I've been financially fortunate and will still be well off after I write my check each year. I hope my money makes it possible for a kid somewhere to have better experiences as a youth and allows them to snowball into even half of the success that I've been given.
This is a thread about a regressive tax rate. That means poor people who spend 80% of their income on living necessities pay the same dollar tax as rich people who spend 20% of their tax on living necessities.
Economists have long long ago done the math and a consumption tax hits poor people harder than rich people and it replaces property tax which is something that poor people typically don't pay at as high of a rate.
So it's not excessive taxation, its regressive taxation. It benefits the wealthy and it's easy for the dumb to understand so when it gets explained it sounds great but it's harms working class people.
This, other than the condescending attitude. I think a consumption tax could be a decent alternative but it can't exist on it's own, it has to be supplemented in a way that there is a hedge against it being regressive. That's why my preference would be a flat tax.
I
I met my wife when I was 35, I had to support my mother. There was no safety net for me. Stop projecting your experiences on others. I lived off of payday loan stores to pay doctor bill from my oldest son’s medical conditions when I was in my 20’s. I’ve grown very tired of people like you that depended on others to survive thinking you have some right to how I spend my earnings.
So you struggled until you met your wife? Interesting how that worked out. I don't know why you're arguing with me when it's clear I'm right.
I'm also not saying there's anything wrong with people having wealth. I don't feel like rich people are bad. They, for the most part played by the rules. I think the rules need updating. I have a problem when people say stuff like this:
The system clearly didn't penalize @Sir Galahad. He benefited greatly from the system. Why should he pay a dime more than people who are struggling to make medical payments like he was when he was in his 20s? Because americans can't all marry into wealth to change our struggle into success. There are people out there that didn't meet millionaire spouses in their 30s and they still struggle to make that medical bill and take care of their family.
So like I said earlier in this thread. Enjoy your boat, count your blessings, and pay your taxes.
The system clearly didn't penalize @Sir Galahad. He benefited greatly from the system. Why should he pay a dime more than people who are struggling to make medical payments like he was when he was in his 20s? Because americans can't all marry into wealth to change our struggle into success. There are people out there that didn't meet millionaire spouses in their 30s and they still struggle to make that medical bill and take care of their family.
So like I said earlier in this thread. Enjoy your boat, count your blessings, and pay your taxes.
What you’re really saying is that you see one person at one point in time who isn’t as successful as another person at the same point in time and so you want to redistribute wealth from the more successful to the less successful to equalize where they are at that point in time to make yourself feel better. All the rest is justification.
Because, your policies will care nothing for how someone got to the point they are at when you make the decision and they will do nothing to incentivize people to do the right things. You’re not going to exempt the first generation Cuban who came over on a raft, worked in kitchens and saved every penny until he could open his own restaurant and is now a millionaire from having to pay for the welfare of the trust fund kid that blew through everything in a year and can’t find a job with their liberal studies degree. You’re so wrapped up in fairness that you cannot see that your efforts to equalize are inherently unfair.
How do I know? Because we’re still having the same discussion after 50-60 years of progressives trying to solve the same problems with many of the same solutions. Throwing more money at the same policymakers seems like the definition of insanity.
Damn you’re dumb, can you do math? I struggled in my mid to late 20’s. Met my wife eight years later. As I said, stop projecting your failures on to others.
I know that you're insane and incoherent from your constant, daily hate and rage for the President, but you just wasted 3 paragraphs ranting about something I didn't even just say. I said that you insisted your grandmother was "middle class" with $2M in the bank. Not that you're middle class.
Not only is your viewpoint idiotic, you can't take 2 seconds to actually read what you're responding to. Probably because you're furiously reading through as many hot takes on DailyKos and Mother Jones as possible.
Yeah she was middle class. She worked at a steel mill her whole life and didn't have a college degree.
Isn't it wild how easy it used to be for people to become millionaires.
So you're still maintaining that someone with $2M in the bank is "middle class"?
I wouldn't say $2 million in the bank is middle class, but I think when you get up towards retirement age that $2 million in total assets isn't necessarily rich. Of course assets and what you have at your disposal in the bank are two different things. I would argue that $2 million is on the lower end of rich though, but I guess we all have our interpretations of rich.
Last edited:
Agreed. 2 million, best case scenario allows you to not worry about having a comfortable lifestyle and do things like take your kids/grandkids on vacation every few years. Worst case scenario, healthcare and longterm care costs burn through that in 5 years. You arent living in a mansion, eating lobster that your personal chef cooks and driving a Bentley.
Of course it would also depend on where you live. $2 million in NYC isn't the same thing as $2 million in Kansas.
You’re fuking delusional and unworthy of commenting on this subject
Here let me use facts to show how misguided this opinion is:
https://dqydj.com/retiree-net-worth-retiree-wealth-america/
Someone with a net worth - not cash - of $2M is in the Top 10% of all retirees in America. The average net worth of retirees in America is $260k. Not cash, just net worth. So your mark of $2M is basically 9x the average net worth of an American retiree at 65.
Do we all see how asinine Shook Chickens comment was now?
But again, it depends on how you define rich. I dont know that I would describe top 10% as rich. I would define rich as more towards the top 1%. I think there is a difference in well off and rich, but again, you might define it differently. But like Crazy said, a networth of $2 million, especially when you consider real estate and investments that arent that liquid so we are talking well less than $2 million in cash, can go pretty quick, especially with a major medical situation or something along those lines. When I think of rich I think of "money is no object" sort of thing, and I dont think $2 million that might very well need to last 15-20 years (or more) is a "money is no object" sort of situation.
Last edited:
I just provided you hard data showing that your definition of rich is irrefutably wrong. What don’t you get? Someone in the Top 10% of wealth in a particular segment is considered “rich”. Middle class would be considered anywhere from 30-60% of a median range at maximum.
"Rich" is pretty subjective. To me, rich means you can do pretty much anything you want without regard for expense. 2 million dollars is a lot of money but it can disappear pretty quickly, or in the case of a senior citizen gradually over 15 or less years if medical expenses creep up. I'd say 2 million for a 65 year old would be comfortable, not rich.
No you didnt, and "rich" has no standard definition. You are defining "rich" as the top 10%, and we just disagree on that being rich. Your chart shows the top 1% as over $12 million, that is a huge difference from the bottom of the 10% at about $2million.
I see no reason I wont have a networth of $2 million give or take when I retire (though circumstances can obviously change that) , and I certainly dont describe myself as rich. If I was worth $2 million or more now I might describe myself as rich, but I would also expect that to grow significantly by the time I retired. But again, this is just how you look at it, and we just have different views of what qualifies as being rich.
This is how I would look at it, I would even say well off more so than comfortable, but I agree, there is a difference in being well off and having enough money that you can do basically what you want without ever having to worry about finances. But as I said earlier, it also depends on where you live. A networth of $2 million in a low cost of living area is obviously a lot different than a networth of $2 million in NYC of SF or somewhere like that.
I would add that rich probably also would include a significant amount of passive income. For where I live, I would say that a person with 2 million in the bank that's bringing in 100k a year would be considered rich. Take that income away and I definitely wouldn't call it rich. My parents are learning that this year now that they're both retired. All of a sudden a few million in the bank as a backstop doesn't seem like quite as much money when there's no income coming in, plus the tax burden that finally caught up was a real eye opener. Farmers are the worst when it comes to gaming a depreciation schedule, thinking that they come out ahead but in the long run it just makes things worse.
It’s not hard to have a passive income of $100K IF you have $2MM in liquid assets. All it would take is a 5% return on your money. If you have social security, say $3,000 a month for $36K, all you need is 3% to 4% return. The hard part is getting $2MM liquid, very few people have that.
No, we have your opinion which is subjective (as you admitted) and we have hard, firm numbers on a defined distribution spread that carries a much different definition. You understand the difference right?
You saying you "feel" middle class with $2M in net worth at 65 years old doesn't change the fact that the distribution spread amongst retirees in this country actually puts you in the top 10% of all retirees and therefore...…...rich. The numbers that were just provided put the 50% percentile of retirees at the $230K in net worth mark.
Your opinion is subjective too, you realize that right? Your data doesn't define "rich", it simply breaks down numbers. You are defining rich as the top 10%, and that simply isn't how I define it. Regardless, this conversation has more than run its course, so we will just agree to disagree on what determines the standard of being rich.
Latest posts
-
Is there a disconnect between UCF and the regular fanbase?- Latest: PaxKnighticana
-
-
-
-