How did you fair on Tax day? This dumb liberal don't understand Economics 101. Are all Libs this dumb?
OT_______Tax Day
- Thread starter oldsports_
- Start date
Love the refund hounds. I just paid....what I consider an inordinate amount of taxes...that I knew was coming. And I still feel cheated. Dem /Con. They both leave me feeling like a signed a check for idiots.
Also. I hate celebs acting like their opinion means more than the avg truck driver
She was good for a nice set of tits a few decades ago, that’s about it. I bet she’s angry that people abusing welfare aren’t getting back $5K in refunds while people that work 80 hours a week owe $5K.
See, Trump is fair, he does not mind that Bernie gets a tax real also
lol what an idiot. $6 billion / 140 million tax payers = $42.86. Shamefull that Americans have decided to keep an extra $42, instead of giving the government an interest-free loan for a year. lol.
And Bernie thinks the tax plan needs to be changed so that the top 1% has to pay 50%. He is in the top 1% and he believes it so much that he paid the normal taxes this year when he could have donated 50% to the government without it being required. Just another hipocrite in the mold of all politicians.
Their opinions reach more people. Technically, I think that means their opinions matter more. Not to be confused with their opinions being better informed or more valid.
You are correct. The level of stupidity in this country seems to be growing by the day.
"If you want to raise taxes, why don't you just pay more on your own" is the dumbest argument on the face of the planet. Everyone should pay their fair share, not just those feeling altruistic. It is time we stop borrowing from our children, raise taxes/cut spending and at least TRY to balance the damn budget.
Agreed, but we have a lot of people out there who insist on telling the masses on what needs to be done, but not willing to do it themselves.
I don't think it is an actual argument more than just telling people to put up or shut up. The government being irresponsible with our money shouldn't be a reason to take more of our money. For shit's sake, how much money did they just spend on a bogus investigation? How much wasted money goes into the military? Flights across the world? Our tax money gets wasted on too much bullshit. The budget wasn't balanced and the debt was never decreased even with higher taxes. And who decides what is a fair share?
Are you talking about the Mueller investigation? That investigation turned a profit for the US due to seized money. Our military has led to an unprecedented era of world peace (
On a global scale relative to human history). Not sure what you mean by your abstract "flights across the world".
Not sure what any of that has to do with the fact we are stealing from future generations.
To answer your final question, us paying our fair share would entail my children not being responsible for our current government's spending. What we are doing now is immoral.
Because one person doing it wouldn't even be a drop in the bucket, it will take all of us. Use some logic.
If the investigation turned a profit, where does the money go? Honest question.
I am not knocking our military in the least. What I am saying is that they should have redirected funding already in the budget and cut waste first instead of increasing their budget. So much wasteful a d irresponsible spending there.
Saying things like we are stealing from our children and what we are doing now is immoral, really doesn't make sense. I am not saying that it isn't true, I just need more substance. Raising taxes causes loss revenue, lower wages and more unemployment. Raising it only on the wealthy is basically robbing Peter to pay Paul and it will ultimately lead to more of the wealthy leaving the country to go somewhere that they can keep their money. Which would work for some folks because they think that the rich are the problem and that them being gone is somehow a good thing for poor people.
I understand perfectly, and agreed. Doesn't change the fact people ask others to do things they are unwilling to do themselves.
Your argument makes no sense, he is obviously willing to pay more for taxes. I know this, because he has said he and everyone who make as much as he does should pay more taxes.
To start off with, raising taxes does NOT lead to decreased revenue. That is completely false and isn't historically accurate at all.
As for the seized money, I'm not sure where the money goes. I'm guessing it goes the general fund.
Finally, the rich paid much higher taxes when America was "great" according to the red-hatters. If the rich want to renounce their citizenship (you realize they would have to do this, right?) and immigrate to avoid taxes, they are unlikely to end up in a place nearly as nice unless they are planning on paying more taxes. Most of the filthy rich in America are filthy rich due to the opportunity and environment our country offers.
I don't believe you are right here. Higher corporate taxes lead to companies leaving the country and results in hundreds of workers without a job. Raising small business taxes leads to slower growth and lower wages. Also resulting in workers without jobs. Raising income taxes reduces disposable income which reduces sales and taxable income to many businesses. Less people working, less people spending money and less companies in the country all lead to lower revenue.
I'm always fascinated by the sympathy for millionaires. I'm an accountant, I'm in business, I understand finance and investing, I want to be filthy rich some day. I feel no guilt asking legitimate millionaires to fork over another 100 grand a year.
Hypothetical scenario:. All of the tax brackets stay the same, except the top bracket that's currently 37% kicking in at $500,000. (1 percenters make $480k+.)
If that top rate was bumped to 50%, a single person making $2M a year (this is basically the 1% of the 1%) would see a $195k increase in tax liability, ignoring any tax reducing strategies and state taxes. Instead of taking home $108k per month, the poor bastard only gets $92k per month.
We're up in arms because the 0.1% have to go from making slightly more than $100k to making slightly less than $100k PER MONTH?
Or are we mad about the dude making $800k per year who would see his monthly income drop $3k from $45k to $42k? I guess he only gets to have 6 luxury cars instead of 7?
Or are we mad about the 200 or so Conservative and Liberal 'elitists', making $50M a year, handing over an extra few milly?
We are talking about people living in [multiple] lavish houses (mansions in most cases), driving the most expensive cars, taking ridiculous vacations, eating at the finest restaurants, buying the coolest new tech stuff. None of this changes for them. They'll still pump the same amount of money into the economy. That's largely static because they're accustomed to a lifestyle they'll still be able to afford.
Where you'd see the change is likely in their investments. Their wealth will grow (a lot a lot) but not quite as fast. Their family will not want for much for generations. They'll work just as hard to make money as they did before, because that's the kind of animal you have to be to get to that income level.
There's no legitimate slippery slope argument to be made. This isn't Communism. If you think it is, you have a tenuous grasp on the concept, at best. So what gives?
Btw, this is an entirely separate argument from corporate tax rates and job creation. If you want to have that argument, that's a different thread.
Hypothetical scenario:. All of the tax brackets stay the same, except the top bracket that's currently 37% kicking in at $500,000. (1 percenters make $480k+.)
If that top rate was bumped to 50%, a single person making $2M a year (this is basically the 1% of the 1%) would see a $195k increase in tax liability, ignoring any tax reducing strategies and state taxes. Instead of taking home $108k per month, the poor bastard only gets $92k per month.
We're up in arms because the 0.1% have to go from making slightly more than $100k to making slightly less than $100k PER MONTH?
Or are we mad about the dude making $800k per year who would see his monthly income drop $3k from $45k to $42k? I guess he only gets to have 6 luxury cars instead of 7?
Or are we mad about the 200 or so Conservative and Liberal 'elitists', making $50M a year, handing over an extra few milly?
We are talking about people living in [multiple] lavish houses (mansions in most cases), driving the most expensive cars, taking ridiculous vacations, eating at the finest restaurants, buying the coolest new tech stuff. None of this changes for them. They'll still pump the same amount of money into the economy. That's largely static because they're accustomed to a lifestyle they'll still be able to afford.
Where you'd see the change is likely in their investments. Their wealth will grow (a lot a lot) but not quite as fast. Their family will not want for much for generations. They'll work just as hard to make money as they did before, because that's the kind of animal you have to be to get to that income level.
There's no legitimate slippery slope argument to be made. This isn't Communism. If you think it is, you have a tenuous grasp on the concept, at best. So what gives?
Btw, this is an entirely separate argument from corporate tax rates and job creation. If you want to have that argument, that's a different thread.
Not to mention the masses of illegals. Liberals want them here, so they can’t bitch when we have to pay for all their free shit.
It's not that I am sympathetic towards millionaires. And you have valid points. I am saying that raising taxes on the rich will not be a cure all for the government's irresponsible spending. It just gives them more money to be irresponsible with.
Yes. More examples of wasted money. We need to raise taxes, why? Because we have a busted budget and an increasing national debt. So what do we do? We politicize a migration crisis and take on burdens that affect the school systems that we say are overcrowded, increase crime and poverty in areas we say need more government assistance and place more burdens on taxpayers to house and feed these people when we have veterans and children of our own that are living in horrible conditions and a lot of them, homeless. So many ways for our government to save money without raising taxes.
I agree that the government is significantly more wasteful than it should be. I wasn't aiming that post at anybody in particular, btw.
This argument is so ignorant that it immediately flags the poster as a sympathetically stupid. It's the internet forum equivalent of a Calvin pissing on anything sticker/decal on your vehicle.
It's not that they're unwilliing to do it themselves, it's that there's a free rider/tragedy of the commons issue. Expecting people to act irrationally and against their self interest in order to even advocate for the common good is illogical. Celebrities make easy targets for scorn, often for good reason, but there's no reason to resort to what you agree is a stupid argument to get your licks in.
Every thread has potato potential when you have a board full of potatoes.
But they are willing to put up or shut up because they are willing, and indeed hoping, to pay more themselves; they're just not willing to allow you to free ride on their charity. In other words, they're acting completely rationally both in advocating for a shared contribution for the common good and in insisting that the burden be shared.
Sounds like we need less free riders trying to benefit off of others. Maybe we should describe them as what they are - piglets suckling on the charitable tits of their betters? Welfare queens? Karen who never includes her share of the tip on split checks? All despicable.
Cool story man!
Some people use it as a way to basically save 1900 dollars.
But you're so much smarter than everyone else so you already knew that.
The only part in here backed by facts or logic is your point about the military. You can't just claim that tax cuts = growth when even places like the Brookings Institute acknowledge that 1) it's very complicated, 2) cuts must be met with spending cuts to positively impact growth, and 3) even then it's uncertain:
Tax rate cuts may encourage individuals to work, save, and invest, but if the tax cuts are not financed by immediate spending cuts, they will likely also result in an increased federal budget deficit, which in the long-term will reduce national saving and raise interest rates. The net impact on growth is uncertain, but many estimates suggest it is either small or negative. Base-broadening measures can eliminate the effect of tax rate cuts on budget deficits, but at the same time, they reduce the impact on labor supply, saving, and investment and thus reduce the direct impact on growth. They may also reallocate resources across sectors toward their highest-value economic use, resulting in increased efficiency and potentially raising the overall size of the economy. Results in the literature suggest that not all tax changes will have the same impact on growth. Reforms that improve incentives, reduce existing distortionary subsidies, avoid windfall gains, and avoid deficit financing will have more auspicious effects on the long-term size of the economy, but may also create trade-offs between equity and efficiency.
. . .
We find that, while there is no doubt that tax policy can influence economic choices, it is by no means obvious, on an ex ante basis, that tax rate cuts will ultimately lead to a larger economy in the long run.
https://www.brookings.edu/research/effects-of-income-tax-changes-on-economic-growth/
And this only addresses the impact on GDP and not structural issues like wealth and income gaps, using taxes to influence choices made by individuals and businesses, and other second order effects (much less third order effects).
On your other comment, not this quoted one. I was only making a point, not suggesting that they should donate to the fed.
I will read your article later, certainly wouldn't hurt to be informed. This is not my area of expertise by a long shot. But I think a lot of what you are saying here is in line with my opinions on the government spending irresponsibly. I think that should be addressed before the idea of taking more money from its citizens. I am disappointed that it hasn't been addressed by Trump. He brags about how much money we are saving, but there hasn't been a lick cut out of the debt, it has gotten bigger. I think our government is so deep in party influences and special interests that it really won't matter who the president is when it comes to debt and spending.
Similar threads
