Dean's tax plan

Chmee · Post by **Chmee** » January 3, 2004, 11:27 am

Stephen Moore has some comments on Dean's proposed tax plan.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial ... =110004500

One example.

Let's look at real-life examples of what the Dean tax might mean for you. Under current law, a married couple with one child and a $40,000-a-year income pays income taxes of $1,503. Under the Dean tax, that family would pay $2,935--or just about double. For a family with two kids and an income of $80,000 a year, the extra Dean tax costs $1,780 a year. What Mr. Dean has never had to answer to in the Democratic primary, perhaps because the other candidates are too embarrassed to ask, is how a presidential contender whose campaign is dedicated to relieving the economic squeeze on working class families, believes that socking these folks with a $1,400- to $1,800-a-year tax hike will make their financial situation less stressful.

Vetiria · Post by **Vetiria** » January 3, 2004, 12:38 pm

Well how would Stephen Moore get rid of the $600 billion deficit Bush has put the country into?

Zaelath · Post by **Zaelath** » January 3, 2004, 1:22 pm

The problem I see with the plan is it hits the bottom the hardest, as always. The lowest tax rate jumps by 50%, and the highest rate jumps 13%.

The trouble is, most of the tax to be collected is on the bottom end anyway, any increase here nets the most money. Also, even those not in the 35% tax bracket would be too happy to see if go to 52.5% to keep pace with the increase at the bottom.

Regardless, the tax plan is only one side of the budget. I personally wouldn't have a problem paying more tax if I at least thought they intended to piss less of it away on the other end.

Siji · Post by **Siji** » January 3, 2004, 2:01 pm

Vetiria wrote:Well how would Stephen Moore get rid of the $600 billion deficit Bush has put the country into?

How about actually taxing the people and companies that make the most money in this country for a change...

Krimson Klaw · Post by **Krimson Klaw** » January 3, 2004, 2:35 pm

Um, they already do. The top 50% of wage earners pay 96% of income taxes.

Zaelath · Post by **Zaelath** » January 3, 2004, 4:17 pm

Krimson Klaw wrote:Um, they already do. The top 50% of wage earners pay 96% of income taxes.

Ummm, what? Sources please.

Krimson Klaw · Post by **Krimson Klaw** » January 3, 2004, 4:26 pm

IRS excel spreadsheet @rushlimbaugh.com

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/menu/i ... guest.html

The numbers speak for themselves.

and

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/menu/t ... guest.html

and from the irs site.

http://www.irs.ustreas.gov/pub/irs-soi/01in01ts.xls

Chmee · Post by **Chmee** » January 3, 2004, 4:57 pm

Even more strikingly, the top 1 percent pay 33 percent of all taxes, and the top 5 percent pays over half (53.25 percent)

Zaelath · Post by **Zaelath** » January 3, 2004, 6:08 pm

It's an interesting chart, but somewhat skewed. The person paying little to no income tax, because their income is too low, pays a much higher (personal) percentage of tax in sales taxes, and duties (like car taxes).

Krimson Klaw · Post by **Krimson Klaw** » January 3, 2004, 6:25 pm

It's really not. basically the rich pay the majority of taxes, even though a lower incomed person may personally pay a higher percentage is just another argument in itself. With those numbers, it could actually be justification to lower taxes for the lower income families since they barely make a scratch in the total pool of taxes anyway.

Zaelath · Post by **Zaelath** » January 3, 2004, 6:54 pm

Yes, but a goodly proportion of the bottom 50% would be kids with summer jobs that make more than 2k/year, etc.

I would be really interesting (given the average tax rate on that 50% was like 16.8% (edit: looked it up again)) to see what the expected revenue increases would be for each bracket at the suggested rates.

Chidoro · Post by **Chidoro** » January 3, 2004, 7:39 pm

Krimson Klaw wrote:Um, they already do. The top 50% of wage earners pay 96% of income taxes.

What about the companies?

I didn't check the link because anything from Rush's site is sure to stink like shit but does it say what the wage level is at that 50% mark? I'd be curious to see if the annual wages that fall in the lower 50% cap at $20 or $25k or something along those lines. I'd also be curious to see whether or not homemakers are included as $0 wage earners to skew his shit agenda.

Seriously, I'm w/ Zae on this one, I don't mind paying more taxes if I'm not watching it get pissed away via lucrative business w/ government contracts. Problem is, that's what happens. In Bush's case, well, he still does it but pisses away our future in the process.

Krimson Klaw · Post by **Krimson Klaw** » January 3, 2004, 8:06 pm

To your first question, yes, it's the third link I made, comes from the IRS site.

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » January 3, 2004, 10:23 pm

That chart includes every single person in the US who filed a tax return. Including paperboys, summer job lawnmower jockies and senior citizens. The rich have never paid their fair share in taxes since income tax was invented. Of course Limbaugh isn't going to tell you that because he needs all teh cash he get get his chubby hands on for buying illegal drugs and lying about it.

Bush unveiled his re-election tax plan today that pretty much rapes every domestic spending policy he possibly can without losing important votes while continuing to sink billions into his corporate buddy's bank accounts at the expense of the taxpayers. Franky Dean could announce a tax and spending plan that would involve burning 20 dollar bills for heat in federal buildings and it would look more appealing to the average right thinking american that doesn't fucking quote opinion journal.

Pherr the Dorf · Post by **Pherr the Dorf** » January 3, 2004, 10:48 pm

Chmee wrote:Even more strikingly, the top 1 percent pay 33 percent of all taxes, and the top 5 percent pays over half (53.25 percent)

Ok boys and girls, the top 5% control what percentage of the wealth in the good ole USA? Anyone... Bueller, Bueller....

Chmee · Post by **Chmee** » January 3, 2004, 11:24 pm

Pherr the Dorf wrote:
Chmee wrote:Even more strikingly, the top 1 percent pay 33 percent of all taxes, and the top 5 percent pays over half (53.25 percent)
Ok boys and girls, the top 5% control what percentage of the wealth in the good ole USA? Anyone... Bueller, Bueller....

Well, for income at least, according to the irs site we have the top 1 percent get 17.53 percent of the adjusted gross income (AGI), and pay as mentioned before 33.89 percent of the income tax.

top 5 percent 31.99 percent of AGI, 53.25 percent of the tax
top 10 percent 43.11 percent of AGI, 64.89 percent of the tax
top 25 percent 65.23 percent of AGI, 82.90 percent of the tax
top 50 percent 86.19 percent of AGI, 96.03 percent of the tax

Pherr the Dorf · Post by **Pherr the Dorf** » January 3, 2004, 11:42 pm

Chmee wrote:
Pherr the Dorf wrote:
Chmee wrote:Even more strikingly, the top 1 percent pay 33 percent of all taxes, and the top 5 percent pays over half (53.25 percent)
Ok boys and girls, the top 5% control what percentage of the wealth in the good ole USA? Anyone... Bueller, Bueller....
Well, for income at least, according to the irs site we have the top 1 percent get 17.53 percent of the adjusted gross income (AGI), and pay as mentioned before 33.89 percent of the income tax.

top 5 percent 31.99 percent of AGI, 53.25 percent of the tax
top 10 percent 43.11 percent of AGI, 64.89 percent of the tax
top 25 percent 65.23 percent of AGI, 82.90 percent of the tax
top 50 percent 86.19 percent of AGI, 96.03 percent of the tax

Not income, total wealth, you are taxed not only on what you make, but what you own.

*Edit:for clarity*

Chidoro · Post by **Chidoro** » January 4, 2004, 1:04 am

Krimson Klaw wrote:To your first question, yes, it's the third link I made, comes from the IRS site.

My first question was about corporate taxes.

However, in regards to my second question, $28.5k is the 50% floor? Well no fucking wonder people under that mark don't get taxed as much. How the hell could anyone think that 28.5k is average? Obviously these numbers include every single person that filed an income tax return, including all of the outliers Kyo mentioned and I eluded to. In other words, it's a totally skewed report to push the OMG buttons to conservatives who don't think a little.

Krimson Klaw · Post by **Krimson Klaw** » January 4, 2004, 2:00 am

Well if the IRS spreadsheet did not include the lower end people, then you'd say it was an incomplete report. Which do you want?

Adex_Xeda · Post by **Adex_Xeda** » January 4, 2004, 3:34 am

No statistic, arguement, or reasoning is void of a grain of doubt.

Clinging to every grain as a defence, indicates a weak position.

Zaelath · Post by **Zaelath** » January 4, 2004, 3:47 am

A statistic w/o reasoned analysis is beyond absurd though, as is pure extrapolation.

Dregor Thule · Post by **Dregor Thule** » January 4, 2004, 4:35 am

I think I just burned the inside of my nose choking on my tea. Who bought Adex that title?

Chidoro · Post by **Chidoro** » January 4, 2004, 6:05 pm

Adex_Xeda wrote:No statistic, arguement, or reasoning is void of a grain of doubt.

Clinging to every grain as a defence, indicates a weak position.

Which grain is that, the one about our deficit going in the shitter yet again or that students and senior citizens are included in a percentile of average earners and including them in a taxpaying percentile as a result skews weighted averages of who pays what? I'm curious because you're obviously a student of finance

Xyun · Post by **Xyun** » January 4, 2004, 6:08 pm

rofl

classic

Deward · Post by **Deward** » January 5, 2004, 11:55 am

Thanks for the info on Dean. He is definitely on my no vote list now. He was pretty close already since he was a democrat but now he is definitely on it. His tax raises would hit my wife and I pretty hard in our tax bracket and I don't want to get fucked over anymore than I already am by the government.

I don't have a problem paying taxes BUT I think Americans are forced to pay too much. I know we aren't as bad as some countries but I like to keep the money I earn. I don't want my hard earned dollars being wasted on Iraq and Israel and other countries while people are starving here.

I am a liberatarian that does believe we need some taxes for education and roads and important services but this country is just out of whack with its spending hemorrhages. Viva le revolucion!!

Kilmoll the Sexy · Post by **Kilmoll the Sexy** » January 5, 2004, 12:15 pm

Every politician is a fucking criminal with their taxing and budget retardation. They need to make serious cutbacks in spending, starting with the wages of government employees.

Aabidano · Post by **Aabidano** » January 5, 2004, 12:45 pm

$28.5k is the 50% floor?

That's probably a decent number, keep in mind that seniors and teens (currently) make up a small part of our taxed population. The bulk of the US population doesn't live in areas that have an insane cost of living like SF Bay, NJ, NYC and Boston either.

The county I used to live in (Escambia county, FL) had a mean income of about $16k a year IIRC. I'm not sure what it is in Hillsborough county, though it doesn't take a huge salary to get by on here either.

Chmee · Post by **Chmee** » January 5, 2004, 1:30 pm

Chidoro wrote:
Krimson Klaw wrote:To your first question, yes, it's the third link I made, comes from the IRS site.
My first question was about corporate taxes.

However, in regards to my second question, $28.5k is the 50% floor? Well no fucking wonder people under that mark don't get taxed as much. How the hell could anyone think that 28.5k is average? Obviously these numbers include every single person that filed an income tax return, including all of the outliers Kyo mentioned and I eluded to. In other words, it's a totally skewed report to push the OMG buttons to conservatives who don't think a little.

If you don't like the 50 percent floor, look higher.

The top 25 percent for 2001 has an income floor of 56,085 (unlikely to have many paperboys in there). The top 1 percent for the same time period has a floor of 292,913. The average tax rate for the top 25 percent is 18.08%, the average tax rate on the top 1 percent is 27.53 percent. So the rich are not only paying more in taxes (they would be even if the percentage was the same) but they are paying a higher percentage.

Some people have brought up other taxes such as sales tax, personal property tax. Those certainly can be looked at to determine overall tax burden, but they are state taxes (where applicable). The thread originally started looking at Dean's proposed tax plan, which would be a Federal tax plan. I do believe however that the linked to numbers are for Federal taxes outside of taxes for social security, which are a flat percentage on the first 87-89k (roughly I think, anyone have an exact number?) of income. People who's income is greater than the cap of course get off easier in terms of overall tax burden (of course that money is supposedly just for social security and the rich people's return on it will be capped as well, in practice the money gets used currently for other spending to mask the true size of the deficit).

Adex_Xeda · Post by **Adex_Xeda** » January 5, 2004, 1:44 pm

I'm not speaking to economics.

I'm speaking about people like Kyo.

No amount of reasoning will change her opinion on things like this.

Even if the evidence against her position is sound, she'll cling to any suspicion or doubt as a basis for defence.

If you must resort to this, then your position on a debate subject appears weak.

So why argue about such things? No one is going to budge.

BTW Kelgar I don't hate anyone. We're all just folks trying to make it through life the best we can.

Voronwë · Post by **Voronwë** » January 5, 2004, 3:11 pm

so people who make $289,000+ pay an effective tax rate of 27%?

big fuckin deal. i make a lot less than that and my effective tax rate was 25%. now this tax year is going to be completely different for me with an investment property and a child, so i'm not sure what my effective rate will be, but cry me a fuckin river to those absolutely wiping their ass with benjamins paying a 27% tax rate...

i am totally against frivolous taxation, but the massive cuts in spending programs that are going on at the federal level to float these tax cuts are completely fucking over the states. the states dont have the luxury of running at deficts, and the people who pay the ultimate price are the poor people in rural areas or undesirable sections of urban areas. Their schools continue to be poorly supported, there are limited resources devoted to helping develop investment in those communities, etc.

The ultra-rich have never had it better in the US, and any crying to the contrary is all part of the GOP smokescreen for 90% of their voters who stupidly think that voting for "moral" platforms is more important than economic policies that will meaningfully impact their actual lives.

Chidoro · Post by **Chidoro** » January 5, 2004, 3:52 pm

Jesus, I couldn't agree more Vor.

So the rich are not only paying more in taxes (they would be even if the percentage was the same) but they are paying a higher percentage.

Think about what's considered residual income for a second. Then think about the recent massive cuts to capital gains tax which primarily benefit the most wealthy. They aren't hurting at all I'm afraid. And with the ability to write off tons of garbage, there are plenty of deductions to go around for the wealthy. It's not as if the flat rate cut from checks is the final say on how much tax you are going to pay for the year.

Chmee, it's not that paperboys are included in the top 25%, it's that they are included in the bottom 75%. How hard is that to comprehend exactly? You're too busy trying to google crap, think about what you are saying. In addition, even 56k still isn't that freakin high for the top 25% floor.

Chmee · Post by **Chmee** » January 5, 2004, 4:09 pm

Voronwë wrote:so people who make $289,000+ pay an effective tax rate of 27%?

big fuckin deal. i make a lot less than that and my effective tax rate was 25%. now this tax year is going to be completely different for me with an investment property and a child, so i'm not sure what my effective rate will be, but cry me a fuckin river to those absolutely wiping their ass with benjamins paying a 27% tax rate...

That tax rate is just for Federal taxes other than FICA, so their effective rate is higher. Although since FICA is capped, the higher their income goes the less it impacts their tax rate. I certainly am not asking you to feel sorry for the rich, but just trying to point out that the popular misconception that the rich don't pay much in taxes isn't true. That doesn't change that I think your effective rate of 25% and their rate of 27% on non-FICA federal taxes are both too high.

i am totally against frivolous taxation, but the massive cuts in spending programs that are going on at the federal level to float these tax cuts are completely fucking over the states. the states dont have the luxury of running at deficts, and the people who pay the ultimate price are the poor people in rural areas or undesirable sections of urban areas. Their schools continue to be poorly supported, there are limited resources devoted to helping develop investment in those communities, etc.

What cuts? I wish we actually did have some cuts going on, but Bush certainly hasn't been making them. Discretionary non-defense spending has gone sharply up under Bush (almost 28 percent according to this article http://www.cato.org/dailys/07-31-03.html). You mention education. Elementary, secondary, and vocational education has gone from 20 billion in 2000 to an estimated 32 billion in 2003 under Bush. Unfortunately, Dean sounds like he wants to spend even more than Bush is managing to.

The ultra-rich have never had it better in the US,

This statement is largely true, of course if we changed it from ultra-rich to U.S. citizen, it would also be largely true.

and any crying to the contrary is all part of the GOP smokescreen for 90% of their voters who stupidly think that voting for "moral" platforms is more important than economic policies that will meaningfully impact their actual lives.

An economic policy that would meaningfully impact my life would be for the government to stop taking so much of my money.

Chmee · Post by **Chmee** » January 5, 2004, 4:42 pm

Chidoro wrote:Think about what's considered residual income for a second. Then think about the recent massive cuts to capital gains tax which primarily benefit the most wealthy. They aren't hurting at all I'm afraid. And with the ability to write off tons of garbage, there are plenty of deductions to go around for the wealthy. It's not as if the flat rate cut from checks is the final say on how much tax you are going to pay for the year.

If you are talking about the tax rate in the tax tables, then you are correct. That however isn't what the IRS data is showing.

From the IRS link, the top one percent have a total adjusted gross income of 1,094,296 for 2001 (given in millions of dollars). According to definitions elsewhere on the IRS site, Adjusted gross income is after adjustments have been made for moving expenses, alimony paid, a penalty on early withdrawal of savings, and contributions to an individual retirement arrangement (IRA). It is before deductions (standard or itemized). The top one percent paid (actual receipts) 300,898 in taxes (also given in millions of dollars). Divide 300,898 by 1,094,296 and you get the 27.5 that has been stated already on the thread. If someone knows more about the definitions the IRS is using, or if this is off, let me know.

Chmee, it's not that paperboys are included in the top 25%, it's that they are included in the bottom 75%. How hard is that to comprehend exactly? You're too busy trying to google crap, think about what you are saying. In addition, even 56k still isn't that freakin high for the top 25% floor.

I was just trying to point out that even when you moved to higher incomes, to try to eliminate the outliers you were talking about earlier, you still ended up with higher incomes paying a higher rate. Which is what the data was being quoted in the first place to show. I haven't been trying to google anything, I have been going off the link Krimson provided. I had seen the data been quoted before in articles, it was nice to be able to go to the source data though.

As a disclaimer, as I said before this is just non-FICA. FICA has a cap on how much income is taxed, so the rich will get off with a lower percentage. And FICA is a fairly decent chunk of change.

Voronwë · Post by **Voronwë** » January 5, 2004, 5:00 pm

i believe FICA is capped at around $85,000.00, which means it is effectively insignificant for the top 1%, and effectively zero bearing on their effective tax rate. you pay about 6.5% of your first eightyfive thousand for FICA, then zero on any AGI above $85,000.

i would try to research and source this but searching is temporarily unavailable at irs.gov

masteen · Post by **masteen** » January 5, 2004, 5:32 pm

Voronwë wrote:The ultra-rich have never had it better in the US, and any crying to the contrary is all part of the GOP smokescreen for 90% of their voters who stupidly think that voting for "moral" platforms is more important than economic policies that will meaningfully impact their actual lives.

If I could find Democrats that would at least lie to me and say they're not going to raise my taxes for more bloated social programs, I'd never vote Republican again. The whole morality politics thing really pisses me off.

Voronwë · Post by **Voronwë** » January 5, 2004, 5:49 pm

need a 3rd party, cause these 2 suck

Chidoro · Post by **Chidoro** » January 5, 2004, 6:32 pm

Chmee wrote:I was just trying to point out that even when you moved to higher incomes, to try to eliminate the outliers you were talking about earlier, you still ended up with higher incomes paying a higher rate. Which is what the data was being quoted in the first place to show. I haven't been trying to google anything, I have been going off the link Krimson provided. I had seen the data been quoted before in articles, it was nice to be able to go to the source data though.

I don't think anyone would disagree that higher incomes pay a higher percentage of their salary towards taxes. To do so would be plain stupid. But that wasn't the point of Rush posting the data. The point he was trying to put forth was that such a weighted descrepancy will scare the shit out of any full time worker (assuming that a full time worker over the age of 25 or so can actually earn more than the pittance that is 28k) and make him/her believe that they are getting rooked on taxes. If you remove social security dependants and part time employees, you'd see a far different picture with regards to who falls under the low cap.

The brackets that ratchet up at the highest level certainly have a lot more play than a flat rate. In addition, there is a point where people cross the residual income line. At some point it's difficult to tell someone of a low income, who has to rent and can't get the tax benefits of owning a home(and even mentioning the deduction for renting is laughable by comparison), and worry about a bare necessity of buying food that they have to assume a larger percentage of the tax burden while someone that has an enormous amount of residual income should be at the same rate.

It is so freakin easy to make money when you have money.

Metanis · Post by **Metanis** » January 5, 2004, 7:07 pm

Voronwë wrote:need a 3rd party, cause these 2 suck

Ross Perot tried that.

Ralph Nader tried that.

The Greens, Communists, Libertarians, and a few other assorted marginal parties try just about every election.

They mostly just add to the white noise level although they can certainly confound major candidates like Ross did to George H.W. Bush in '92 and like Ralph did to Gore in '00.

Although the press attention has been Dean's fracturing effect on Democrats; don't think the Republicans are all going to line up behind GW. There is some discontent in Republican ranks as Bush spends money like a drunk sailor.

*edit spelling*

Voronwë · Post by **Voronwë** » January 5, 2004, 7:42 pm

i'm not sure you can say Dean is "fracturing" Democrats. The very process of chosing a candidate through the primary process divides a party up into factions.

He is "divisive" because he has been successful in raising money and creating buzz, and has become the frontrunner. As such those in the establishment of the party whose career he threatens would suggest that he is a bad influence on the party.

what they really mean is he is bad for their job security, but that isnt necessarily bad for the party

Bubba Grizz · Post by **Bubba Grizz** » January 7, 2004, 1:02 pm

Speaking as the common person who happens to be on the low end of the food chain financially, I find it hard to sympathize with people who have the ability to drink champaign from a crystal glass while I am drinking beer from a plactic cup.

I don't care who pays the most taxes, all I care about is if I will be able to afford to buy food for my family, or take a job that requires a long drive and still be able to buy gas, or if I will be able to make my house payments. Raise my taxes and that becomes a serious threat to our survival. Because you know that it the nation raises taxes the states are going to follow suit and do it as well.

Deward · Post by **Deward** » January 7, 2004, 1:19 pm

I could be wrong but I believe FICA taxes the first 59k of income. There are candidates who want to raise that limit to 85k. I am totaly against this. I would much rather have a savings account system that we are required to pay into. I have seen a lot of dead beats on Social Security and I think it is bullshit that I have to pay into social security to pay for criminals or those too lazy to work during their life. Obviously some people deserve Social Security but a lot of people don't and that is why it is in the predicament that it is in.

One other point I have to make is why does everyone hate people who have money? I am not rich but my wife and I live comfortably and have a small nest egg. Why is it my responsibility to pay more taxes for working hard? I had the same or fewer chances that everyone else gets nowadays to succeed. Every poor person in this country has the chance to go to college if they get off their asses and do it. I was a poor white boy and I made it through college. People feel like they are entitled to everything today instead busting their hump and working for it. Why should I have to pay more taxes for those lazy fucks? Social Programs are all well and good but getting a social security check every month because you are a drunk is bullshit (yes I personally know an example).

Ashur · Post by **Ashur** » January 7, 2004, 1:26 pm

Deward wrote:Why should I have to pay more taxes for those lazy fucks? Social Programs are all well and good but getting a social security check every month because you are a drunk is bullshit (yes I personally know an example).

Those lazy fucks and drunks can vote! Voter base = Getting Reelected = Bling for the home district

Xzion · Post by **Xzion** » January 7, 2004, 5:44 pm

Deward wrote:I could be wrong but I believe FICA taxes the first 59k of income. There are candidates who want to raise that limit to 85k. I am totaly against this. I would much rather have a savings account system that we are required to pay into. I have seen a lot of dead beats on Social Security and I think it is bullshit that I have to pay into social security to pay for criminals or those too lazy to work during their life. Obviously some people deserve Social Security but a lot of people don't and that is why it is in the predicament that it is in.

One other point I have to make is why does everyone hate people who have money? I am not rich but my wife and I live comfortably and have a small nest egg. Why is it my responsibility to pay more taxes for working hard? I had the same or fewer chances that everyone else gets nowadays to succeed. Every poor person in this country has the chance to go to college if they get off their asses and do it. I was a poor white boy and I made it through college. People feel like they are entitled to everything today instead busting their hump and working for it. Why should I have to pay more taxes for those lazy fucks? Social Programs are all well and good but getting a social security check every month because you are a drunk is bullshit (yes I personally know an example).

couldnt agree more, nothing is more annoying then hearing all those assholes bitch about tax cuts for the top 1-5%

Zaelath · Post by **Zaelath** » January 7, 2004, 6:42 pm

Deward wrote:I could be wrong but I believe FICA taxes the first 59k of income. There are candidates who want to raise that limit to 85k. I am totaly against this. I would much rather have a savings account system that we are required to pay into. I have seen a lot of dead beats on Social Security and I think it is bullshit that I have to pay into social security to pay for criminals or those too lazy to work during their life. Obviously some people deserve Social Security but a lot of people don't and that is why it is in the predicament that it is in.

One other point I have to make is why does everyone hate people who have money? I am not rich but my wife and I live comfortably and have a small nest egg. Why is it my responsibility to pay more taxes for working hard? I had the same or fewer chances that everyone else gets nowadays to succeed. Every poor person in this country has the chance to go to college if they get off their asses and do it. I was a poor white boy and I made it through college. People feel like they are entitled to everything today instead busting their hump and working for it. Why should I have to pay more taxes for those lazy fucks? Social Programs are all well and good but getting a social security check every month because you are a drunk is bullshit (yes I personally know an example).

Not everyone has the smarts though, or perhaps they were "blessed" with children before they could get college out of the way.. Regardless, unless you really want to lead the drunk hunts, you live in a society with enough social conscience to want to keep everyone alive as long as possible.

Other than that, why do you feel 3-4 years banging sluts in college entitles you to value your time above, say, a farmer? I don't know what you do, but I know the one is vital to the survival of civilization...

Truant · Post by **Truant** » January 7, 2004, 7:24 pm

I would just like to say, Voro said my thoughts exactly.

Chidoro · Post by **Chidoro** » January 7, 2004, 7:27 pm

Xzion wrote:I couldnt agree more, nothing is more annoying then hearing all those assholes bitch about tax cuts for the top 1-5%

Do you really think a person at a CEO level earning 2 mil a year in salary and tons of perks, works 20 times harder than an upper level manager earning 100k? I'm just curious if you feel that such a parity exists. I'm also curious as to why you think someone who has trouble making ends meat and, therefore, requests public assistance, is lazy? There's a real difference between assistance and coddling

Why is it so hard to understand the concept of residual income exactly? Why do people think income goes hand and hand with hard work? I can sit on a nest egg of $5 mil and earn the pittance of 2% each year on interest and I will still "earn" $100k each year. That doesn't even take into account the better gains on CoD's, potential in real estate, etc etc. The point is, even if you're taxed more, people who earn a huge excess of residual income can earn FAR more than any tax percentage hike.

Xzion · Post by **Xzion** » January 7, 2004, 7:34 pm

Chidoro wrote:
Xzion wrote:I couldnt agree more, nothing is more annoying then hearing all those assholes bitch about tax cuts for the top 1-5%
Do you really think a person at a CEO level earning 2 mil a year in salary and tons of perks, works 20 times harder than an upper level manager earning 100k? I'm just curious if you feel that such a parity exists. I'm also curious as to why you think someone who has trouble making ends meat and, therefore, requests public assistance, is lazy? There's a real difference between assistance and coddling

Why is it so hard to understand the concept of residual income exactly? Why do people think income goes hand and hand with hard work? I can sit on a nest egg of $5 mil and earn the pittance of 2% each year on interest and I will still "earn" $100k each year. That doesn't even take into account the better gains on CoD's, potential in real estate, etc etc. The point is, even if you're taxed more, people who earn a huge excess of residual income can earn FAR more than any tax percentage hike.

Do you know how fucking hard that CEO had to work in his past to earn his present position? For one my dads the presedent of a company and i have seen him work his ass off in the past...as my brother the new exec VP is doing, its easy to rip on others from the bottom, but most people were there to begin with...

Chidoro · Post by **Chidoro** » January 7, 2004, 7:38 pm

And you assume I'm working from the bottom?

So you have a personal stake in what specific CEO's make. Mazel Tov.
They still don't work 20 times harder than a reasonable level manager(or sr mgr or avp or anyone at that payscale) earning 100k a year. And guess who loses their job first fool

Not by a long shot

But enjoy your trust fund. It's easy to pick on people who work to make ends meat when they have trust fund dollars flowing in

Xzion · Post by **Xzion** » January 7, 2004, 11:41 pm

Im not picking on anyone, i just believe in equal tax %'s for all americans regardless of income

Chidoro · Post by **Chidoro** » January 8, 2004, 12:35 am

Then you have no idea about the meaning of residual income or thresholds or anything that normal people who understand finance can tell you why giving everyone an equal percentage wouldn't be equal at all. And it's been crudely outlined already why by me. You shooce to think these factors are unimportant.