Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

You want tax relief? Try reducing the pensions of all of the government representatives... 120-180k a year to sit on your ass? THAT'S b.s.

-Joel

At 11/9/08 08:43 AM, jrhager84 wrote: I guarantee you I'm the poorest mother fucker on this thread. I don't have a plasma TV, thank you very much. It pains me to think that people in my position financially are so fuckin' selfish they'd STEAL money from people who earned it to use for their own selfish ways... It sickens me...

-Joel

As I said, if I didn't live in a country with a high taxation and high support, I would be a bankrupt bum, and to that, sick. And that's despite my will to work. I'm very willing to take most jobs (as long as I can stay away from the meat industry, it would be far more repulsive to work at a slaughtery than to work as a prostitute), including jobs considered crappy by most, but partly I don't get a job right now because we're in a financial crisis, although it isn't far as bad as the US, and partly I don't know if I can work full-time due to my mental condition (bipolarity). I try the best I can, and still there are many people that earn more money than I do WITHOUT them ever trying to work, just by ownership.

At 11/9/08 10:13 AM, jrhager84 wrote: I would most definitely benefit from it. I'm the poorest of the poor. The point is: I don't want other peoples' money. It's not mine, I didn't work for it, I don't deserve it.

Apparently, you have access to a computer and time to spend in front of it. I don't think you're the poorest of the poor.

At 11/9/08 10:17 AM, Sajberhippien wrote: Apparently, you have access to a computer and time to spend in front of it. I don't think you're the poorest of the poor.

From a tax standpoint (smartass)....

-Joel

At 11/9/08 10:18 AM, jrhager84 wrote:

At 11/9/08 10:17 AM, Sajberhippien wrote: Apparently, you have access to a computer and time to spend in front of it. I don't think you're the poorest of the poor.

From a tax standpoint (smartass)....

-Joel

I really don't get what you mean with this post. Could be because of my lacking English, but I simply don't get your point.

At 11/9/08 10:27 AM, Sajberhippien wrote:

At 11/9/08 10:18 AM, jrhager84 wrote:

At 11/9/08 10:17 AM, Sajberhippien wrote: Apparently, you have access to a computer and time to spend in front of it. I don't think you're the poorest of the poor.

From a tax standpoint (smartass)....

-Joel

I really don't get what you mean with this post. Could be because of my lacking English, but I simply don't get your point.

I'm in the absolute lowest tax bracket. All of this plan would benefit me the most, being among the poorest taxpayers in the country.

-Joel

Joel,

your logic has continually been proven false. You conitnue to change the subject of each post in order to dictate the argument. You are always proven wrong. Please stop. :)

My father is a Vietnam veteran. He was seriously injured and had a very difficult time finding work. He found factory work for Frito-Lay until he retired in 2000. My mother worked whatever odd jobs she could to take care of us. They both have a high school diploma, but college education was not very common from the era they were raised. I am poor as a result of this. I have no plasma T.V., either. I have many luxuries, sure, but we are below the poverty line, defining us as "poor."

The government pays for the healthcare of my brother, my sister, and myself (and all three of us are adopted, so you can thank my "uneducated" parents for relieving you of this financial burden). I'm sorry if a rich person has to pay for it, but I deserve healthcare. My family deserves healthcare, Joel. Because my brother and sister are not only adopted, but they are mentally and physically handicapped. They NEED the government to pay for medicine in order to keep them ALIVE, Joel. This is not "charity"; this is "fairness."

I also believe that you deserve quality healthcare, like every other American I've met. We all deserve healthcare (among many other social services). But the question is, "How do we pay for it?" Well, the rich must pay for it-they are the only demographic with such an extraordinary level of disposable income. If it were not for "liberal", "socialist" policies, I'm not sure how my family would even exist today-not in a nation so brainwashed with consumerism and free market capitalism.

Joel, I am a capitalist, don't let my tone fool you. But you have to understand that taxing money generated from a capitalist society and on an economy of scale (where wealth feeds wealth) is not socialist. Just because Marx said progressive taxation is socialist does not make it so. I guess we're a socialist nation because of our free education too?

No, we are not. The fundamentals of our economy remain hinged. Taxation is not a punishment. If I am ever wealthy, which, I am sure to be, I will vote for fairness. I will vote for the equality of all citizens. And if that vote happens to sacrifice a little economic freedom or economic incentive for just a little more economic fairness and economic stability? So be it. I don't consider this "socialism." I consider this a mixed economy.

That's not what I'm arguing about. Thanks for reading so far into my words, that you've compromised everything I've said. It's a very simple statement to say "hey, they're rich! I want money!"

Disabled Veterans are a different story because they've been wounded in combat, or have some other issue, which they did in service to their country. My father in law is a disabled veteran thank you very much. I know all too well that people don't take care of the people that defend this country. There are other ways of fixing that than robbing rich people blind.

Disabled people don't HAVE the ability to contribute, so they're (again) the exception to the rule. Again, falling on your own sword, as I have a disabled adopted sister... What now? That's right, just hush...Do you always think in such "black and white" terms? I don't see how government aid for disabled veterans/mentally disabled people has ANYTHING to do with the average taxpayer getting a break by taxing the shit outta the rich. I take it you're not big on reform, eh? Just throw more money at it....LOL

That is NOT what I'm arguing against. I'm saying you don't just take money from the rich and give it to the poor. People are saying "you have too much money anyways." That's flawed logic in my eyes. Please do tell me where my logic has proven false... I'd love to hear it. There are exceptions to every rule, and the exceptions weren't brought up in this thread. ....and YOU talk about changing subjects? LOL What a laugh...

You profess "fairness" and use "sacrifice" in the same sentence. Who determines what's "fair"? Who determines what's a "sacrifice" versus "punishment"?
We're talking "average taxpayer", not the disabled leper that was cast aside by America, and is rotting away on the steps of the White House because the greedy rich man won't help him. As soon as you start telling people what's "right" and "fair", you take it out of the hands of the people. You use the word "freedom". Freedom to do what? Make your own contributions? Choose how your OWN money is spent? Of course the poorer people are going to be for it; they have compromised logic due to their inherent subjectivity. They WANT the money, so they push for it. I'm being completely objective, because I personally would benefit GREATLY from a tax break. You can be as condescending as you want, it's not going to change my opinion. You're welcome to your, as I am mine. If you want to discuss this further, I'd be more than happy. However, when you make the first objective of your post to make me look like a fool rather than prove your point, you lose a lot in translation.

-Joel

P.S. I'm actually begging you to question whether or not I have a disabled sister, or a Vet Father-in-law. Nothing would make my day more than proving you wrong. Proof if requested. Have a nice day ;-)

At 11/9/08 08:02 AM, jrhager84 wrote: Let's put this into perspective:

You mean to tell me you'd be totally cool with getting a MASSIVE amount of money taken from you if you, say, win the lottery? Knowing that it will go to those that are deemed "needy" by the government? The only reason why you guys are for this is because it doesn't apply to you. I guarantee it.

-Joel

When you do hit the lottery, massive amounts are taken out of it, especially if you go lump sum. You will end up with way less than half.

Lets say I won a 200 mil jackpot, I'd probably end up with 75 mil. And well.... I can do a lot with 75 mil. Fli would have him a new house, my family's debt would be gone, a lot of local people would be very happy, and I'd be living off of the interest on 3 mil, and have another 2 mil invested. And I wouldn't complain one bit about paying my higher tax bracket, because I know people who are middle and lower class can really use the tax breaks to help them get by, especially in today's world, and I could afford to pay it.

At 11/9/08 01:10 PM, ReiperX wrote:

Lets say I won a 200 mil jackpot, I'd probably end up with 75 mil. And well.... I can do a lot with 75 mil. Fli would have him a new house, my family's debt would be gone, a lot of local people would be very happy, and I'd be living off of the interest on 3 mil, and have another 2 mil invested. And I wouldn't complain one bit about paying my higher tax bracket, because I know people who are middle and lower class can really use the tax breaks to help them get by, especially in today's world, and I could afford to pay it.

To be fair, we talk about people with Trump-like fortunes ( who really shouldn't complain about anything ever again ) but this also affects people with more "modest" incomes of about 100-150k.

When you make 100k a year and suddenly you lose 10k more, it really starts to hurt and make a difference. Suddenly those house payments and your kid's college education seem significantly steeper :o
Not to mention that operation to enlarge your penis.

At 11/9/08 05:50 AM, cellardoor6 wrote: We already have an enormously progressive tax code, in which the wealthy are already paying the vast majority of taxes. How Obama can know that, and I'm sure he does, and yet still want to raise taxes on the rich... it shows you what his motivation is. It is socialism. We already have socialism in a mild form, but Obama apparently isn't satisfied with it. He wants to take it to the extreme.

So increasing taxes on the upper quintile by 3-4% is "extreme" socialism? Also, you think that the US is already a socialism... because the rich pay more taxes than anyone else? I always figured socialism implied much more than that.

I don't know if that was intentional or not, but saying "low and middle class earners" kind of misses the point because even people who don't work and/or don't pay taxes are going to be given direct handouts from the government under Obama's policy. It's not just tax cuts and tax hikes, it's an actual handover of money from one segment of society to the other.

I think you're mistaken. I haven't seen anything to suggest that Obama is giving tax credits to those who don't work, or don't pay taxes. It's true that some of the recepients of Obama's tax credit don't pay income taxes, but they do pay payroll taxes.

At 11/9/08 01:10 PM, ReiperX wrote: When you do hit the lottery, massive amounts are taken out of it, especially if you go lump sum. You will end up with way less than half.

Lets say I won a 200 mil jackpot, I'd probably end up with 75 mil. And well.... I can do a lot with 75 mil. Fli would have him a new house, my family's debt would be gone, a lot of local people would be very happy, and I'd be living off of the interest on 3 mil, and have another 2 mil invested. And I wouldn't complain one bit about paying my higher tax bracket, because I know people who are middle and lower class can really use the tax breaks to help them get by, especially in today's world, and I could afford to pay it.

You're mistaken. Less than half is the CURRENT tax situation. If you were to implement this hike. You'd lose even MORE. Also, you're taking your personal belief, and projecting it on the American populous. Just because YOU would be ok with that, doesn't mean anyone else will. Also, you seem to preach about "freedom" but you condemn those who choose a path that you don't agree with. That doesn't sound very "free" to me... :-/

Like anything in life, it's always infinitely more complex than anyone would imagine. There's a million angles to look at this. That's why it's so infuriating when people dumb it down so much.

-Joel

i never heard about this tax plan,but i believe he aint do this cuzz if he make this reasonable to desist he will be assasioned by KKK or another marosmatic which kill J F Kenedy.
GOD BLESS AMERIKA

At 11/9/08 02:10 PM, pashokz wrote: i never heard about this tax plan,but i believe he aint do this cuzz if he make this reasonable to desist he will be assasioned by KKK or another marosmatic which kill J F Kenedy.
GOD BLESS AMERIKA

I'm speechless.

-Joel

ok, everyone shut the fuck up and listen to me now.
http://www.smbiz.com/sbrl001.html

U.S. Corporate Tax Rate
$0-50,000 15%
50,000-75,000 25%
75,000-100,000 34%
100,000-335,000 39%
335,000-10,000,000 34%
10,000,000-15,000,000 35%
15,000,000-18,333,333 38%
18,333,333-Infinity 35%

Say a company earns 10 million dollars of taxable income. They pay:
7500+6250+8500+91650+3286100

This is equal to 3.4 million.
This productive company has a marginal tax rate of 35%, and pays an average tax rate of 34%.

My point is that this company pays 3.4 million dollars to the government, but why? Why should it contribute more when it already pays for in taxes in one year than most people pay in their life. Does this company receive anything close to this amount from the government in benefits? Now let's say this company returns it's profits to the shareholders. THEY ARE DOUBLE TAXED.

Shareholders pay tax on taxed income. Say out of the 6.6 million, 2 million is retained and 4.6 million is distributed to the owners. (The dividend tax rate is 15% so 4.6 million X .15=690,000)

That means that now this company has paid $409,000 or 40.9% of it's taxable income to the government. So why are you people in favor of taxing these companies more?

According to this site, Japan's average corporate tax rate was just .2% higher than the US.

But Obama claims that the US currently cannot compete overseas. Why does he want to raise corporate taxes, especially the capital gains tax? Why do you all support this? Why are you for him closing corporate loopholes which would cause massive lay-offs? Why are you against oil subsidies which make our gas in the 2 dollar range and not the 10 dollar range?

http://money.cnn.com/2008/05/01/news/int ernational/usgas_price/?postversion=2008 050109

The US is the largest demander for oil, yet ranks #108 as most expensive. Two reasons, the smaller one is gasoline taxes and the larger one is oil subsidies. Cut down on subsidies and get ready to pay 10-12 dollars a gallon.

So once again, why are you all against corporations and in favor of increasing their already heavily taxes earnings?

Very good points.

-Joel

At 11/9/08 02:59 PM, n64kid wrote: Shareholders pay tax on taxed income. Say out of the 6.6 million, 2 million is retained and 4.6 million is distributed to the owners. (The dividend tax rate is 15% so 4.6 million X .15=690,000)

However, they don't work for that money.

At 11/9/08 04:26 PM, Sajberhippien wrote:

At 11/9/08 02:59 PM, n64kid wrote: Shareholders pay tax on taxed income. Say out of the 6.6 million, 2 million is retained and 4.6 million is distributed to the owners. (The dividend tax rate is 15% so 4.6 million X .15=690,000)

However, they don't work for that money.

They do work. They work for that money in the initial investment, which then becomes a side job, that is keeping American business solvent, and well funded and for expansion. But the point is that they are the owners, and still pay an additional tax on taxed income. I'd rather dividends be deducted from corporate taxable income, but then have the dividends go on the shareholder's income tax rate.

But think about the current system. Shareholders, no matter how small or large, own the company. The corporate tax rate takes away their money too. It could result in higher dividends paid, but dividends are not tax deductable. They lose out on dividends/equity. Not only that, but that income that they are technically taxed on via corporate taxes are then taxed additionally via dividend tax. It is double taxation.

He's right really. If it's a publicly traded company, it just affects the bottom dollar of the company these "poor souls" own a piece of. They're taxed before, during, AND after. Uncle Sam definitely gets his piece of the pie...in all aspects really.

-Joel

At 11/9/08 10:18 AM, jrhager84 wrote:

At 11/9/08 10:17 AM, Sajberhippien wrote: Apparently, you have access to a computer and time to spend in front of it. I don't think you're the poorest of the poor.

From a tax standpoint (smartass)....

-Joel

No...
You're not poor.

People who have a computer with ISP, TV, a bed, and food-- they're not poor.
They may have to stretch to make ends meet, perhaps... but not poor.

Now--
I've been poor.
like... wear your 3rd grade clothes even if they don't fit well into the 5th grade.
Do your own haircuts...
No TV...
"What's for dinner... just beans? okay..."

The one thing I can remember most were my plastic made-in-China shoes that were knock off Nike's in the 6th grade. Every guy made fun of them when when they suddenly fell apart in rain and my mother had to bring me a pair of sandals...

And my mom never went on welfar, never got handouts, and other than putting me in several after school programs to keep me out of gangs... that was about it.

AND STILL... she managed to do community service.

At 11/9/08 04:52 PM, fli wrote: a bunch of whining

You think you're the only one? I had to eat knockoff puffed-wheat with WATER for breakfast. I wore beat up shoes for 2yrs at a time. Food stamps? I got clothes at the Goodwill. I know what it's like to be poor, don't talk down to me like I don't know poverty. I'm not like that anymore because I've adjusted my lifestyle (the poverty was when I was young).

What I'm saying doesn't affect the "poor" in a sense, I'm talking about the lowest tax bracket. It's like you're trying to find ways to bicker and piss and moan. Grow up dude,

-Joel

Are Americans stingy or generous? Look here.

At 11/9/08 05:34 PM, MultiCanimefan wrote: Are Americans stingy or generous? Look here.

Mild points buried under a pile o' drivel. Calling us "stingy" because we don't pour money into other countries isn't what I'd call an objective observation. The point being:

ANYBODY can be more generous. Hell, France gave only ~180,000 dollars to the tsunami relief fund (a laugh compared to America or Japan.) I'm not saying we're all generous benevolent people, but we're definitely NOT the worst in the world.

-Joel

At 11/9/08 05:34 PM, MultiCanimefan wrote: Are Americans stingy or generous? Look here.

Maybe if companies didn't have most of their money tied up in taxes, they could contribute more. But your opinion article fails to mention domestic charity contributions. All sorts of comparisons to GDP and income shows that overall American people are the most generous contributers in the world.

It's the crowding out effect. Because the American government doesn't give as much abroad, but has lighter taxes, the American people fill in the shoe. Those statistics usually only include American tax payer dollar abroad (public spending), then divide it by citizens WITHOUT adding in direct private sector donations.

At 11/9/08 09:10 AM, poxpower wrote:

At 11/8/08 05:57 PM, jrhager84 wrote:

Well let's follow that logic! Everyone should just give a set amount of money then, not a percentage! Poor people can be taxed 20k per year, just as the rich.
MAN IT'S NOT FAIR TO TAKE AWAY MORE MONEY FROM SOMEONE WHO'S RICHER, YOU'RE TOTALLY PUNISHING HIM FOR MAKING MONEY.

Actually, yes! Yes you ARE punishing him for making more money!

I think you're rewarded enough BY BEING A MILLIONAIRE, you don't need to come crying that it's not fair that you have to contribute more.

Being a millionaire is NOT a reward that was somehow GIVEN to you by the government or the people. Being a millionaire means you had the work ethic, focus, and most of all intelligence to succeed. IT IS EARNED, not given!

If you can honestly think that you DESERVED and WORKED FOR that amount of cash, when some people do chump jobs in a sweatshop for a handful of change, you're a dirty shitty person.

Those people do chump jobs in a sweatshop for one of two reasons.
#1) They are illegal immigrants who should not be here in the first place
#2) They are not intelligent enough to excel at school or at life. If they cannot afford college then do it through the navy or reserves or whatever. No matter how poor you are, that is ALWAYS a viable option!

This country is founded on the idea of self determination and opportunity. This means that those who have the intelligence and work ethic necessary to succeed have a perfectly unrestrained chance to do so, regardless of their background. HOWEVER, it does not mean that you can sit on your ass and crank out kids so you can get more welfare checks, then bitch at those of us who have succeeded because we don't give more.

The only "shitty people" in this discussion are the fu*&ing leeches, like you sir, who believe you are ENTITLED to a piece of SOMEONE ELSE'S accomplishment. It is a chance for losers like yourself to lash out at the upper crust of humanity. I know you are probably a mod and all but seriously...go get a life and quit leech enabling/leeching off those who already have one!

At 11/9/08 06:08 PM, Major-n0ob wrote:

Being a millionaire is NOT a reward that was somehow GIVEN to you by the government or the people.

The only reason rich people can go so high is because there's thousands upon thousands of people under them who work their jobs and obey laws as part of a huge and complex society.

#1) They are illegal immigrants who should not be here in the first place
#2) They are not intelligent enough to excel at school or at life.

Dude, 90% of people work shitty jobs. Someone has to do the shitty jobs and there's only a set number of people who can ever become rich. If the people weren't doing the shitty jobs, there wouldn't be any rich people. Wether they admit it or not, they OWE society for their success.

I know you are probably a mod

Oops sorry you betrayed your stupidity. Any time someone brings up the fact that I'm a mod in a discussion when it obviously makes no difference just begs to be laughed at.

Which I shall do now.

HA

HA

I have to agree and disagree with a few things in this post.

At 11/9/08 06:32 PM, poxpower wrote:

:: The only reason rich people can go so high is because there's thousands upon thousands of people under them who work their jobs and obey laws as part of a huge and complex society.

I'm a lawyer with a well paid secretary. I'm a doctor with 4 people working under me. Doctors and lawyers get rich, don't they? 80% of American jobs are in the service industry, manufacturing relies on worker ants doing menial jobs to make an organization flow. Also explain Microsoft and Google, where their employees get free lunch, high salaries, and incentives to buy green automobiles/go green.

Dude, 90% of people work shitty jobs. Someone has to do the shitty jobs and there's only a set number of people who can ever become rich. If the people weren't doing the shitty jobs, there wouldn't be any rich people. Wether they admit it or not, they OWE society for their success.

People get get rich doing shitty jobs. CEO is a shitty job, all that stress and terrible public image. Being a CEO requires years of education and formal training, if they suck, they get fired/jailed. I do agree with your point that in order to have rich people, there needs to be people in lower classes, which begs the fundamental difference between American politics, is the country better offering welfare to citizens but limiting overall growth, or letting the private sector decide on welfare but having free growth.

thanks for that deletion, btw

At 11/9/08 06:32 PM, poxpower wrote:

At 11/9/08 06:08 PM, Major-n0ob wrote:

The only reason rich people can go so high is because there's thousands upon thousands of people under them who work their jobs and obey laws as part of a huge and complex society.

At this point I must ask what that has to do with anything? If those rich people had left those jobs up to computers or foreigners they would still get rich, but would be harassed for not opening up enough jobs for society. In a large part, they are doing society a favor by generating so many jobs for the economy. Furthermore, no one is forcing anyone to work a shit job. If they don't like it, and have the intelligence to succeed, then they should quit and go do so. Successful people do not owe society anything simply because they provide jobs, that is absolutely senseless.

Dude, 90% of people work shitty jobs. Someone has to do the shitty jobs and there's only a set number of people who can ever become rich.

And again, no one ever forced them to work those shitty jobs. We could simply outsource those to China or India for shit pay, except that society would then get upset over the exporting of jobs. The fact that only a set number of people can ever get rich means there is competition involved in this as well, which is another reason it requires intelligence and work ethic.

If the people weren't doing the shitty jobs, there wouldn't be any rich people.

Yes there would. Those rich people would just send those shit jobs overseas.

Wether they admit it or not, they OWE society for their success.

No, no they do not. Society doesn't do anything but overtax them. Society owes them for the tax revenue and jobs that greatly benefit the economy.

I know you are probably a mod

At 11/9/08 06:42 PM, n64kid wrote:

I'm a lawyer with a well paid secretary. I'm a doctor with 4 people working under me. Doctors and lawyers get rich, don't they?

When I say rich, I mean 500k+ a year. That kind of cash.

People get get rich doing shitty jobs.

By shitty I mean salary-wise.

A society's goal is to provide as many social nets as possible for as many people as possible, not to allow a select few Americans to live the "dream" while everyone else leads a pointless life of struggle.

At 11/9/08 06:51 PM, Major-n0ob wrote:

At this point I must ask what that has to do with anything?

You don't get it: we're not talking about wether rich people create jobs or not, or what you can blame on them.
I'm saying they're not the sole people to congratulate for amassing a giant amount of cash. They OWE society and the government for being allowed the freedom to get where they did.

By living in america, you are guaranteed many freedoms, rights and opportunities.

And again, no one ever forced them to work those shitty jobs. We could simply outsource those to China or India for shit pay

Newsflash: SOMEONE IS STILL DOING THAT JOB. And only because someone is doing it can someone else get filthy rich. To pretend like they did it all alone and they don't owe anyone anything is just sick.

At 11/9/08 06:58 PM, poxpower wrote:

At 11/9/08 06:51 PM, Major-n0ob wrote:

You don't get it: we're not talking about wether rich people create jobs or not, or what you can blame on them.
I'm saying they're not the sole people to congratulate for amassing a giant amount of cash. They OWE society and the government for being allowed the freedom to get where they did.

They owe society for being allowed the freedom to get where they did? Last I checked, in America that sort of freedom is an inalienable right that we are not expected to pay for. The successful do not OWE the people who work for them anything, all the people who work the low level shit jobs are working those jobs because they are ... well .... low level people. Thus, they are easily replaceable. If they don't want to work for the agreed upon salary then they can leave and the boss can find someone else. However, there was never any sort of agreement that says "I the boss, owe you, the worker, more than the agreed upon salary and benefits because I am successful". That is just plain retarded.

By living in america, you are guaranteed many freedoms, rights and opportunities.

Indeed, what of it?

Newsflash: SOMEONE IS STILL DOING THAT JOB. And only because someone is doing it can someone else get filthy rich.

Yes, but in that situation, how is paying more taxes in America going to somehow reward the worker in another country? And again, there is never any agreement between the boss and the worker that says they owe the worker more than the agreed upon salary and benefits.

To pretend like they did it all alone and they don't owe anyone anything is just sick.

They DID do it alone. Whether they were scientists who developed an industry around the applications of their discoveries or entrepreneurs who built a corporation from scratch, the only thing they got from the workers is menial labor. This is already rewarded with salary and maybe benefits. If the workers want more and the boss says no they are fired and replaced.

This is common sense regarding how the world works. I would be very interested to learn where this belief that the successful somehow OWE the rest of the world something is coming from.