A tax analogy, who's really paying their fair share?

[UncleBuck]

Or because they didn't want to spend the money.



Or because they wanted more/other tax cuts.



The idea actually originated during Johnson's presidency, but that's not even important. Bush rejected the Kyoto Protocol--complete with its cap and trade provisions--long before Obama was even a household name. Skepticism about global warming has grown in all political groups over the last 10 years, making it unpopular with Republicans and conservative Democrats, and that's why they failed to move it.



Outright false. Both parties have opposed infrastructure improvements in recent decades when it was politically expedient for them to do so.



You didn't post anything that had to do with racial hatred. Obama is a political enemy just like Bush was a political enemy for the Democrats and just like Clinton was a political enemy for the Republicans. The fights in the latter cases obviously had nothing to do with race.

Obama hasn't been able to accomplish much for several obvious reasons: 1) he doesn't make deals, 2) he doesn't believe in negotiation, 3) he makes no effort to establish relationships with people in the opposition, 4) he plays to the national public and his political base, ignoring that the congress is responsible to its own political bases. Clinton and the Republicans accomplished a lot because Clinton worked closely with Republicans--even while they were vilifying him and trying to remove him from office--building/maintaining personal relationships, making deals, and negotiating.

tell me again about how a college sent you a rejection letter telling you the exact race and exact SES of the candidate who was chosen in "your" place.

 

[travisw]

tell me again about how a college sent you a rejection letter telling you the exact race and exact SES of the candidate who was chosen in "your" place.

what's SES?

 

[UncleBuck]

what's SES?

socio economic status.

i shit you not, he told us that happened.

i pressed him, and he admitted that he just ASSUMED that he was skipped over in favor of a black candidate in his same SES.

besides that little incident, he has made zero slip ups or zero statements that would lead me to believe what i now know about him.

 

[schuylaar]

Imagine the following:

Ten good friends go out for dinner at a restaurant every night. The combined bill for the ten totals $200. Since they all make differing amounts of money they decide that they divide the payment as follows:

The four first - the poorest of the lot - don't pay at all.
The fifth pays $2.
The sixth pays $6.
The seventh pays $14.
The eigth pays $24.
The ninth pays $36.
The tenth and the richest pays $118.

They were all pretty content with this way of splitting the bill and they went out to eat together every day. One day, however, the restaurant's owner decided he'd give them a discount.

"Since you're such good customers", he said, "I'll give you a discount of $40." The ten's dinner would then cost $160. The group of friends decided they still wanted to keep splitting the check in the same fashion as previously. Therefore, the four first - whom paid nothing - were not affected and could keep eating for free. But how would the remaining six - those who were paying - divide the cost amongst them? How were they to split the value of the discount so that everyone got their fair share? The six realized that $40 divided by six equals $6.66. However, if they subtracted that amount from each person's share - the fifth and the sixth persons would get paid to go out and eat (by paying a negative amount).

The restaurant owner suggested that it'd be fair to reduce each person's share roughly proportionally and he crunched the numbers to calculate the amount each person was to pay. He came to the conclusion that the fifth person too could eat free - just like the 1st through 4th did originally -, the sixth was to pay $4, the seventh $10, the eigth $18, the ninth $24 and the tenth $104 in contrast to his previous $118.

As a result, ALL SIX paid a lower price than before and the four who paid nothing originally kept paying nothing.

But one night after finishing their dinner, they all started comparing what they had saved. "I only saved $2 of the discount's total value of $40", said the sixth person. Then he turned and pointed to the tenth person who still paid the lion's share and said "But he saved $14!". "That's right", concurred the fifth person and added "I too only saved $2! It's unfair he saved seven times the amount I did". "That's right!", the seventh person yelled. "Why should he save $14 when I only saved $4? The rich always get the unfair advantage!". Then the four first - who never payed a penny - cried "Wait a minute! We didn't save anything at all from the discount! This system exploits and takes advantage of the poor!".

The first nine persons then jumped the tenth and beat him up. The following night, he didn't show up for dinner - causing the other nine to sit down and eat without him. When the check arrived they realized a little something. They were $104 short to pay for dinner.
Why Rick Santorum Should Be President

this is basic accounting 101..the group paid a proportionate amount based upon contribution..the fact they started to fight?..it's a ridiculous republican scenario.

 

[UncleBuck]

your analogy in not analogous, and to call it an analogy is an insult to analogies.

a better analogy would be this: 1000 people attend a catering event. 6 of them are rich beyond your wildest dreams, they are richer than more than the bottom 800 or so attendees combined. the other 994 people range from dirt poor to pretty fucking rich. to pay for the event, which includes unlimited opportunity for good food, the filthy rich are charged $13 dollars to enter while the rest are charged anywhere from $35 for the well off, $30 for the not so well off but still getting by, $15 for the next to broke, $5 for the poverty folks, and $0 for the few truly poor.

that's more analogous to how our current system works. we all put in for the success of the nation, some more than others, and at certain rates. the super rich pay about what the working poor do. the middle and upper class pay way more, and the few at the bottom pay nothing and even get a free ride.

notice how beenthere has never addressed my analogy in the years since i made it, but has instead decided to focus on my finances for over a year instead.

beenthere is an incompetent dullard who is obsessed with other people's money, and he is a tea partier.

that's all you need to say.

 

[tokeprep]

tell me again about how a college sent you a rejection letter telling you the exact race and exact SES of the candidate who was chosen in "your" place.

Since I never made such a claim, I could not possibly tell you that again.

If you aren't going to substantively respond, don't bother responding.

 

[tokeprep]

socio economic status.

i shit you not, he told us that happened.

i pressed him, and he admitted that he just ASSUMED that he was skipped over in favor of a black candidate in his same SES.

besides that little incident, he has made zero slip ups or zero statements that would lead me to believe what i now know about him.

Don't lie about what I said. If you're going to rehash this, you need to at least get my claim right.

 

[travisw]

Don't lie about what I said. If you're going to rehash this, you need to at least get my claim right.

What did you claim?

 

[tokeprep]

What did you claim?

I said that I received no special consideration based on my socio-economic background, whereas others from similar backgrounds received race-based consideration and were admitted despite having substantially lower GPAs and test scores. This was based on my analysis of the admissions data.

If I were black, based on said stats, I would have been statistically likely to be admitted to Yale, Harvard, and Stanford.

(Edit: I just re-ran the numbers for this post. Using the ones I named, if I were black, I had a 60% chance at Yale, an 80% chance at Harvard, and a 70% chance at Stanford.)

 

[UncleBuck]

I said that I received no special consideration based on my socio-economic background, whereas others from similar backgrounds received race-based consideration and were admitted despite having substantially lower GPAs and test scores.

that's not what you said. go find it. i have to run again.

 

[tokeprep]

that's not what you said. go find it. i have to run again.

I think I worded it more like "You've never been rejected from a university in favor of someone from a similar SES who had inferior credentials." The substance is exactly the same as what I just wrote. You declared that I was lying because I could not prove that a minority from a similar SES with inferior credentials was specifically accepted in my place.

 

[beenthere]

this is basic accounting 101..the group paid a proportionate amount based upon contribution..the fact they started to fight?..it's a ridiculous republican scenario.

Basic accounting 101? LMFAO Is that like basic basic accounting or 101 accounting 101

 

[beenthere]

a better analogy would be this: 1000 people attend a catering event. 6 of them are rich beyond your wildest dreams, they are richer than more than the bottom 800 or so attendees combined. the other 994 people range from dirt poor to pretty fucking rich. to pay for the event, which includes unlimited opportunity for good food, the filthy rich are charged $13 dollars to enter while the rest are charged anywhere from $35 for the well off, $30 for the not so well off but still getting by, $15 for the next to broke, $5 for the poverty folks, and $0 for the few truly poor.

that's more analogous to how our current system works. we all put in for the success of the nation, some more than others, and at certain rates. the super rich pay about what the working poor do. the middle and upper class pay way more, and the few at the bottom pay nothing and even get a free ride.

notice how beenthere has never addressed my analogy in the years since i made it, but has instead decided to focus on my finances for over a year instead.

beenthere is an incompetent dullard who is obsessed with other people's money, and he is a tea partier.

that's all you need to say.

What is it about math, taxes and money that renders you mindless?

Our progressive tax system is progressive in percentage, not in amounts.
You have the richest guy paying the least amount.
While a 1%er may only pay 12% on their $30millon, they're still contributing $3.6million in taxes to the government.
The not so wealthy guy may be paying 16% of his $180k but he's only contributing about $29k in taxes.
Your stupid wannbe analogy is using amounts instead of percentages.

 

[NLXSK1]

We always argue about who is paying their fair share...

When are we going to start arguing about government spending it's fair share???

 

[UncleBuck]

I think I worded it more like "You've never been rejected from a university in favor of someone from a similar SES who had inferior credentials." The substance is exactly the same as what I just wrote. You declared that I was lying because I could not prove that a minority from a similar SES with inferior credentials was specifically accepted in my place.

i guess i'll have to go find it since you insist on being a dishonest weasel about it.

 

[BigNBushy]

What is it about math, taxes and money that renders you mindless?

Our progressive tax system is progressive in percentage, not in amounts.
You have the richest guy paying the least amount.
While a 1%er may only pay 12% on their $30millon, they're still contributing $3.6million in taxes to the government.
The not so wealthy guy may be paying 16% of his $180k but he's only contributing about $29k in taxes.
Your stupid wannbe analogy is using amounts instead of percentages.

bucks analagy is dishonest and fails to make one crucial distinction; there are different types of income.

The very wealthy do not "work" like the rest of us do, apparently some begrudge them for this.

What they do, instead, is 'gamble' with their money. They play the stock market, in other words they invest.

Investment returns are a completely different animal than other income. Regular income is you go to a job, and you get a check every week or month.

With investments you do something regular income does not require, you pony up some cash. If, years later that cash you used to buy stock, land, or whatever has grown in value and you sell it, realizing a gain, you pay tax at a lower rate than you do on regular income. There are several reasons for this.

First, it's fair. These are long term situations. If you have a capital gain on something you bought this year, it's treated as regular income. If it has been over a year, it's capatial gains income. Inflation takes a hit on your initial investment, and there is risk involved.

Second, it is policy to do so. Investment is to be encouraged, therefore it is taxed at a lower rate. History shows that high rates on capital gains results in less investment. Because it is possible you can lose your money, after all. Investment is what the super wealthy do, it provides business the means to expand and hire more people. It needs to be encouraged.

Is the country better off getting 15% of Warren Buffets capital gains income, or getting nothing because the tax is too large for it to make it worth his while to do so?

Buck sees it as unfair, the reality is he cannot see the forest for the trees.

 

[UncleBuck]

bucks analagy is dishonest and fails to make one crucial distinction; there are different types of income.

The very wealthy do not "work" like the rest of us do, apparently some begrudge them for this.

What they do, instead, is 'gamble' with their money. They play the stock market, in other words they invest.

Investment returns are a completely different animal than other income. Regular income is you go to a job, and you get a check every week or month.

With investments you do something regular income does not require, you pony up some cash. If, years later that cash you used to buy stock, land, or whatever has grown in value and you sell it, realizing a gain, you pay tax at a lower rate than you do on regular income. There are several reasons for this.

First, it's fair. These are long term situations. If you have a capital gain on something you bought this year, it's treated as regular income. If it has been over a year, it's capatial gains income. Inflation takes a hit on your initial investment, and there is risk involved.

Second, it is policy to do so. Investment is to be encouraged, therefore it is taxed at a lower rate. History shows that high rates on capital gains results in less investment. Because it is possible you can lose your money, after all. Investment is what the super wealthy do, it provides business the means to expand and hire more people. It needs to be encouraged.

Is the country better off getting 15% of Warren Buffets capital gains income, or getting nothing because the tax is too large for it to make it worth his while to do so?

Buck sees it as unfair, the reality is he cannot see the forest for the trees.

the koch brothers undoubtedly love seeing subway employees defend paying more taxes than them.

 

[NLXSK1]

the koch brothers undoubtedly love seeing subway employees defend paying more taxes than them.

Show me a subway employee that paid MORE TAXES than the Koch Brothers...

You suck at math dude... No wonder you cant get a job...

 

[UncleBuck]

Show me a subway employee that paid MORE TAXES than the Koch Brothers...

You suck at math dude... No wonder you cant get a job...

show me a subway employee who earned as much as the koch brothers. we're talking percentages, skippy.

i don't need someone who thins iran is landlocked to come fucking things up with his misunderstandings of basic facts.

 

[UncleBuck]

Show me a subway employee that paid MORE TAXES than the Koch Brothers...

You suck at math dude... No wonder you cant get a job...

also, note the ellipses abuse.

a trademark of racist right wing idiots.