Where has all the money gone...

desert dude

desert dude

Well-Known Member
kpmarine said:
And still no straight answer. Also, his math is sound. You still haven't explained what you were doing at 16 that netted you 110,000 a year.
Click to expand...
KP, with all due respect, I don't owe you any answer at all, straight or bent. You and Cheesedick made a bunch of incorrect assumptions and then acted as if I had to respond to them. I don't. I didn't say that I paid in $400K to social security, for example. Read the sentence closely. I never said I was self employed. I never said I was 16 in 1983.

It is a free country, so if you want to align yourself with morons like Cheesedick, and tax evading leaches like Buck, that is your right.
 
C

ChesusRice

Well-Known Member
desert dude said:
KP, with all due respect, I don't owe you any answer at all, straight or bent. You and Cheesedick made a bunch of incorrect assumptions and then acted as if I had to respond to them. I don't. I didn't say that I paid in $400K to social security, for example. Read the sentence closely. I never said I was self employed. I never said I was 16 in 1983.

It is a free country, so if you want to align yourself with morons like Cheesedick, and tax evading leaches like Buck, that is your right.
Click to expand...
desert dude said:
I take truth wherever I find it, CN.
Having paid about $400K into social security over the years, I also get a bit annoyed at the term, "entitlement". I want my $400K back, with interest!

The simple fact is, the government embezzled all of the SS funds. The government was the dishonest middleman in the whole scheme. There is no "trust fund" with trillions of accumulated contributions. When income falls below outgo something is going to give.
Click to expand...
110000 /12.4% = 13640
400000/13640 =29.3255

so you claim to of made 110000 dollars self employed for 29.3255 years
 
kpmarine

kpmarine

Well-Known Member
desert dude said:
KP, with all due respect, I don't owe you any answer at all, straight or bent. You and Cheesedick made a bunch of incorrect assumptions and then acted as if I had to respond to them. I don't. I didn't say that I paid in $400K to social security, for example. Read the sentence closely. I never said I was self employed. I never said I was 16 in 1983.

It is a free country, so if you want to align yourself with morons like Cheesedick, and tax evading leaches like Buck, that is your right.
Click to expand...
I don't give two shits that Buck doesn't pay taxes on his treadmills. If the gov. wanted the money bad enough, they'd make it legal so people could pay taxes on it without going to jail. I will willingly admit that both of them can troll when they want to.

You're right, you don't have to give answers, but it makes your story a lot more credible. I will give you that I assumed you were self employed, the rest you brought upon yourself by failing to back up your statements. You did say you paid "about" $400k, unless "about" means "give or take $50k". If you want to hide behind lame bullshit instead of validating your position, feel free. That is your right. However, the fact that you didn't mention any of this the first few times doesn't do much for you.
 
Trolling

Trolling

New Member
I'm pretty unbiased on this site, I'm more of a curious person that just likes to learn new stuff, Im one of the few that I'll admit if I feel wrong.

May I know?
 
UncleBuck

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
Trolling said:
I'm pretty unbiased on this site, I'm more of a curious person that just likes to learn new stuff, Im one of the few that I'll admit if I feel wrong.

May I know?
Click to expand...
sometimes people give me tips for speaking in a british accent while they masturbate as i make a treadmill delivery, do i have to pay taxes on that?
 
squarepush3r

squarepush3r

Well-Known Member
UncleBuck said:
my best tipper makes me dress up like a plate of spaghetti and meatballs and talk in an english accent.*
Click to expand...
I am not pissed off at all. You also seem to not understand what the word invalid is in the context of arguments. Invalid means that an argument is not cogent. For an argument to not be cogent it must be deductively invalid. You are trying to explain something using the wrong word. You are once again placing the burden of proof on myself which is as I stated a logical fallacy. I questioned your own beliefs; I did not submit evidence towards my own. Never have I even argued that I agree with abortion but you seem to have taken the position that I do. It is required that you clarify and offer evidence of your own that is not only cogent (valid) but also true. If an argument is cogent and true then it is "correct." It is obvious that I am arguing with someone that has not been formally educated so I am unsure why I am still pandering to you. You are unable to grasp the concepts that I am presenting to you because they are learned in years of study. Your opinion will continue to be discarded by society because you are unable to form arguments for your position that the educated will listen to. Refer to past election statistics and you will see that the most educated of the nation vote in landslide favor of the party that believes in a woman's right to choose. This is not being stated as a common practice fallacy but rather as an example of how the country's educated currently view the situation. You have no ground to stand on that killing a baby is wrong. Your belief is a construct of social conditioning. Killing, at least homicide, is a social taboo in all nations. The problem is that abortion being murder has not been constructed in the system of social conditioning of most western societies. The problem is relative not objective. You are entering the argument from a foolish perspective of a false dilemma; you do not seem to see this.
 
desert dude

desert dude

Well-Known Member
squarepush3r said:
I am not pissed off at all. You also seem to not understand what the word invalid is in the context of arguments. Invalid means that an argument is not cogent. For an argument to not be cogent it must be deductively invalid. You are trying to explain something using the wrong word. You are once again placing the burden of proof on myself which is as I stated a logical fallacy. I questioned your own beliefs; I did not submit evidence towards my own. Never have I even argued that I agree with abortion but you seem to have taken the position that I do. It is required that you clarify and offer evidence of your own that is not only cogent (valid) but also true. If an argument is cogent and true then it is "correct." It is obvious that I am arguing with someone that has not been formally educated so I am unsure why I am still pandering to you. You are unable to grasp the concepts that I am presenting to you because they are learned in years of study. Your opinion will continue to be discarded by society because you are unable to form arguments for your position that the educated will listen to. Refer to past election statistics and you will see that the most educated of the nation vote in landslide favor of the party that believes in a woman's right to choose. This is not being stated as a common practice fallacy but rather as an example of how the country's educated currently view the situation. You have no ground to stand on that killing a baby is wrong. Your belief is a construct of social conditioning. Killing, at least homicide, is a social taboo in all nations. The problem is that abortion being murder has not been constructed in the system of social conditioning of most western societies. The problem is relative not objective. You are entering the argument from a foolish perspective of a false dilemma; you do not seem to see this.
Click to expand...

Must be a private squabble.
 
desert dude

desert dude

Well-Known Member
UncleBuck said:
so then you only paid at 6.2% into SS, making your math even more untenable.
Click to expand...
I consider the entire SS tax burden paid in to the feds to be wholly owned by the employee. It is part of total compensation. The employer is not paying that money to the feds out of kindness. If there were no SS tax then the employees' wage would be 6.2% higher.

The fact that you don't consider that 6.2% to be owned by the employee is because you are a tax evading leach who insists that taxes are good and you would love to pay, really, you would. Cheesus' excuse is that he is a moron.
 
Rob Roy

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
canndo said:
As always, your presumption of theft limits your argument. If I contribute to something that eventually gives something back, even if I am not completely happy with the arrangement, it is not theft. It is what is called a social compact. You need not give the U.S.government anything at all, if you feel so strongly about their "theft" then you are enabled, in this country to leave and pay no more.

If you can find a place where you get better value for the money that you "contribute" then I will be the first to ask you where that place is and I may well join you there.
Click to expand...
I think you meant "social contract", which is sort of a word twist. A contract or "compact" to be just requires the consent of the people that are parties to it. What you call a compact is actually a unilateral erm "agreement". The kind where ONE party makes the rules and holds all the cards and the gun.

As far as me leaving the country, which one do you mean? The one that features sexual assaults at airports and drug dogs at the borders?
 
UncleBuck

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
desert dude said:
I consider the entire SS tax burden paid in to the feds to be wholly owned by the employee. It is part of total compensation. The employer is not paying that money to the feds out of kindness. If there were no SS tax then the employees' wage would be 6.2% higher.

The fact that you don't consider that 6.2% to be owned by the employee is because you are a tax evading leach who insists that taxes are good and you would love to pay, really, you would. Cheesus' excuse is that he is a moron.
Click to expand...
oh, i see, you have some fantasy that the boss man would give you the 6.2% instead of pocketing it.

you live in a fantasy world where math and science are meaningless but your retarded delusions reign supreme.

must be the senility.*
 
canndo

canndo

Well-Known Member
Rob Roy said:
I think you meant "social contract", which is sort of a word twist. A contract or "compact" to be just requires the consent of the people that are parties to it. What you call a compact is actually a unilateral erm "agreement". The kind where ONE party makes the rules and holds all the cards and the gun.

As far as me leaving the country, which one do you mean? The one that features sexual assaults at airports and drug dogs at the borders?
Click to expand...

It is up to you where you suggest we go Rob. So far as the use of the word, I did so knowingly.


You, by virtue of your existence in this country and your granted ability to leave, have agreed that you abide by the rules of this country or suffer the consequences of violating those rules. Were there walls surrounding the borders that inhibit your exit, you would have a far more reasonable argument. So long as you CAN leave, no one is holding a gun to your head with regard to those rules.

So, as I asked, where would you have us go where the return on our tax dollars are better?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top