Got a crazy forwarded political email from your family? Post them here.

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Got a crazy forwarded political email from your family? Post them here.

«‹›2810 »

Sarion: Dec 24, 2003

JerkyBunion posted:

lol people don't think that critically.

They just think, "Hay, it sounds more fair if everyone just pays 10% of their income. Why should I have to pay 14% when they only pay 9%."

Yeah, pretty much. Paying more when you make more has been turned into "punishing people for being successful". Nevermind that someone making $300K, paying $100K in taxes still makes more in a decade than someone making $50K paying no taxes will make in their entire lives. Or that the person making $300K actually pays the same tax rate as you up to however much you make. There's this idea that if you hit the 35% tax rate, every dollar you make is taxed at 35%, which is not how taxes work. But people's opinions aren't always (or often?) based in reality.

# ? Sep 30, 2011 16:16

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 18, 2024 15:06

Thenipwax: Jun 20, 2001; by Ozmaugh

Sarion posted:

Or that the person making $300K actually pays the same tax rate as you up to however much you make.

This is what bugs me. The taxes paid by a guy making 50k a year are the same that Mr. Moneybags pays on his first 50k a year. People are just dumb.

# ? Sep 30, 2011 16:30

Eggplant Squire: Aug 14, 2003

You also get people that think it's totally possible people like Harvey Golub pay 80-90% of their earnings in taxes a year so the flat tax is more "fair" on rich people getting robbed like that.

# ? Sep 30, 2011 16:37

Revdomezehis: Jul 26, 2003; OMG a Moose!

Sarion posted:

There's this idea that if you hit the 35% tax rate, every dollar you make is taxed at 35%, which is not how taxes work. But people's opinions aren't always (or often?) based in reality.

My entire family believes this, if I try to tell them it's not and if they read the information out there about filling out their taxes they would see this. They just tell me I haven't paid taxes long enough to know "how it really works."

I just don't bother anymore.

# ? Sep 30, 2011 19:49

Olanphonia: Jul 27, 2006; I'm open to suggestions~

Vivian Darkbloom posted:

A flat tax that included capital gains could (in some ways) be more progressive than the current system.

I think what you are trying to say here is that if we ended many of the itemized deduction things that we would have a more progressive system, which would be true. A flat tax will pretty much never be more progressive than a progressive tax system simply because a flat tax will always tax the poor at a rate that would be insanely regressive.

# ? Sep 30, 2011 22:58

chesh: Apr 19, 2004; That was terrible.

Honestly it's not that people are dumb, it's that our tax system is stupid hard. Intellectually I understand that it's a sliding scale and your taxed x% on money up to x$amount and then y% on y$amount but gently caress you math is hard and I can't figure that poo poo out in my head.

# ? Sep 30, 2011 23:16

Malcolm: May 11, 2008

Unfortunately math is often involved with money. I wonder how many people understand amortization rates on their mortgage? Really though the basic tax brackets aren't too hard, although I guess they could make the brackets even rounder numbers. There are a wealth of really simple tools out there and I hope the population becomes more self-educated as they become more net-savvy.

http://www.efile.com/tax-service/tax-calculator/tax-brackets/

code:

Single 2011 Tax Brackets

Taxable Income      Marginal Tax Rate
$0-$8,500 	        10%
$8,500-$34,500 	        15%
$34,500-$83,600 	25%
$83,600-$174,400 	28%
$174,400-$379,150 	33%
$379,150+ 	        35%

The good news is you probably don't make enough that you have to calculate more than 3 brackets.

Malcolm fucked around with this message at 00:23 on Oct 1, 2011

# ? Oct 1, 2011 00:21

Sarion: Dec 24, 2003

Malcolm posted:

Unfortunately math is often involved with money. I wonder how many people understand amortization rates on their mortgage? Really though the basic tax brackets aren't too hard, although I guess they could make the brackets even rounder numbers. There are a wealth of really simple tools out there and I hope the population becomes more self-educated as they become more net-savvy.

http://www.efile.com/tax-service/tax-calculator/tax-brackets/

The good news is you probably don't make enough that you have to calculate more than 3 brackets.

And being married changes this greatly, which probably doesn't help the confusion though it makes sense:

code:

Single 2011 Tax Brackets

Taxable Income (Single)    Taxable Income (Married-Joint)   Marginal Tax Rate
$0-$8,500 	                    $0-$17,000                     10%
$8,500-$34,500 	                    $17,000-$69,000                15%
$34,500-$83,600 	            $69,000-$139,350               25%
$83,600-$174,400 	            $139,350-$212,300              28%
$174,400-$379,150 	            $212,300-$379,150              33%
$379,150+ 	                    $379,150+                      35%

And deductions push your top marginal bracket into lower brackets by lowering your taxable income. If I was single, my marginal tax bracket would be 28%, but being married drops me to 25%; and then deductions push us into the 15%. Which should put us with taxes of around $5000 (~6% tax rate), but then our kids drop that to only around $2000 after the child tax credits. So while my base income would suggest that I pay "28% of my total income in taxes" in their crazy fantasy world, I actually end up paying an effective tax of ~2.4%.

You know that chart that shows "real wealth distribution / perceived wealth distribution / ideal wealth distribution" comparison? I wonder what it would look like if they did a similar thing for "real income tax rate vs. perceived income tax rate".

# ? Oct 1, 2011 01:20

downout: Jul 6, 2009

Sarion posted:

And being married changes this greatly, which probably doesn't help the confusion though it makes sense:
code:
Single 2011 Tax Brackets

Taxable Income (Single)    Taxable Income (Married-Joint)   Marginal Tax Rate
$0-$8,500 	                    $0-$17,000                     10%
$8,500-$34,500 	                    $17,000-$69,000                15%
$34,500-$83,600 	            $69,000-$139,350               25%
$83,600-$174,400 	            $139,350-$212,300              28%
$174,400-$379,150 	            $212,300-$379,150              33%
$379,150+ 	                    $379,150+                      35%
And deductions push your top marginal bracket into lower brackets by lowering your taxable income. If I was single, my marginal tax bracket would be 28%, but being married drops me to 25%; and then deductions push us into the 15%. Which should put us with taxes of around $5000 (~6% tax rate), but then our kids drop that to only around $2000 after the child tax credits. So while my base income would suggest that I pay "28% of my total income in taxes" in their crazy fantasy world, I actually end up paying an effective tax of ~2.4%.

You know that chart that shows "real wealth distribution / perceived wealth distribution / ideal wealth distribution" comparison? I wonder what it would look like if they did a similar thing for "real income tax rate vs. perceived income tax rate".

That chart makes it even more obvious that I would want to get paid as much as possible. Our system isn't even that progressive. If I'm making between 70-130k, then I would love to get paid more because the rate only goes up an additional 3% when I get to the 140K+ range. I just had to explain this crap to my dad last week. Seventy three years old and still doesn't understand how taxes work. :bang:

# ? Oct 1, 2011 03:24

TerminalSaint: Apr 21, 2007; Where must we go...

we who wander this Wasteland in search of our better selves?

Tomahawk posted:

Also, this very same gentleman, so invested in the Ron Paul 2012 campaign also has a standing $2000 bet with someone that the world is going to end in 2012.

End of the world bets are either the smartest or the dumbest bet you can make, depending on which side you take.

# ? Oct 1, 2011 04:23

chesh: Apr 19, 2004; That was terrible.

What I am saying is that when you have the charts handy it's awesome and makes perfect sense but when I am talking to my Dad (who has no right to talk because he's on disability but when has that ever stopped a tea-partier) taxes are a lot harder to explain. Seriously, one of you needs to make a handy, small, printable version of the tax chart we can pepper America with. That would go a long way to educating people that I honestly don't think are dumb people but that have never had it simply explained to them in an easy-to-understand way.

The problem isn't "people don't understand tax brackets" is that they don't understand taxes in general. If you (the Media you) say "On average you pay 35% in taxes" then all people do is say "I make $14 an hour, times 40 hours, divide by 35% OMG gently caress OBAMA." All they think of is the payroll tax, what is IMMEDIATELY visible as missing from their pay. If there was an EASY (like first grade math easy) way to explain taxes to these people it would go a HUGE way toward educating the public about how much they pay vs how much Warren Buffet pays.

I'm saying tax brackets aren't explained to people as clearly and concisely as Malcolm laid them out above. People don't pay attention because they look at their take home pay and not the rate at which they are taxed, so when a politician "wants to raise taxes" all they see is "money less in my paycheck." That has to change.

# ? Oct 1, 2011 07:06

Sarion: Dec 24, 2003

downout posted:

That chart makes it even more obvious that I would want to get paid as much as possible. Our system isn't even that progressive. If I'm making between 70-130k, then I would love to get paid more because the rate only goes up an additional 3% when I get to the 140K+ range. I just had to explain this crap to my dad last week. Seventy three years old and still doesn't understand how taxes work.

Yeah and it makes the argument against raising the top two brackets for people over $250K even sillier, because it's only if you make $250K of taxable income. You have to make significantly over $250K to actually hit $250K taxable income. For a family of 4 making $350K, without even adding in special deductions:

Payroll tax -> $12,000
Personal/Spouse/Dependent exemption -> $14600
5% State income tax -> $17,500

That already drops them from $350K to $306K taxable income. And of course there are then other possible factors too:

Mortgage Interest -> ~$30000
401(k) contributions -> $16500
HSA contributions -> $6000
Property taxes -> ??? (depends on value of home, cars, tax rate, etc)

These drop the family of four to $254K taxable income, which is likely then reduced to less than $250K by property taxes and other, smaller deductions. So a family making $350K gross income can easily avoid paying any tax increase under what Obama wants.

A similar family making $400K might have a $275K taxable income, and the 2% increase on the $25K over $250K costs them an extra $500 a year.

Why won't anyone think of the poor, unfortunate small business man making $400K a year that's being hosed over by Obama? :cry:

# ? Oct 1, 2011 13:16

Sarion: Dec 24, 2003

chesh posted:

What I am saying is that when you have the charts handy it's awesome and makes perfect sense but when I am talking to my Dad (who has no right to talk because he's on disability but when has that ever stopped a tea-partier) taxes are a lot harder to explain. Seriously, one of you needs to make a handy, small, printable version of the tax chart we can pepper America with. That would go a long way to educating people that I honestly don't think are dumb people but that have never had it simply explained to them in an easy-to-understand way.

The problem isn't "people don't understand tax brackets" is that they don't understand taxes in general. If you (the Media you) say "On average you pay 35% in taxes" then all people do is say "I make $14 an hour, times 40 hours, divide by 35% OMG gently caress OBAMA." All they think of is the payroll tax, what is IMMEDIATELY visible as missing from their pay. If there was an EASY (like first grade math easy) way to explain taxes to these people it would go a HUGE way toward educating the public about how much they pay vs how much Warren Buffet pays.

I'm saying tax brackets aren't explained to people as clearly and concisely as Malcolm laid them out above. People don't pay attention because they look at their take home pay and not the rate at which they are taxed, so when a politician "wants to raise taxes" all they see is "money less in my paycheck." That has to change.

I agree, but I'm not sure how to do that without lots of numbers, and I have a feeling that when people see lots of numbers they kind of shut off unless they already are interested in trying to learn. I'm not sure how to make a small, easy to digest message that explains the tax code in a way that can compete with "Obama wants to tax job creators for 39% of everything they make!!!"

# ? Oct 1, 2011 13:19

babies havin rabies: Feb 24, 2006

Americans: Unable on a large scale to exercise the mathematical skills and reading comprehension of a 4th grader.

# ? Oct 1, 2011 15:54

NatasDog: Feb 9, 2009

babies havin rabies posted:

Americans: Unable on a large scale to exercise the mathematical skills and reading comprehension of a 4th grader.

It looks so ridiculous when you distill it like that, but it goes a long way towards explaining why these e-mails are so easily digested by their target audience. It also helps explain why so many people are more comfortable with easily understood political dogma like "Taxes bad", "Death Penalty Good", "Are Troops", etc.

# ? Oct 2, 2011 06:40

VideoTapir: Oct 18, 2005; He'll tire eventually.

quote:

USS BARACK OBAMA

The USS Barack Obama set sail today from its home port of Vancouver, BC.

The ship is the first of its kind in the Navy and is a standing legacy to President Barack H. Obama "for his foresight in military budget cuts."

The ship is constructed nearly entirely from recycled aluminum and is completely solar powered with a top speed of 5 knots. It boasts an arsenal comprised of one (unarmed) F14 Tomcat or one (unarmed) F18 Hornet aircraft which, although they cannot be launched on the 100 foot flight deck, they do form a very menacing presence.

As a standing order there are no firearms allowed on board.

This crew, like the crew aboard the USS Jimmy Carter, is specially trained to avoid conflicts and appease any and all enemies of the United States at all costs. An onboard DNC Universal Translator can send out messages of apology in any language to anyone who may find America offensive. The number of apologies are limitless and though some may seem hollow and disingenuous, the Navy advises all apologies will sound very sincere.

In times of conflict, the USS Obama has orders to seek refuge in Canada.

Details are as vague as his past, his economic policies, and his credentials to lead. But don't you worry, he has a plan!

# ? Oct 2, 2011 06:49

pillsburysoldier: Feb 11, 2008; Yo, peep that shit

VideoTapir posted:

How many brown people does the military have to kill under Obama's orders till he gets some credit with these weirdos?

# ? Oct 2, 2011 06:55

Corb3t: Jun 7, 2003

VideoTapir posted:

How can anyone actually think Obama appeases any and all enemies? More top Al Quada members have been killed under his watch compared to Bush. :psyduck:

# ? Oct 2, 2011 06:56

Kavak: Aug 23, 2009

First he's Kenyan, now he's Canadian? Pick one, dammit!

Also, I like the idea that Carter, the man who helped get the Soviet Union involved in a decade-long bloodbath in Afghanistan, and who personally asked the people of his state as governor to drive with their headlights off to show support for Lt. Calley, is somehow an appeaser. I know they're really talking about the Iran hostage crisis, but it's still amusing.

# ? Oct 2, 2011 06:57

myron cope: Apr 21, 2009

Bush never apologized or bowed to foreign leaders and I'm pretty sure he killed bin laden and your facts don't matter

# ? Oct 2, 2011 06:58

JerkyBunion: Jun 22, 2002

VideoTapir posted:

This about the guy who "won" a war he didn't start, "won" a war he did, escalated a war he didn't start, and assassinated a guy who was the stated holy grail of the war on terror for 10 years.

Say what you want about his policies, but he can sure kill some browns.

# ? Oct 2, 2011 07:01

JoshTheStampede: Sep 8, 2004; come at me bro

Why the gently caress is apologizing for the heinous poo poo we do and trying to use diplomacy over random bombing considered a bad thing?

# ? Oct 2, 2011 07:07

The Flour Moth: May 22, 2001; WHAT HATH PONIES WROUGHT

Dominion posted:

Why the gently caress is apologizing for the heinous poo poo we do and trying to use diplomacy over random bombing considered a bad thing?

Because America never apologizes! Apologies are for the weak.

# ? Oct 2, 2011 11:05

VideoTapir: Oct 18, 2005; He'll tire eventually.

The Flour Moth posted:

Because America never apologizes! Apologies are for the weak.

So is sanity.

# ? Oct 2, 2011 11:39

Orange Devil: Oct 1, 2010; Wullie's reign cannae smother the flames o' equality!

The Flour Moth posted:

Because America never apologizes! Apologies are for the weak.

Doubling down is the American way!

# ? Oct 2, 2011 11:43

Malcolm: May 11, 2008

Look your either for us or against us.

# ? Oct 2, 2011 12:17

Zwabu: Aug 7, 2006

myron_cope posted:

Bush never apologized or bowed to foreign leaders and I'm pretty sure he killed bin laden and your facts don't matter

Speaking of this idiocy, I saw this posted on someone's Facebook:

# ? Oct 2, 2011 13:03

jojoinnit: Dec 13, 2010; Strength and speed, that's why you're a special agent.

George Bush stuffs and mounts human heads on the wall of his library.

# ? Oct 2, 2011 13:08

Pseudo-God: Mar 13, 2006; I just love oranges!

jojoinnit posted:

George Bush stuffs and mounts human heads on the wall of his library.

Even during his presidency Bush showed at least some humanity and empathy, unlike the person who made that photoshop.

# ? Oct 2, 2011 15:24

XyloJW: Jul 23, 2007

VideoTapir posted:

Unironically, that sounds pretty alright. Ship made of recycled metal, that is focused on diplomacy.

By the way, the USS Jimmy Carter is a Seawolf class submarine with the following armament: 8 � 26-inch torpedo tubes; Harpoon missiles; Tomahawk missiles; Mk-48 torpedoes; ability to lay mines.

Assholes.

# ? Oct 2, 2011 15:24

VideoTapir: Oct 18, 2005; He'll tire eventually.

I just wish they'd stop naming ships after people who are still alive.

# ? Oct 2, 2011 15:47

XyloJW: Jul 23, 2007

VideoTapir posted:

I just wish they'd stop naming ships after people who are still alive.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_military_vessels_named_after_living_Americans

Five were named after Washington while Washington was still alive. Basically, we've always done stupid poo poo like that.

# ? Oct 2, 2011 15:57

Nenonen: Oct 22, 2009; Mulla on aina kolkyt donaa taskussa

XyloJW posted:

By the way, the USS Jimmy Carter is a Seawolf class submarine with the following armament: 8 � 26-inch torpedo tubes; Harpoon missiles; Tomahawk missiles; Mk-48 torpedoes; ability to lay mines.

Assholes.

And while the crew has more small arms onboard than you would find in your average Texas town, it'd have to be an absolute FUBAR if they ever had to use them.

Btw. Carter himself was a submariner, hence his name was given to a sub. I think it's ludicrous that anyone would throw a quip against a boat named after someone who actually took part in defending their country. He also took part in this operation:

quote:

On December 12, 1952, an accident with the experimental NRX reactor at Atomic Energy of Canada�s Chalk River Laboratories caused a partial meltdown. The resulting explosion caused millions of liters of radioactive water to flood the reactor building�s basement, and the reactor�s core was no longer usable. Carter was now ordered to Chalk River, joining other Canadian and American service personnel. He was the officer in charge of the U.S. team assisting in the shutdown of the Chalk River Nuclear Reactor.

Once they arrived, Carter's team used a model of the reactor to practice the steps necessary to disassemble the reactor and seal it off. During execution of the actual disassembly each team member, including Carter, donned protective gear, was lowered individually into the reactor, stayed for only a few seconds at a time to minimize exposure to radiation, and used hand tools to loosen bolts, remove nuts and take the other steps necessary to complete the disassembly process.

So yeah, Jimmy had some serious balls. Meanwhile, USS Ronald Reagan is named after a guy who spent WW2 in the army's public relations & movie units. Are the personnel aboard USS Ronnie just a bunch of draft-avoiding spineless maggots who only joined the service to live the lives of a playboy while thousands of their countrymen die in the front?

# ? Oct 2, 2011 15:57

Nenonen: Oct 22, 2009; Mulla on aina kolkyt donaa taskussa

VideoTapir posted:

I just wish they'd stop naming ships after people who are still alive.

I think it's a pretty cool tradition, and like Xylo said it's a long one. It would make more sense if it was reserved to people who had actually served in the navy/naval aviation, though, like JFK, Carter and George H.W. Bush. I don't think they have that much need for new names that they'd have to give a ship to Clinton, GWB or Obama just because hey they were Presidents!

I also love the British naming tradition - names such as Indomitable, Untamed or Victorious are HC as hell and could be given to Imperial Star Destroyers any day.

# ? Oct 2, 2011 16:07

Sarion: Dec 24, 2003

myron_cope posted:

Bush never apologized or bowed to foreign leaders and I'm pretty sure he killed bin laden and your facts don't matter

Facts have a decidedly liberal bias.

Mitt Romney: Obama went around apologizing for America. Sept 22nd, 2011 - Pants On Fire

# ? Oct 2, 2011 21:25

Hobnob: Feb 23, 2006; Ursa Adorandum

Nenonen posted:

I also love the British naming tradition - names such as Indomitable, Untamed or Victorious are HC as hell and could be given to Imperial Star Destroyers any day.

I think they're great, though some names are rather less hardcore.

# ? Oct 3, 2011 05:39

PerniciousKnid: Sep 13, 2006

Hobnob posted:

I think they're great, though some names are rather less hardcore.

I love Wikipedia.

quote:

Hopewell, Nonsuch and Gay Corsair all dropped their civilian names and returned to their official designation in 1944. By 1945 the Navy had advanced their numbers to the new numbering scheme and they became No. 2004, 2005 and 2007 respectively. For some reason, Gay Viking apparently continued to sail under that name.

# ? Oct 3, 2011 12:33

Nenonen: Oct 22, 2009; Mulla on aina kolkyt donaa taskussa

Hobnob posted:

I think they're great, though some names are rather less hardcore.

Not the example you provided. Nothing says hardcore like a gay viking. :black101:

Bicurious vikings, though? Total wussies.

# ? Oct 3, 2011 12:42

TheGrizzle: Jul 3, 2007

Hobnob posted:

I think they're great, though some names are rather less hardcore.

How can a gay viking not be hardcore by any sense of the term? A happy viking, surely the intended meaning, is a terror of the seas, raping and pillaging. A homosexual viking is a terror of the seas, sodomizing and pillaging. Either way :black101:

# ? Oct 3, 2011 17:03

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 18, 2024 15:06

RogueTrick: Oct 27, 2006; Reverend to the Pirate Nation

VideoTapir posted:

As soon as I saw it said Canada, I knew that had to be a rewrite of a Bill Clinton joke. http://www.targetofopportunity.com/USS_Clinton.htm

# ? Oct 3, 2011 17:06

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Got a crazy forwarded political email from your family? Post them here.

«‹›2810 »