|
Conservative humor, guys! It's a riot!quote:George Bush, Queen Elizabeth, and Vladimir Putin all die and go to hell. While there, they spy a red phone and ask what the phone is for. The devil tells them it is for calling back to Earth.
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2012 21:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 07:34 |
|
|
Sulphuric Sundae posted:Conservative humor, guys! It's a riot! This is another example of that "This is funny because it reinforces my beliefs!" type of humour that was deconstructed earlier in the thread. Also the joke makes no sense. Why is Queen Elizabeth, a monarch with no power, lumped in with two republican presidents with great deals of power? Why does it cost money to call Earth? Why do these people have money in hell, and why would they expect their bank to validate a cheque written after they were dead and cashed from hell? Unless... hell is a free market state! Only those with money get to do things! It's actually a subversive liberal joke undermining the free market, guys.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2012 21:13
|
|
|
And that devil turned out to be Albert Einstein (because Jews go to hell)
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2012 21:14
|
|
|
Wardark Grimhams posted:well this is also the Mom who on the way home from a friend's funeral said (paraphrasing) "Now I don't want you going all liberal on me, Universal Health Care wouldn't have saved him" UHC won't make us immortal, so why bother?
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2012 21:22
|
|
|
"50 people each employed and paying 15% tax each, gets more revenue than 1 person working paying 35% tax." If I understand this is an argument for eliminating the minimum wage. If we accept that 7,250/yr is a realistic expectation for a minimum wage earner (20 hrs/wk X 50 weeks) they aren't even in the 15% bracket unless they are working three jobs. If we eliminate the minimum wage and suppose the above wage is cut in half that person now has to work six (?) jobs to be in the 15% bracket. Someone working full time at the minimum wage still isn't in the 15% bracket. There is also the consideration that if Company X hires more people at lower wages and doesn't increase sales they are simply paying the same overall wages as before and the net effect on tax income is negligible. I would also challenge the assertion that Ronald Reagan "proved" it especially since the tax brackets were much different (and higher) then.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2012 21:46
|
|
|
wormil posted:"50 people each employed and paying 15% tax each, gets more revenue than 1 person working paying 35% tax." I was curious about the math here. Let's say income tax gets changed so 'everyone has skin in the game' and people working minimum wage get taxed 15%, in this guy's dad's crazy world. Doubling your 7,250/yr to account for a 40-hour week, you have 50 people making $14,500 a year. That's $725,000. At 15%, they're bringing in $108,750 for the government. One person who makes enough money to pay taxes in the 35% bracket (applying marginal rates here, because why the hell not) makes this much, not counting deductions: 10% on 8,700 = 870 + 15% up to 35,350 = 3,997.5 + 25% up to 85,650 = 12,575 + 28% up to 178,650 = 26,040 + 33% up to 388,350 = 69,201 = $112,683.5 per year on income up to $388,350. plus 35% on income over 388,351 = ? So even before you get to the income that would actually be taxed at 35%, that one person actually is paying more taxes than those 50 people at minimum wage. And I bet you they still live a hell of a lot better, even after "  all those taxes "Not that this would convince that guy's dad. He would use it as evidence that rich person taxes are too high and we should cut those while raising taxes on the poor, undoubtedly. But to use it as an excuse to eliminate minimum wage so more people will get jobs and contribute to government revenue instead of just taxing people who make more in a year than those people would make in their lives at minimum wage is ludicrous, and the math doesn't add up.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2012 22:17
|
|
|
Sulphuric Sundae posted:Conservative humor, guys! It's a riot! It would have been funnier if they didn't explain the punchline... "Since Obama took over, it is a local call."
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2012 22:25
|
|
|
vyelkin posted:He would use it as evidence that rich person taxes are too high I find that most conservatives that I know use wealth and income as a metric for measuring the worth of a person, and that's just beyond hosed up.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2012 22:29
|
|
|
Leon Einstein posted:I find that most conservatives that I know use wealth and income as a metric for measuring the worth of a person, and that's just beyond hosed up. It's just one of the many horrifying ways in which Mr. Show sketch ideas have become a reality, and probably right at the top of the list along with "Toddlers and Tiaras".
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2012 22:44
|
|
|
Leon Einstein posted:I find that most conservatives that I know use wealth and income as a metric for measuring the worth of a person, and that's just beyond hosed up.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2012 22:54
|
|
|
Leon Einstein posted:This is my dad. He gets upset if I talk about raising the taxes on the wealthy and says "well, they pay a lot more than YOU DO" and uses real dollars rather than percentages in his argument. OK, that's true, but it certainly doesn't mean that I should pay more. Yeah, but people like Romney pay more in taxes in a single year, at a measly 14% rate than most Americans will make in their entire life. And after the taxes are paid they still have so much left over that they live several lifetimes off of one year of after tax income. You could double his tax rate and he would still make enough in a year to set him up for a long middle class life without ever earning a penny more. I really don't understand why this concept is so hard to understand. Is your dad at all religious? If so you could point him to Mark 12: 41-44.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2012 23:32
|
|
|
Sarion posted:You could double his tax rate and he would still make enough in a year to set him up for a long middle class life without ever earning a penny more. Well, if he's not going to earn another penny, why not make it a 100% income tax?
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2012 23:33
|
|
|
wormil posted:"50 people each employed and paying 15% tax each, gets more revenue than 1 person working paying 35% tax." e:f;b. But seriously, mathematical refutations of idiotic arguments are fun. Would have done it anyway.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2012 00:16
|
|
|
I don't know where this belongs, but recently in the office mailbox a hardcopy of this showed up. Dig in. EDIT: quote:Obama and T. Pickens seem on the right track. Just in the last month Obama talked solar-wind-tide and of a new work force for energy; that i know of; i don't keep up with all of what people say  quote:For what true identities are, study www.endtimesscrollsdelivered.com; istmas, for a logical consistant statement; Portent: Existential Astronomy, for the Deity who is guarding us; "little open papers," for the Deity's work to prepare us that we evolve into our perfection, to accomplish in the universe Ghost of Reagan Past fucked around with this message at 01:15 on Oct 5, 2012 |
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2012 01:04
|
|
|
XyloJW posted:Well, if he's not going to earn another penny, why not make it a 100% income tax? Sorry, not sure if this is a joke or if you were making a serious point and it went over my head. I was saying, if you took the $21M Mitt made in 2010, took out double tax ($7M) he and his wife could live off of $140k a year (way way more than most Americans make a year) for 100 years. 100 years worth of good income, AFTER double taxes, all "earned" in a single year. That's how much income we're talking about, and why the idea of large taxes doesn't dissuade people from working hard to get to that kind of income. Even at massive tax rates the remaining take home pay is still huge. I wasn't saying he would stop, just that a single year of income provided him and his wife with enough money that they could live off it for decades without needing to ever work again.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2012 01:50
|
|
|
Sarion posted:Sorry, not sure if this is a joke or if you were making a serious point and it went over my head. I was making a silly joke about income taxes (the worst kind of joke).
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2012 01:56
|
|
|
Here is a great little blog entry on the history of taxes in the US. Some excerpts: Business Insider Article posted:Today's government spending levels are indeed too high, at least relative to the average level of tax revenue the government has generated over the past 60 years. Unless Americans are willing to radically increase the amount of taxes they pay relative to GDP, government spending must be cut. The article has some very good additional material. One thing to note is that many of the tax increases have occurred during wars. Despite having been involved in two simultaneous, long-term wars we've neglected raising taxes to pay for them.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2012 02:31
|
|
|
Countblanc posted:That's some of it, but I think Romney actually said it best last night when he said it's a "moral issue." It's the same poo poo you hear with voting fraud - "Any fraud is too much fraud!" People don't care that the programs to fix a non-problem would actually result in significantly fewer people legally voting, they just know that someone broke the law and we can't have that no matter what. These same individuals just know that some amount of poor people are getting some percentage of the American Tax Payer's Dollars, and that simply isn't moral to them, regardless of how much money it is. It's the mentality that comes out when people talk about harm reduction. "I find these people disgusting, so I'd rather see them suffer than have them be less oppressed."
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2012 03:19
|
|
|
Why do people think taxing the rich removes individual incentive? Even if your income is taxed you are still making more money  .
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2012 06:07
|
|
|
RagnarokAngel posted:Why do people think taxing the rich removes individual incentive? Even if your income is taxed you are still making more money At least, that's what I've been able to gather.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2012 06:17
|
|
|
Kugyou no Tenshi posted:At least for some people, it stems from not understanding marginal tax rates, and thinking that they can wind up losing significant amounts of money by going up to the next bracket. And some of it is just flat-out spite - they'd rather make less money if it means giving less to the government. The rest is probably just platitudes and Just So Stories. For some reason, maybe payroll taxes, maybe the way federal income tax is taken out of a biweekly check, this actually occurs. And by actually, I mean that checks with lots of overtime on them actually end up being smaller than a non-overtime laden check. Maybe that was an issue with payroll department for the hospital I used to work for, but there were a number of nurses who kept careful tabs on the amount of overtime they worked so their checks weren't magically shrunk.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2012 09:40
|
|
|
Soonmot posted:For some reason, maybe payroll taxes, maybe the way federal income tax is taken out of a biweekly check, this actually occurs. And by actually, I mean that checks with lots of overtime on them actually end up being smaller than a non-overtime laden check. Maybe that was an issue with payroll department for the hospital I used to work for, but there were a number of nurses who kept careful tabs on the amount of overtime they worked so their checks weren't magically shrunk. Then you probably had a lovely payroll department that screwed up withholdings because the tax system simply does not work that way. That or everyone was scared of a myth.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2012 13:10
|
|
|
Soonmot posted:For some reason, maybe payroll taxes, maybe the way federal income tax is taken out of a biweekly check, this actually occurs. And by actually, I mean that checks with lots of overtime on them actually end up being smaller than a non-overtime laden check. Maybe that was an issue with payroll department for the hospital I used to work for, but there were a number of nurses who kept careful tabs on the amount of overtime they worked so their checks weren't magically shrunk. I've something sort of similar. Basically, the payroll system assumes whatever you earned on THAT check x 26 is your actual yearly salary, and withholds taxes at that level. At the end of the year you'd end up getting the over-withholding back of course. That being said, there would still have to be some problem with the way the payroll system or the individual's withholding settings to end up making less than a regular check.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2012 13:30
|
|
|
Crackbone posted:I've something sort of similar. Basically, the payroll system assumes whatever you earned on THAT check x 26 is your actual yearly salary, and withholds taxes at that level. At the end of the year you'd end up getting the over-withholding back of course. edit: typo repair andrew smash fucked around with this message at 13:39 on Oct 5, 2012 |
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2012 13:34
|
|
|
andrew smash posted:You can change your w4 at any time and tell a payroll department what to withhold (or to withhold nothing) for any pay period if you want. Before I went back to school I used to do this fairly frequently if I needed a quick infusion of cash, just turn withholdings off and work a shitload of overtime for a couple of weeks. The idea that working more can get you paid less is loving retarded. And if you don't do that, you will get a nice return at tax time. It never ceases to amaze me how uninformed people are about how taxes would work. You'd think people would bother to learn just a little bit about that big chunk of change that gets taken every check.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2012 13:43
|
|
|
RagnarokAngel posted:Why do people think taxing the rich removes individual incentive? Even if your income is taxed you are still making more money Because at some point it's not about money as something you use to buy things. It's more about money as some sort of scoring mechanism. There's two conflicting definitions of "fair" at play here. Unless you understand what the other guy means by fair, there's no way to understand what the hell he is talking about. People also prefer to make $15k in a community where average wage is $10k rather than make $30k in a community where average wage is $40k even if the dollar has same purchasing power in both communities. It's essentially the same phenomenon.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2012 13:49
|
|
|
Not sure where else to ask this, so I might as well do so here. Anyone heard of the "National Council on Family Relations" ? They publish a journal (J of Marriage & Family) that a friend was asking about. I'm always wary of any group with "marriage" or "family" in the name, but a brief search reveals nothing suspicious (pretty typical manuscript guidelines, papers that look fine, no shady names I recognize, etc.). Are they legit or just really good at camouflaging being another bad group?
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2012 14:17
|
|
|
Soonmot posted:And by actually, I mean that checks with lots of overtime on them actually end up being smaller than a non-overtime laden check. The only way I can think this could happen is if payroll for some reason decides that you always make your overtime rate, and tax you at a higher rate for the whole check. I have a second job, and they tax me at the lowest rate because they don't know I have a first job that puts me in a higher tax bracket. Same sort of thing, but in reverse. I end up having to owe for that job at the end of the year.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2012 14:25
|
|
|
Zero_Grade posted:Not sure where else to ask this, so I might as well do so here. Anyone heard of the "National Council on Family Relations" ? They publish a journal (J of Marriage & Family) that a friend was asking about. I'm always wary of any group with "marriage" or "family" in the name, but a brief search reveals nothing suspicious (pretty typical manuscript guidelines, papers that look fine, no shady names I recognize, etc.). Are they legit or just really good at camouflaging being another bad group? I think they are a legit group of psychologists, sociologists and other professionals in social sciences that does research and education to help families. They don't seem to be a conservative "family means we hate gays" group.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2012 14:27
|
|
|
Zero_Grade posted:Not sure where else to ask this, so I might as well do so here. Anyone heard of the "National Council on Family Relations" ? They publish a journal (J of Marriage & Family) that a friend was asking about. I'm always wary of any group with "marriage" or "family" in the name, but a brief search reveals nothing suspicious (pretty typical manuscript guidelines, papers that look fine, no shady names I recognize, etc.). Are they legit or just really good at camouflaging being another bad group? Just browsing a few abstracts from that journal, they seem like non-ideological researchers thus far.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2012 14:29
|
|
|
andrew smash posted:Just browsing a few abstracts from that journal, they seem like non-ideological researchers thus far.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2012 14:34
|
|
|
Zero_Grade posted:Yeah I did the same thing (institutional journal access rocks even when it's not in your field) and nothing was jumping out at me, I wanted to be sure though. Thanks y'all. No problem, and I don't blame you. Any group that has "family" in the name immediately sets off red flags for me too.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2012 15:12
|
|
|
Sarion posted:No problem, and I don't blame you. Any group that has "family" in the name immediately sets off red flags for me too.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2012 16:16
|
|
|
ZobarStyl posted:But they're just so helpful in delineating themselves with their ridiculous names. I mean, if I brought up a study being pushed by the National American Heritage Family Council of Businesses for Freedom, you wouldn't even have to even have to do a cursory google. So much time saved. It's entirely possible that the National Council on Family Relations predates the usage of "family" as a flag for "we hate anything that is not a man, a woman, and 2.3 children of different genders". There are other groups, that I can't recall off hand, from the 40s and 50s that existed to actually help families or do real sociological research on family models (things like emigration, income, and structural relations). It's not their fault the crazies took their word. It's like "conservative" and "Republican".
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2012 16:59
|
|
|
sicarius posted:It's entirely possible that the National Council on Family Relations predates the usage of "family" as a flag for "we hate anything that is not a man, a woman, and 2.3 children of different genders". There are other groups, that I can't recall off hand, from the 40s and 50s that existed to actually help families or do real sociological research on family models (things like emigration, income, and structural relations). It's not their fault the crazies took their word. .3 of a different gender? That sounds like liberal talk.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2012 17:11
|
|
|
 I took apart the first paragraph, I asked them if it was a requirement to be a citizen to be in the country. Can you guys help me with the second part? I don't know enough specifics about the ACA.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2012 20:55
|
|
|
mhachtx posted:
Ask them to show you where the ppaca says that, because it doesn't.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2012 21:06
|
|
|
mhachtx posted:
It's bullshit. Just Google "affordable care act illegal immigrants". All the links talk about how the ACA doesn't cover illegal immigrants. In fact, it cuts the funding that hospitals get for treating illegal immigrants who go to the emergency room. EDIT: Even more specifically here, where the relevant statues are quoted: http://www.leahy.senate.gov/issues/fact-vs-fiction
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2012 21:07
|
|
|
Crackbone posted:It's bullshit. Just Google "affordable care act illegal immigrants". All the links talk about how the ACA doesn't cover illegal immigrants. In fact, it cuts the funding that hospitals get for treating illegal immigrants who go to the emergency room. Thanks!
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2012 21:14
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 07:34 |
|
|
PPACA also does not give a poo poo if you are a citizen or not, only if you are in the country legally. Coming to the US for some kind of "tour of duty" for your company for 9 months? Better get insurance or you'll get hit with the tax. There is a waiver for people who go without insurance for less than 3 months though, so if you're just visiting it doesn't apply.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2012 21:47
|
|