|
So during a discussion on FB the other day, and discussing the Bush tax cuts and the tax bracket changes, someone pointed out that a married couple filing jointly, there's a significant change from 2012 to 2013. The 15% bracket ends at 70,700, and then jumps to 28% after that. I came across this, when someone said there's going to be a significant jump at 70k next year: http://www.mondaq.com/unitedstates/x/178778/Income+Tax/2013+Federal+Income+Tax+Update " In 2013, this dollar amount will decrease to 167% of the amount for unmarried taxpayers in the same bracket (which is $58,900 in 2012), rather than 200% of the amount for unmarried taxpayers under current law. This change will have the effect of putting more middle-income joint filers in the 28% bracket and increasing the "marriage penalty" for many taxpayers." So the 70k bracket drops to 59,035, and then it's 70k above that, which increases a family's liability like 2k for the year. So am I reading it right, and is there any explanation to it?
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2012 19:45
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 12, 2024 16:35 |
|
|
Anyone have suggestions on where to take this next? This guy is a gun nut and posts something like this every few days. I'm the one in blue.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2012 19:56
|
|
|
If they don't want to pay the marriage penalty then they should consider filing taxes separately. Regardless the penalty is about $1300, if my math is right. Edit: The next bracket up should be 25% that makes the penalty only 1000. Dr. Arbitrary fucked around with this message at 20:07 on Nov 10, 2012 |
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2012 20:05
|
|
|
MojoAZ posted:Anyone have suggestions on where to take this next? This guy is a gun nut and posts something like this every few days. I'm the one in blue. Not sure if this will help, but a friend of mine posted the same article a few days ago (I'm blue). The treaty and all the related documents are very easy to find, and most gun nuts' interpretations seem to be based on poor understanding or just plain reading the wrong documents altogether. The conversation did continue briefly:
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2012 20:10
|
|
|
I have to say I'm disappointed in my right-wing FB buddies; other than the token tirades on Election Night, the only thing that any of them have posted since then that's Obummer-related was a claim that Obama's outlawing shale drilling or some such thing like that. They didn't even bother to cite a source. Come on, guys, where's the outrage about Petraeus obviously being forced to resign as part of Obama's Benghazi cover-up, or all the wild theories about how the Democrats stole the election? 
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2012 20:22
|
|
|
The US is still opposed to treaty, ironically along with Russia. We just agreed to a resolution calling for a new round of talks on it. Not to mention the treaty only applies to exports to begin with. http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/11/07/us-arms-treaty-un-idUSBRE8A627J20121107
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2012 20:25
|
|
|
Kiwi Bigtree posted:Its so lame, but as someone who studies logic and rhetorical patterns of argumentation, I get so angry when someone says "We are using LOGIC" and then poo poo out stuff like this. And yes, I am angry all the time. If you live in a flyover state (as I do) it's really difficult to understand just how populous the east coast is. The biggest city in my state has some 350,000 people. Virginia Beach has like 430,000. Charlotte has around 700,000. Norfolk, Virginia has around 250,000. I remember driving along the eastern seaboard on the interstate passing through city after city after city, all of them bigger than or nearly as big as the most populous city in my entire home state. The issue that the rest of the uneducated fucks out here don't get it. They do not travel and they do not want to.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2012 21:14
|
|
|
Sydney Bottocks posted:Come on, guys, where's the outrage about Petraeus obviously being forced to resign as part of Obama's Benghazi cover-up, or all the wild theories about how the Democrats stole the election? Some guy this this chain email to my local Freecycle newsletter of all places quote:Well isn't this rather convenient; then a stock AP news article.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2012 21:51
|
|
|
Dr. Arbitrary posted:If they don't want to pay the marriage penalty then they should consider filing taxes separately. Regardless the penalty is about $1300, if my math is right. If you file separately, but are married, don't you forfeit a ton of deductions you could've gotten if you were single, or filing jointly? Wouldn't that increase your tax burden from last year to this year?
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2012 22:34
|
|
|
Some guy I went to High school with loves posting his "hilarious" skits/songs/raps/rants you name it on Facebook and YouTube. His latest character is "Bubba" you know, to represent that huge demographic of southern rednecks who love Obama. Bubba's God Bless The USA 2012
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2012 23:41
|
|
|
 This is my brother, he's smart, he will listen to logic, he's just been stuck without internet or tv in the backwoods of Tennessee for 5 years, and he's absorbed all this idiocy. Help me out here.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2012 00:49
|
|
|
Explain to him that guy D can't afford a ticket but he has to kick in tiny amounts whenever he buys anything else to the group ticket fund, and so guy C paying an extra five dollars goes into that fund as well so that hopefully guy D can get a ticket from that fund and everyone can enjoy the movie together. Also Guy D constantly gets mocked and degraded by guys A through C for not paying his fair share even though he puts into the group fund plenty in other ways besides how guy C did. Also his analogy is terrible and stupid.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2012 00:52
|
|
|
XyloJW posted:
It's actually more like: Guy A pays $10 for a ticket and is charged %8 tax. Guy B pays $10 for a ticket and is charged %8 tax. Guy C pays $10 for a ticket and is charged %4 tax. The clerk asks why guy C only pays %4 and he says "because I'm a job creator." The clerk says "bullshit you haven't created a single job. You're just using that as an excuse to pay a lower tax percentage than the middle class. You should pay the same amount as lower and middle class especially since the impact a 30% percent tax rate has on a middle or lower class family's quality of life is exponentially more significant than a 30% rate has on a millionaire's quality of life. Enjoy your loving movie you greedy gently caress."
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2012 01:01
|
|
XyloJW posted:
I'd reframe it in terms of groups. Guys A-C are going to go to the movies together. A and B don't have a lot of cash right now. Should guy C make up the difference so everybody can see the movie, or should he say "gently caress you, I'm seeing the movie by myself, later?" Or, for a more nuanced analogy, guys A-C want to build a model railroad to show off. It will cost $500. Guy A knows carpentry and electricity but only has 100 bucks to devote, guy B knows design and has the railroad parts but also only has 100 bucks to devote. Should guy C pay the 300 bucks needed to make the railroad, or should he storm angrily off so that the railroad falls through? These still don't really convey the whole thing, but they're of similar kinds.
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2012 01:13
|
|
|
UnmaskedGremlin posted:So during a discussion on FB the other day, and discussing the Bush tax cuts and the tax bracket changes, someone pointed out that a married couple filing jointly, there's a significant change from 2012 to 2013. The 15% bracket ends at 70,700, and then jumps to 28% after that. I came across this, when someone said there's going to be a significant jump at 70k next year: Pretty sure this is one of those tax laws that's about to expire but Obama wants to extend as part of the "don't raise taxes on the middle class" push. XyloJW posted:
Honestly, I'm not sure it's worth it to go any further than: this analogy does not at all model anything the government does. It just flat out doesn't compare to how or why taxes are collected.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2012 01:32
|
|
|
XyloJW posted:This is my brother, he's smart, he will listen to logic, he's just been stuck without internet or tv in the backwoods of Tennessee for 5 years, and he's absorbed all this idiocy. Help me out here. Tell him to love it or change the theater.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2012 01:48
|
|
|
XyloJW posted:
I don't even understand what the analogy is supposed to be about. It certainly isn't taxes.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2012 02:02
|
|
|
I hate to beat this horse again, but just saw this gem re-posted by my sister today: "Thank you Florida, Kentucky, and Missouri, which are the first states that will require drug testing when applying for welfare. Some people are crying and calling this unconstitutional. How is this unconstitutional? It's OK to drug test people who work for their money but not those who don't? Re-post this if you'd like to see this done in all 50 states. they ought to be randomly tested to be sure they aren't using the taxpayers dollars to keep them high." I questioned her on it and pointed out that a program that cost more than the supposed problem it corrected was an interesting use of tax dollars and got this back. "Because when polled only 8% admitted to using drugs Person Dyslexic? shocked. I just strongly believe that in this day and age it is a choice to have, and keep, a child. Once you make that choice, it is a commitment for at least the next 18 yrs to put that child's needs above your needs, never mind your wants. I, for one, as a small business owner (one of the highest tax brackets out there) bust my rear end every day for what I have while others choose to stay at home and live as well, if not have a higher standard of living than I do. I have seen people on every government aid out there walking around with a new pair of boobs. Or dealing drugs to make extra money. Really?? I'm all for the helping hand when people are down and out, it's the lifestlye of living off of my tax dollars that I have a problem with. If you can't afford to have a child, don't. That easy." Not sure how it got on to the topic of children but I can't help but feel she is getting a lot of her facts mixed here. I know it has been discussed before but can't find it in a brief search of this thread, and for the most part my sister is a very open-minded individual who I honestly never expected to see this out of, so can anyone help me out debunking this crap?
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2012 02:30
|
|
|
Sarion posted:Honestly, I'm not sure it's worth it to go any further than: this analogy does not at all model anything the government does. It just flat out doesn't compare to how or why taxes are collected. Yeah all these other analogies people are offering just seem weird and don't really address that the basis of his idea is loving weird. If he's as smart as you say he is, don't offer him stories about going to the movies, just explain clearly that the rich benefit disproportionately from infrastructure (roads to move product is the obvious example), and even if they didn't the level of wealth disparity the US experiences is inherently problematic since in a capitalist society it means that the rich not only possess more buying power, but political sway. Has anyone ever been convinced to change their political views by an analogy?
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2012 02:46
|
|
|
Person Dyslexic posted:I hate to beat this horse again, but just saw this gem re-posted by my sister today: Ask her to provide any sort of study or evidence that proves folks on welfare are provided a higher standard of living than her. Just one. One single study that isn't just an anecdote.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2012 02:46
|
|
|
There are three families. Each have two adults and two children. Family A earns $7,500 a year and has a net worth of -$5000. Family B earns $44,000 a year and has a net worth of $80,000. Family C earns $21M a year and has a net worth of $250M. The US government taxes each family $5800 a year to pay for the defense of their families and property. This is totally fair, cause everyone is paying the same!
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2012 02:47
|
|
|
BonoMan posted:Ask her to provide any sort of study or evidence that proves folks on welfare are provided a higher standard of living than her. Just one. One single study that isn't just an anecdote. I'm trying to avoid being overly confrontational on this one since I feel like her original post was a knee-jerk reaction. SO far I have responded with: "Ok upon rereading my posts I decided I was being unnecessarily confrontational without backing up MY OWN facts so here, an actual, factual study on the law that passed in Florida (my research so far turns up nothing about the other two except they are merely being proposed right now? WIll keep digging) http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/18/us/no-savings-found-in-florida-welfare-drug-tests.html" and "It should be noted that with further digging it turns out that only 3% of those tested failed for something other than THC usage, and that "Those receiving welfare" also included many people working fulltime or multiple jobs but also applying for food stamps or rent assistance. That's another story entirely though, but if you want the numbers I can link you a great article about how the welfare numbers actually shake out, it's worth it junk to debunk the straw-man argument of the welfare queen." If I wanted to be confrontational I'd start with mentioning how "Working her rear end off" consists of her running a hair salon 4 days for an average of 32 hours total each week.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2012 02:49
|
|
|
Person Dyslexic posted:
Uh, not polled, but people tested when applying for benefits. 2.6% failed. The state reimbursed applicants who passed the 30$ fee for the test and so it was fiscally a failure. Plus its a violation of the fourth amendment, so there's that too. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/18/us/no-savings-found-in-florida-welfare-drug-tests.html e- I realize you're quoting your sister, just wanted to point out how completely off base her numbers are. e2- And I posted the same story you did, but later. Man this thread moves fast when properly motivated.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2012 02:52
|
|
|
Yeah, I was writing this long reply that wound up being redundant. I will add that earlier today I came across this article about how Reagan gutted housing assistance programs at the behest of industry cronies, and ever since there's been a major increase in the number of children who show up at homeless shelters. And yet that's still better than, for example, the account I read of a man's visit to India where he'd see the bloated corpses of child beggars on the streets. I'll take a welfare system that occasionally gets abused over the alternative any day. I've known a few people who've ended up on welfare and/or food stamps, including my own parents. In every case it was because of economic factors beyond their control, they had a pretty meager lifestyle, and they were ready to jump at a proper job if one presented itself. I'd like to know what makes her think her improbable anecdotes are better than mine.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2012 03:01
|
|
|
Person Dyslexic posted:I hate to beat this horse again, but just saw this gem re-posted by my sister today: First of all, they weren't polled. They were drug tested and only ~2% failed the drug test. Also, I've fixed her post to be more accurate: quote:"Thank you Florida, Kentucky, and Missouri, which And this really caught my eye, probably because of the word "boobs", but still: "I have seen people on every government aid out there walking around with a new pair of boobs." I know we see things about people having nice phones and cars, usually purchased while they didn't need assistance. But I think this is the first time I've heard of someone suggesting that people on government assistance shouldn't be allowed to have breast implants. "Sorry lady, got to go get those things surgically removed before we can give you food stamps!" One last note: I got several thousand dollars from the government this year thanks to my mortgage and children. I promptly spent it all on hookers and blow.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2012 03:05
|
|
|
Guilty Spork posted:I'd like to know what makes her think her improbable anecdotes are better than mine. Hers are her own and reinforce what she already believes to be true. This isn't a joke post, it's seriously the reason; it's not really her fault, humans are just programmed that way.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2012 03:07
|
|
|
XyloJW posted:
Taxes don't work remotely like that. For starters, I am assuming that he is talking about the progressive federal income tax.  Many people have the impression that federal income taxes make up almost all of the country's revenue, most likely because of its name. When they hear that 47% of the country don't pay federal income taxes, then they are assuming that these people are parasitic moochers who contribute nothing to the government. This is not even close to reality. Federal income taxes only make up 42% of total federal tax revenue. Payroll taxes account for another 40%. I am not even going to talk about the sales tax or any state taxes that everyone must contribute towards. The payroll taxes bring in almost as much money as the federal income tax, and it is a good example of how taxes are much more complex than most Americans are aware of. The payroll taxes include the social security tax, medicare tax, and federal unemployment tax. The social security tax rate is 6.2% of employee earnings and a matching 6.2% by the employer. The medicare tax rate is 1.45% of employee earnings and a matching 1.45% by the employer. The Obama administration recently cut the tax rate for employees down to 4.2% to stimulate spending (employers still have to pay the matching 6.2%). "Obamacare" also sets to increase the medicare tax rate for high income employees (mostly people making over $200,000 a year) by .9%. The federal unemployment tax is paid by the employer only, but it is more or less negligible with an effective tax rate of .6% on a maximum taxable amount of $7000 per employee. You might have figured out that this is still an awfully regressive system. Everyone legally working in America pays the same percentage rate of their income to social security or medicare even though the rich have incomes multiple times our own. When we reach the retirement age, the rich will even get to collect social security or medicare benefits that they do not need. It gets worse because there is a cap called the taxable earnings base (currently $110,100 for 2012). This means that any income above $110,100 is untouchable to the social security tax. This is another way that the richest 5% of America gets to pay a lower rate on taxes than you do. As a bonus, now you can laugh at anyone who thinks the United States will be "bankrupted" by the "ponzi scheme" foolishly designed by Democrats to bring the elderly out of poverty. According to the senate's research, if this taxable earnings base was eliminated so that we can tax the top 5% like everyone else, then we have long-term solvency for social security over the next 75 years. Furthermore, it would provide the federal government with a surplus of .28% of the entire federal payroll revenue in addition to eliminating 100% of the projected shortfalls in social security. Source: http://aging.senate.gov/crs/ss9.pdf Well, to get back to the point, and to avoid ranting about the sales tax or about how revenue from corporate taxes have fallen over the decades, you need to tell your brother that financing the federal government is much more complex than "RICH PEOPLE MUST PAY HIGHER TAXES OR BE JAILED" by breaking down the sources of federal revenue. Make sure to mention the various ways that allow the rich to pay an effectively lower tax rate than everyone else (especially capital gains and dividends taxes that are capped at 15%). Snipee fucked around with this message at 03:15 on Nov 11, 2012 |
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2012 03:10
|
|
|
Anniversary posted:Uh, not polled, but people tested when applying for benefits. 2.6% failed. The state reimbursed applicants who passed the 30$ fee for the test and so it was fiscally a failure. Plus its a violation of the fourth amendment, so there's that too. Yeah the 8% was from another article I had checked which I believe was from Arizona. Turns out they only tested a VERY select group of 300 or so people because getting blocked. I may be off on the state here, trying to find it again isn't turning anything up now.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2012 03:16
|
|
|
Person Dyslexic posted:Not sure how it got on to the topic of children but I can't help but feel she is getting a lot of her facts mixed here. Ask her what exactly she's proposing should happen to those children and how she envision it will impact their ability to contribute to society in the future.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2012 03:19
|
|
|
100 people go to see a movie. The first 50 pay 75 cents for their ticket, they spend the majority of the next two hours working at the concession stand or sweeping floors. If they're caught watching the movie they're berated. After all, if they have time to watch a movie then they have time to earn enough money to pay more for their ticket. The next 25 pay 5 dollars apiece for a ticket. They each spend a portion of the movie working the projector, repairing the popcorn machine and working as security. The movie is ruined for them though because they spend so much time dealing with people in the first group of 50. The next 15 pay 12 dollars each for their ticket. They spend a portion of their time at the theater maintaining the projector or keeping concessions running. They get to see almost all of the movie unless something goes wrong. The next 5 pay 23 dollars each for their ticket. They are responsible for keeping the projector and concessions running, they don't actually do any of the work, they delegate all tasks to members of the previous 3 groups. They get free sodas and nicer seats than the first three groups. The next 4 pay 50 dollars each for their ticket. Their job is to pick the movie. They get an entire meal and unlimited soda. Their seats are unbelievably comfortable. The last person pays 343 for his ticket. His job is to have the theater named after him. His meal is decadent and he drinks the finest beverages. He sits in a golden throne. He has security guards who keep the bottom 95 from even getting near him. At the end of the first day the money made from concessions is split up. pre:The first 50 each get 11 dollars. They each paid 75 cents. They take home $10.25 The next 25 each get 33 dollars. They each paid 5 dollars. They take home $28 The next 15 each get 60 dollars. They each paid 12 dollars. They take home $48 The next 5 get 88 each. They each paid 23 dollars. They take home $65 The next 4 get 144 each. They each paid 50 dollars. They take home $94 The last takes 672. He paid 343. He takes home $329 After doing a little math they find the magic number, 25% At the end of the second day the money made from concessions is split up. pre:The first 50 each get 11 dollars. They each paid 3. They take home $8 The next 25 each get 33 dollars. They each paid 8 dollars. They take home $25 The next 15 each get 60 dollars. They each paid 15 dollars. They take home $45 The next 5 get 88 each. They each paid 22 dollars. They take home $66 The next 4 get 144 each. They each paid 36 dollars. They take home $108 The last takes 672. He paid 168. He takes home $504 At the end of the third day the money made from concessions is split up. pre:The first 50 each get 11 dollars. They each paid 10. They take home $1 The next 25 each get 33 dollars. They each paid 10 dollars. They take home $13 The next 15 each get 60 dollars. They each paid 10 dollars. They take home $50 The next 5 get 88 each. They each paid 10 dollars. They take home $78 The next 4 get 144 each. They each paid 10 dollars. They take home $134 The last takes 672. He paid 10. He takes home $662 At the end of the fourth day the money made from concessions is split up. pre:The first 50 each get 40 dollars. They each paid 11. They take home $29 The next 25 each get 40 dollars. They each paid 11 dollars. They take home $29 The next 15 each get 40 dollars. They each paid 11 dollars. They take home $29 The last 15 get hung by their necks from the projector booth.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2012 03:23
|
|
|
Sarion posted:First of all, they weren't polled. They were drug tested and only ~2% failed the drug test. I love your rewrite and actually used it. I made a few adjustments and decided it would make a fine status update to boot. Me to her - Since I have seen this gem going around I figured I would put up a more accurate version! "Thank you Florida, Kentucky, and Missouri, which several years ago became the first states that required drug testing when applying for welfare. Some people were crying and fortunately Federal Judges have ruled this unconstitutional according to the Fourth Amendment. It's still not OK to for private employers to drug test people who work for their money but especially not for the Government to drug test people simply for being poor! Re-post this if you'd like to see all 50 states engage in illegal class profiling and waste large amounts of taxpayer money. If you can afford to buy groceries you should sit in your house and stare at a blank wall when not working or taking care of your children, since if you're poor you're essentially not human and shouldn't need anything else regardless."
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2012 03:24
|
|
|
Captain Cannabis posted:Some guy I went to High school with loves posting his "hilarious" skits/songs/raps/rants you name it on Facebook and YouTube. Well game over folks,This Man has just taught me all about voter fraud, apparently Obama learned all the secrets while hugging Chavez, and Ahmadinejad as seen in this photo http://frontpagemag.com/2012/dgreenfield/voter-fraud-obama-won-%108-of-registered-voters-in-ohio-county/ Not sure if I can even refute this one, this website seems very credible.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2012 03:51
|
|
|
Person Dyslexic posted:"Thank you Florida, Kentucky, and Missouri, which are the first states that will require drug testing when applying for welfare. Some people are crying and calling this unconstitutional. How is this unconstitutional? It's OK to drug test people who work for their money but not those who don't? Re-post this if you'd like to see this done in all 50 states. they ought to be randomly tested to be sure they aren't using the taxpayers dollars to keep them high." Tell her you agree but that this doesn't go far enough. Anyone who receives a benefit or tax break from the government should have to be drug tested, because we don't want drug heads getting our tax dollars. Earned Income Tax Credit? Piss in the cup. Tax break on your investment losses? Piss in the cup. Subsidy to help cover your new car? Piss in the cup. Are you a government employee or a private contractor working for the government? Buy a T-Bill? Save money in a bank covered by the FDIC? Oh you better believe you're gonna piss in a cup. If the real concern is that government money might go to people who also use drugs or have used drugs, then let's get serious about it, and the 14th Amendment can go gently caress itself while we're forcing everyone to follow mandatory drug screenings. If people really want to reduce drug abuse, free assistance for people recovering from substance abuse and lifting people out of crippling poverty are how you are going to go about it. Prison and taking away their lifelines? Not so much.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2012 04:00
|
|
|
Person Dyslexic posted:If you can afford to buy groceries you should sit in your house and stare at a blank wall when not working or taking care of your children, since if you're poor you're essentially not human and shouldn't need anything else regardless." I like this part, because it's pretty much spot on. Oh, you need help buying food? Sell all your possessions and spend your free time staring at the empty walls of your house, and then maybe I'll consider not whining about less than 2% of the Federal Budget. Captain Cannabis posted:Well game over folks,This Man has just taught me all about voter fraud, apparently Obama learned all the secrets while hugging Chavez, and Ahmadinejad as seen in this photo http://frontpagemag.com/2012/dgreenfield/voter-fraud-obama-won-%108-of-registered-voters-in-ohio-county/ I thought that, maybe, the website was a joke with that crappy photoshop and the "%108" remark. But no, it looks like it's completely serious.  Mo_Steel posted:Tell her you agree but that this doesn't go far enough. Anyone who receives a benefit or tax break from the government should have to be drug tested, because we don't want drug heads getting our tax dollars. Earned Income Tax Credit? Piss in the cup. Tax break on your investment losses? Piss in the cup. Subsidy to help cover your new car? Piss in the cup. Are you a government employee or a private contractor working for the government? Buy a T-Bill? Save money in a bank covered by the FDIC? Oh you better believe you're gonna piss in a cup. If the real concern is that government money might go to people who also use drugs or have used drugs, then let's get serious about it, and the 14th Amendment can go gently caress itself while we're forcing everyone to follow mandatory drug screenings. You missed an important one: I don't want roads built with MAH TAXES used by drug dealers. Everyone should be thoroughly searched for drugs every time they get on publicly funded road. It's the only way to be 100% sure. What? They can search me before I get on a plane, but you don't want a finger up your rear end before you get on the highway my hard earned tax dollars built? The only reason you would oppose this is cause you're a drug dealer, maybe we should just toss you in jail to be safe. Sarion fucked around with this message at 04:04 on Nov 11, 2012 |
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2012 04:00
|
|
|
Dr. Arbitrary posted:100 people go to see a movie. Snipee posted:Taxes don't work remotely like that. For starters, I am assuming that he is talking about the progressive federal income tax. Thanks you two, and everyone else who commented. I expected a quick exchange, but I've basically spent the last 2 hours arguing with him nonstop. Holy poo poo, he got some dumb ideas in his head working in a steel mill and at Walmart. Yeah, he meant that as an indictment on progressive taxation, and advocated for a flat tax. After about 30 minutes I got him to admit his dumb movie theater analogy was flawed on every single level. Then he got to arguing about the morality of flat taxation. Basically, I discovered that he A) misunderstood progressive taxation (like everyone in these arguments), B) didn't know who Adam Smith was or why his opinion matters, C) didn't know what the social contract was, and D) believes that a CEO works 400 times as hard as a janitor, because he is responsible for a thousand times more people and money. It took a lot of time to explain why those are all dumb things, but I found myself getting angry at some of the callous "gently caress the poor (but not me, I work hard)" poo poo, so I started appealing to his intellectual side. And by that, I mean I kept coming back to the fact that he didn't know what he was talking about. It really got under his skin, because he's used to being smarter than the people he deals with (he was valedictorian in high school). I hope that I shamed him by constantly just responding "That's not how that works [because X concept]. You don't know what you're talking about." Edit: I have to stress, he is a smart guy, but he's been buried in the military for 5 years, and then another 5 years disconnected from wider society while living in a trailer in rural Tennessee, working at a steel mill and then at Walmart. He's basically spent all of his formative years, between 18 and 28, in the most conservative environment imaginable. He doesn't buy into any of the Christian social crusader REAL MURRICAN poo poo, because he's not an idiot, but he has bought 100% into the economic side of things. I think he will listen to reason unlike my insane idiotic aunt, but it's going to take me time to break down this poo poo. XyloJW fucked around with this message at 04:35 on Nov 11, 2012 |
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2012 04:28
|
|
|
Person Dyslexic posted:I, for one, as a small business owner (one of the highest tax brackets out there) I would really love to hear the explanation for what they think this means. "I see you only made 30k this year, oh wait you're a small business owner, so gently caress you, we're taking it all in taxes, muahahahaha".
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2012 04:58
|
|
|
clockworx posted:I would really love to hear the explanation for what they think this means. The explanation is "I heard it on Rush" For the last two years, right wing media and politicians have been yammering that the tax increases that Obama has been asking for on the rich is actually a tax increase on small business because, in some cases, business income can be taxed as personal income. It affects a microscopic fraction of businesses but it must have filtered down to her as "small businesses are the most taxed, ever"
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2012 07:59
|
|
|
800peepee51doodoo posted:The explanation is "I heard it on Rush" I am honestly not sure where she got it but it was definitely not from Rush; she despises him and all news media for that matter. She is extremely liberal for the most part, which is why her post came as such a surprise to me.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2012 08:14
|
|
|
XyloJW posted:Thanks you two, and everyone else who commented. I expected a quick exchange, but I've basically spent the last 2 hours arguing with him nonstop. Holy poo poo, he got some dumb ideas in his head working in a steel mill and at Walmart. Sounds like you're done with the argument already, but I wanted to throw my 2 cents in because I feel a lot of the "corrected" versions of the movie ticket thing were, while accurate, a bit long and complex. Let's take it as given in the example that movie ticket cost is somehow tied to the tax rate. As you discovered, your friend (along with many people) didn't understand tax brackets. Because of the way brackets work, everyone pays the same tax rate on their income in each bracket (as a made-up example, both the rich and the poor pay 10% on their first $10,000); the only "advantage" poor people have is they don't have any money that falls into the higher brackets. So it's more like this: quote:Guys A, B, and C go to the movies and pay $10 for their tickets. The next week Guy B and Guy C go to the movies again, and have to pay $15 each for their second tickets. Guy A didn't get to go because he has no money left (after paying rent/food/bills). For the third tickets, the theater charges guys B and C $20 each. After this point B stops going to the movies since he doesn't have money anymore either (after paying food/mortgage/family summer vacation/car payments/insurance premiums/etc.). Guy C keeps going to the movies, where they from there on out charge him $25 each time - and the whole time he complains about how Guy A has it so easy.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2012 08:34
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 12, 2024 16:35 |
|
|
My version was admittedly long winded, mostly because I wanted to be accurate with the numbers (all derived from 2004 tax data), and I wanted to emphasize that the different classes of people receive very different levels of service from the government. Simpler analogies are so far removed from the reality of the situation that they don't help us understand anything.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2012 14:30
|
|