|
Fried Chicken posted:Empirically you are completely wrong. Seriously learn what you are talking about here. Please show me some sources of this. Otherwise empirically you're not talking empirically. Install Windows posted:If all the rich move rather than pay taxes than so what anyway? What exactly were they providing? They provide, what, 70-71% of our income tax revenue? Amergin fucked around with this message at 22:28 on May 6, 2014 |
#
?
May 6, 2014 22:26
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 01:45 |
|
|
By the way the whole "the rich all leave" scenario assumes that the US government just sits back and does nothing. That they don't implement a policy of expatriated wealth taxation and or confiscation, that they don't renegotiate the tax treaties, that they don't slam down personalized sanctions like they did on Russian oligarchs. I suppose you can make the case for a scenario where the rich keep their stranglehold on power here making us a neocolonial state like we have done for other countries, but that requires the military to back it up and we would still have the military here, making that unworkable. Or at least part of the fever dreams of the far right wing terrified of rich foreigners running things through agenda 21 and the like.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2014 22:27
|
|
|
Good Citizen posted:Seriously, it's a one minute speech, memorize the drat thing or sketch out some key points and work with those. Reading line for line off your paper and pausing occasionally for a half-second cross-eyed glance at your audience doesn't fly in even the most basic public speaking classes. You must not watch a lot of C-SPAN. Also Virginia Foxx is dumb, real dumb, possibly dumber than Gohmert and she's not much better in a real conversation.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2014 22:33
|
|
|
Amergin posted:They provide, what, 70-71% of our income tax revenue? Because they gobble up most of the profits of the economy. Far beyond their share of productivity btw.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2014 22:34
|
|
|
Amergin posted:They provide, what, 70-71% of our income tax revenue? In that time period, their incomes increased by almost 80%, but their tax burden only increased by 20%
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2014 22:36
|
|
|
Amergin posted:Please show me some sources of this. Otherwise empirically you're not talking empirically. The sources would be every example of an implemented trial UBI. Iran, India, Alaska, and the Cherokee territories all have one, Namibia and Manitoba have had them in the past. So aside from the robust theoretical body of work (including stuff from Hayek and Friedman) we have actual historical examples of it and it in progress right now.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2014 22:37
|
|
|
Good Citizen posted:So apparently all the fracking in Oklahoma is causing a huge uptick in earthquakes. The number of 3.0+ earthquakes has risen from <5 a year to more than a hundred a year and it's still increasing rapidly. They've already had more in the first 5 months of this year than in all of 2013, and the USGS just issued an earthquake warning in the state. That's the first time that has ever happened anywhere besides the west coast states. Is a magnitude 3 earthquake even detectable to anything but purpose-built machinery?
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2014 22:37
|
|
|
Boon posted:I know you're probably not going to want to hear this, but they provide taxes. Majority of the taxes are paid by the wealthy, despite it not being fairly distributed, by sheer volume of their wealth they pay the most. It's often used as an argument that the rich are over-taxed which is a completely rear end backwards way to look at it. In any case, if all the wealthy (however you define it) were to up and leave, the government would be economically devastated by the loss of revenue. If 80% of the top 10% hosed off with all their money, I wonder how much we'd have to tax the people who stuck around to break even.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2014 22:37
|
|
|
^^^ Whoever takes over their jobs would be paid and expected to pay taxes on that income. Why is it that Warren Buffett is somehow an indispensable superman that the U.S. working class wouldn't immediately be prompted to replace him were he to gently caress off and stop seeking income in the U.S.? When there's a vacancy at a CEO position it gets filled by another CEO or someone below them who is willing and able to take on the task, so where's the problem? If the current wealthy are too upset about a 90% top tax rate then gently caress them because someone below them is willing to make that extra money in their place.Amergin posted:Please show me some sources of this. Otherwise empirically you're not talking empirically. If we're talking about fevered dreams of poo poo that will never happen, can I assume that when all the rich people leave the working class unite together to take ownership of all the means of production they left behind and the U.S. becomes a socialist utopia? 
Mo_Steel fucked around with this message at 22:44 on May 6, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 6, 2014 22:38
|
|
|
Amergin posted:
Top 10%, top 0.01%, what's the difference? Christ you are a dishonest little poo poo.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2014 22:38
|
|
|
Amergin posted:Please show me some sources of this. Otherwise empirically you're not talking empirically. Here, read this
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2014 22:45
|
|
|
StarMagician posted:Is a magnitude 3 earthquake even detectable to anything but purpose-built machinery? Absolutely. 1.0s probably won't be detected, 2.5-3 you generally can if you're pretty close to the epicenter, and 3s, while mild and not really causing any damage, can be strong enough to be felt normally or even to wake you if you're sleeping. I've had 3.2s and 3.3s wake me up before.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2014 22:46
|
|
|
Amergin posted:Please show me some sources of this. Otherwise empirically you're not talking empirically. Do you think the government should prevent children from becoming homeless?
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2014 22:47
|
|
|
Alternate Hypothesis: Inequality is rising because the rich are coming back!
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2014 22:47
|
|
|
Edit: Double-posted waiting for the first to show.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2014 22:48
|
|
|
If the ultra-rich were to get butthurt over a high tax rate on the top earners and quit their jobs and leave the country, 1 of 2 things would happen: 1) Someone slightly lower on the totem poll would move up and take their place, including their salary, and fill the missing person's role in the tax contribution 2) Someone still takes their position, but at a lower salary, and the additional profits are now actually spread among the working class, which creates a huge boost to the economy as the country-wide buying power goes up.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2014 22:48
|
|
|
StarMagician posted:Is a magnitude 3 earthquake even detectable to anything but purpose-built machinery? Not really, no. The question is really whether or not something larger could build off of the lower level quakes. As someone who lived on the west coast for a long time I wouldn't even bother getting out of my chair for anything less than a high 6, but even a 5 could cause significant damage to an area where buildings weren't constructed with earthquakes in mind.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2014 22:48
|
|
|
Fried Chicken posted:Top 10%, top 0.01%, what's the difference? Christ you are a dishonest little poo poo. Did you read the quoted message I responded to? It said "rich" not "0.01%". It's okay though, I love fried chicken.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2014 22:49
|
|
|
Amergin posted:
"the Tax Policy Center found last year that there about 4,000 households with incomes over $1 million that were not paying anything at all." Wow that's so helpful to the economy!
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2014 22:52
|
|
|
nutranurse posted:Only soldiers who kill other people should be able to qualify for free housing and have the government take care of their college tuition, and only veterans who have actually lost something tangible (like an arm or a leg or something) should get the free healthcare ride. These are the soldiers who actually do/have done things, the rest are a bunch of loving freeloaders. I realize you're trying to distinguish between actual veterans of war and violence and "Rear Echelon Mother Fuckers", but you're doing a really lovely job of it. Plenty of soldiers come home with psychological, not physical, wounds and are really hosed up when they get back, and they need care just as much as the guys who lost a leg if they're going to function in society and lead a normal-ish life after the service. On the flip side, some of the more crucial jobs don't involve shooting people (medic for starters). And the reality of today's counter-insurgency warfare means that many "non-combat" roles are still fairly dangerous - the enemy (much less an IED) doesn't care if you're officially designated as a truck driver or as a combat trooper, he's still gonna go at you for wearing the flag. Also, offering what amounts to a bounty to our troops for killing foreigners seems like a terrible idea incentive-wise. US Foreign Policy goals (and hence US Military goals) are almost never measured in body counts.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2014 22:53
|
|
|
Axetrain posted:It's pretty telling that people who want more government "efficiency" always try to do it by cutting social programs instead of corporate subsidies, tax breaks for the rich, or that 1 trillion dollar F-35 shitheap. Wikipedia posted:The F-16 was scheduled to remain in service with the U.S. Air Force until 2025. The planned replacement was to be the F-35A version of the Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II, which would gradually begin replacing a number of multi-role aircraft among the program's member nations. However due to delays in the JSF program, all USAF F-16s will get service life extension upgrades.  Now let's take a look at the F-16 for a minute: Wikipedia posted:Over 4,500 aircraft have been built since production was approved in 1976. Although no longer being purchased by the U.S. Air Force, improved versions are still being built for export customers. F-35 cost per plane in 2013 dollars: $153.1-$199.4 million Still in use today by the US, used by 25 other nations around the globe, and astoundingly cheap in comparison. Now that is a successful fighter jet. 
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2014 22:57
|
|
|
fade5 posted:What kills me is is that the Air Force respond to the F-35 being a shitheap in a very simple way: service extensions for the F-16s that the F-35 was supposed to replace. But it doesn't have all kinds of fancy, futuristic technology that doesn't work and only occasionally kills pilots.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2014 22:59
|
|
|
Jackson Taus posted:Plenty of soldiers come home with psychological, not physical, wounds and are really hosed up when they get back, and they need care just as much as the guys who lost a leg if they're going to function in society and lead a normal-ish life after the service. Seriously, I had a buddy come back from an uneventful tour where he just spent the entire year dealing with nightly mortar strikes. While home on leave, the CHU next to his got hit and some people he knew died. He was a surly mother fucker when he got back. After seeing a shrink for about a year he's back on the level. If he wasn't able to get straightened out, he'd probably have settled into his rut and been a crazy rear end in a top hat of an alcoholic for the rest of his life.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2014 23:00
|
|
|
Amergin posted:Did you read the quoted message I responded to? It said "rich" not "0.01%".
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2014 23:02
|
|
|
Amergin posted:Did you read the quoted message I responded to? It said "rich" not "0.01%". Ah, the defensive pedantry of a moron who's realized that he has no leg to stand on but is too proud to bow out gracefully. He even tried a snark!
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2014 23:03
|
|
|
Fried Chicken posted:your article stretches the definition of "rich" to 10%, which is a laughable definition of them. We are talking about Sam Zell, not the guy who has a fishing cottage Fine, the top 1% will pay 30% of income taxes. I even made it a HuffPo article for you. Happy now Surly McSurleson?
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2014 23:05
|
|
|
Amergin posted:Fine, the top 1% will pay 30% of income taxes. I even made it a HuffPo article for you. Happy now Surly McSurleson? Also, does this figure include capital gains taxes (which are much lower, but also much more likely to affect the titular 1%)
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2014 23:06
|
|
|
Amergin posted:Fine, the top 1% will pay 30% of income taxes. I even made it a HuffPo article for you. Happy now Surly McSurleson? Ok, now that we have finally browbeat you into not lying your rear end off, explain how them leaving suddenly makes that income untaxable instead of subject to the stuff I mentioned
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2014 23:07
|
|
|
Fried Chicken posted:Ok, now that we have finally browbeat you into not lying your rear end off, explain how them leaving suddenly makes that income untaxable instead of subject to the stuff I mentioned So having a different opinion of what constitutes "rich" is now lying my rear end off?
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2014 23:09
|
|
|
Amergin posted:Did you read the quoted message I responded to? It said "rich" not "0.01%". We're presupposing* rich enough to relocate internationally at-will and maintain quality of life in a less developed context. I say less developed because the US has the cushiest tax situation of the highly developed world. Edit: * Otherwise, such a person would take the hit and have already moved.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2014 23:09
|
|
|
Amergin posted:So having a different opinion of what constitutes "rich" is now lying my rear end off? Let's not pretend for an instant that you have been arguing in good faith here. Case in point: pretending to be but thirst rather than answering the question
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2014 23:10
|
|
|
Fried Chicken posted:Let's not pretend for an instant that you have been arguing in good faith here. I haven't even been arguing, I've been subject to an ultra-liberal browbeating, so I really don't owe you anything.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2014 23:11
|
|
|
Amergin posted:I haven't even been arguing, I've been subject to an ultra-liberal browbeating, so I really don't owe you anything. You're the only "ultra-liberal" I see. Do you think the government should prevent children from becoming homeless?
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2014 23:12
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:You're the only "ultra-liberal" I see. Yes, by sending them to work in Bangladeshi factories.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2014 23:13
|
|
|
Amergin posted:I haven't even been arguing, I've been subject to an ultra-liberal browbeating, so I really don't owe you anything. So you've got nothing then.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2014 23:13
|
|
|
Amergin posted:Please show me some sources of this. Otherwise empirically you're not talking empirically. It doesn't work that way. One doesn't get to walk in, toss some bombs, and then demand to be proven wrong. As has already been pointed out, this thread gets "one of your kind" in here every few weeks pulling this same act. You could try reading some earlier pages, or previous threads. But coming in here and expecting sources to be laid at your feet like you're the golden child probably won't work out too great.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2014 23:14
|
|
|
Amergin posted:Yes, by sending them to work in Bangladeshi factories. Would you care to give a real answer about this, since you've been getting into tax policy and so forth?
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2014 23:15
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Would you care to give a real answer about this, since you've been getting into tax policy and so forth? Yes, I think the government should prevent children from being homeless. I do not, however, think the government should prevent adults from being homeless.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2014 23:19
|
|
|
Man I knew I was well off but I had no idea that making $250,000 a year combined income in the PNW was CEO rich. Excuse me while I go roll in my monopoly money and buy a yatch... yatht... gently caress not that rich. Can't even spell it. (I'm top 5% according to a local calculator - Pretty cool but not like I can go out and buy what ever I want or quit my job tomorrow with out serious consequences) I'd be perfectly happy to legit pay 35% in taxes but there are so many automatic tax breaks built in to even turbotax that last year we paid like 18% due to mortgage interest and new car sales tax exemptions. On Veteran stuff: Sister was deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan multiple times and she's a structural engineer and later changed to being a medivac logistics person? Either way her base was being mortared constantly and once had one land pretty close. It's been about 8 years but she still seems to have some issues about it. I'm sure it would have helped if she could have actually seen a therapist but I guess the military frowned on it.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2014 23:20
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 01:45 |
|
|
Amergin posted:Yes, I would agree to that - however I see that as being "government makes sure the ceiling isn't low" rather than "government makes sure the floor is high enough for you to touch the ceiling". What I want is really more like "The floor is high enough so you can leave the room when you want to, because sometimes you have to eat or poop or have hobbies and relationships and schooling, and why are we in this pit?" since economics and government aren't detached from society the way theoretical physics is. e: also, you never answered the military free housing question
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2014 23:21
|
|
