Chuckles. I'm actually wondering aloud to myself right now, did you really ask that question. If I'm an "internet tough guy," would I really tell you. And even if I told you I'm not, how would you know? I never quite understood why people asked questions, the answer of which they don't really want to know. It's quite pathetic. And save your "nothing but insult" bit. I've heard it all before. As I've mentioned already, I've responded to every single one of your questions. I'm not the one with the disappearing subjects. You are. You jumped in way over your head; and when it become painfully obvious you jumped in way over your head, you dropped the subject and did the routine diversionary tactic. It's pretty obvious why. If you actually based on your arguments on a facts based approach like me, you'd be saying "you're wrong and here is why. Point A, point B, point C." None of that usual partisan bullsh1t. Which begs the question really. If you didn't look at the facts and figures before you formulated your opinion, what exactly caused you to draw your conclusions from? Couldn't be your sheer blind ideology, or worse, because you benefit from it, could it? Lastly but not the least, I see the usual "moralistic" argument here. I've already addressed it in another thread. It goes something like this, "it's no fair the poor shouldn't have, A, B and C." Except there is one huge problem. Morals are highly subjective. You use some warped morals and try to enforce it upon everybody when it's clear not everybody agrees with it. And of course, people like you are never able to address the issue of what happens when there are conflicting morals (it being highly subjective and all). One example I gave in the past is that theft is "clearly wrong," by just about anyone's definition. But if we don't call it theft, but rather, gave it a nicer ring like say... taxation, then it is perfectly OK. Chuckles. Tickles me just to hear it. Let's just say that I find it rather predictable that you would like the rich to act all altruistic but expect the poor to act out of self-interest. Most predictable.
You provided plenty of "evidence," if that is what you call anecdotes. You provided a lot of ideologically based nonsense dressed up as facts and even tried to twist the facts to support your position to the point that the Twister champion of the universe said "that guy is good." In the end, you actually had nothing, so you were forced to resort to insults. It's OK, that happens to a lot of conservatives when they can't deal with facts and available evidence. Straw man, yet another logical fallacy and one more piece of evidence that you can't see reality. You asked which words of mine you twisted and then posted the twisted words right below. It's like you're wandering in the dark, screaming Fox News sound bites at shadows. Pretty amusing, actually. No, you twisted my words. Taxes are the price WE (all Americans pay taxes) pay to live in a civilized society. You couldn't deal with that simple sentence, so had to twist it because your ideology won't let you live in the real world. Perhaps I'm mistaken, but aren't you the one who came out and brayed about how the bottom 50% paid "no taxes at all," when that is nothing but a lie? Forgive me for the guffaw. Except that it's not. All of us pay taxes, but who derives more benefits from our court system, the police, an educated populace, and some of the best infrastructure in the world? If course it is the rich, but in your twisted little mind, you are able to see poor people as little more than leeches scheming to deprive you of a minuscule portion of your paycheck. By lobbying for lower taxes on the wealthy and higher taxes on the middle class. They paid off politicians to have their taxes lowered while mine went up. The income tax got cut dramatically (to the point that even Reagan had to raise taxes in '86) and the payroll tax got bigger. Taxes on the wealthy went down while the overall tax burden was shifted to the middle class. Based on YOUR definition of "stealing," the rich have been stealing from the middle class for decades. So did I. However, I paid a higher percentage of my income in taxes than many people who are extremely wealthy. And I was taxed at a higher rate than someone who lives on income from dividends or capital gains. Except that now the rich are saying that I need to consider cuts in my benefits, benefits for which I paid, because they don't want to go back to pre-Bush tax rates in order to address the deficit. There is a lot of talk of "shared sacrifice," but what the rich seem to mean by that is the middle class needs to suck it up and share the sacrifice that rich people aren't willing to make.
Well I just found out that economic theories, widely agree to ones are "nonsense dressed up as facts." The actual US governmental budget is "nonsense dressed up as facts." The line items of its spending are "nonsense dressed up as facts." The actual SS calculations, not by some partisan website, but from the SSA itself, are "nonsense dressed up as facts." The fact that you know jacksh1t about Marie Antoinette is "nonsense dressed up as facts." Let's start with Marie Antoinette shall we? I have to admit that part is the most interest tidbit. Care to defend your "let them have cake" statement? This is most delicious. I'll reserve this little tidbit to the end. No logical fallacy at all, except in an imbecile at all. In one case it's theft. In another case it's an extreme version of theft. You went down the slippery slope of which one is OK but the other is not. It's actually a very interesting line that you presume to have an exact measure of. I said it and I'll say it again. It sounds like I got it exactly right. There's no ideology here. But it's rather apparent that you can't even engage in simple critical thinking. Not even the most simple critical thinking. YOU SAID, that the medical bill is the number one cause of bankruptcy right? Did I twist your words? It's in post #84. I happen to agree. Now what is bankruptcy? Bankruptcy is the inability to meet one's financial obligations. I'm gonna ask the impossible here. I'm actually gonna ask you to think a second (oh gee, I can see the smoke already). No doubt you'll start with your income tax versus payroll tax bullsh1t again, but let's summarize: The poor face financial ruin/bankruptcy due to his/her inability to meet his/her obligations. Now through the tax regime (AS A WHOLE), that poor person now no longer face financial ruin/bankruptcy, in other words, has the ability to meet his/her financial obligations. Which way did the wealth transfer go? Which ****ing way could the wealth transfer POSSIBLY GO? Sounds like I got it exactly right, that taxes are the price THE RICH PAY for YOU to live in a civilized society. Actually moron, I said in a thread SPECIFICALLY RELATED TO INCOME TAX that the 50% paid "no taxes at all." Here are some tidbits from the original post of that very thread: This was nothing more than a pathetic attempt on your part to cloud the issue. But if the topic of that thread WASN'T income tax, the clearly the original post in that thread is AN OUTRIGHT LIE. Because then obviously the rich derived NO BENEFIT more than anybody else from payroll tax over the past 30 years. This is one of those idiotic points that you make over and over and over again despite it being repeatedly trashed. If the rich KEPT THEIR MONEY and had their own mini court system, the policy, education and infrastructure, they'd be FAR BETTER OFF. The problem? You won't be. I can just see you sharpening the pitchfork right now. They derived FAR LESS of the benefits compared to the money they put in. And please, even you must be embarrassed with the US having "some of the best infrastructure in the world." Chuckles. You got 5 bucks in your pocket. I took $2. You lobbied congress so I only take 1? You stole from me? LMAO. Why go back to Reagan? Did you know at one point the US had NO INCOME TAX (or payroll tax for that matter)? Did you know it was supposed to be temporary? So apparently your memory only go back as far as Reagan. I find it hilarious too that the rich paid a large portion of your bills. Then when they lobbied to pay a smaller portion of YOUR BILLS, it somehow became theft, from you. LMAO. This is the usual ROI versus NPV issue for idiots who can't seem to get the concept that an ROI measure is worthless without a base of calculation. How about this. I'll give 100% (full damn 100%) of my income in grade school for 15% of your current income. Try paying 35% at McDonald's buddy. I don't see anyone, ANYONE arguing that you can't take the very same LT capital gains/dividends. If you can't bring in the dough don't blame everybody else. Here's a hint. Look in the mirror. This is hilarious. Did you get the same news feeds that I got couple month ago? NOBODY wanted to go back to the pre-Bush tax rates. NOBODY. Both side of the aisle was against going back to the pre-Bush days. There was precisely ONE DIFFERENCE. Those loser Democrats wanted tax cuts for everybody BUT the rich. Those loser Republicans wanted tax cuts, supposedly for everybody, but most likely for the rich. Who was for "shared sacrifices?" Seemed like nobody to me. But somehow you had selective memory that allowed you to choose those loser Democrats instead of those loser Republicans. Now let me address this point: It's so hilarious. Cracks me up. You go with all the "moral" and "civilized" argument when ignoring the simple fact that fairness is a widely agreed upon moral; honesty is a widely agreed upon moral; not being hypocritical is a widely agreed upon moral; living within one's means and paying ones bill is a moral, and in fact, something to be rather proud of. But what do we have here? The rich is paying the majority of the bills. We know exactly who's buttering our bread. In other words, they are contributing to an over-sized portion of the budget but that to you is just the way it should be (unfair). To justify your indefensible position you convince yourself that they are actually stealing from you by being allowed to keep a larger portion of their income (dishonest). To that end, as mentioned already, you expect the rich to act all altruistic while not expecting the poor to do the same (hypocritical). And of course, you see nothing wrong with "helping someone" who can't pay his bills, never mind that very problem is symptomatic of the country as a whole. Now here is what you were expecting. I normally hate to generalize but people like you are so damn predictable. You were expecting someone to say something completely irrelevant like "Mr. Bob Joe, rich guy, routinely contributes to charities," because those people are so scare sh1tless of the backlash to say exactly what they think. Instead you got me, who doesn't mince words; who told you exactly how it is and more importantly, exactly what he thinks of you. So all of a sudden you had to scramble for another argument, or rather, AN ARGUMENT, since you didn't have one to begin with. Lastly but certainly not the least, as I've mentioned already, the safety net in this country is pretty damn good. You already got the money. But instead of taking the money and keep your mouth shut, you act like an ungrateful little brat, which is gasp, another moral issue. I've already said that I can't be the only one to notice the irony of Vanity Fair taking a potshot at the rich. Chuckles. I don't expect what I've said here is actually gonna change your mind. Idiots like you never change your mind. If you actually had an open mind and took a fact based approach, there is no way that in light of all the facts, stats and figures, that you reached your idiotic conclusion in the first place. I fully expect that in another thread, probably by Luxury Homes (LMAO), that you bring up the same old bullsh1t. One last note. The US' fiscal situation is NOTHING UNIQUE. As a matter of fact, it is quite widely spread. Basically all of Western Europe (except MAYBE Germany) is in the exact same goddam boat. And taxes, NOT MARGINAL RATE, but AVERAGE EFFECTIVE RATE, top 50% in just about every country. Taxing the rich didn't seem to help them one bit absent spending cuts from their "Cadillac plans."
I haven't seen you link to "economic theories" government budget numbers, spending numbers, or SS calculations. Are you talking about another thread or are these "facts" you say you have provided yet another of your delusions? I don't remember exactly where I used a "let them eat cake" reference, though I have used them in the past. It does seem to fit, though I admit in our context it is a little hyperbolic. The wealthy in America have seen their share of the economy, national income, and total wealth increase dramatically over the last thirty, but especially the last ten, years. In this time, everyone in the lower 80% of the income distribution has seen stagnant or falling wages. Hearing the wealthy, who have had tremendous income and wealth gains, talk about scrapping programs like SS and Medicare does bring to mind Ms. Antoinette. I have to admit, I really love seeing you turn to insults when you know I'm right. Go back and look at your "kill the rich" statement and tell yourself it isn't a straw man (which fits under the definition of "logical fallacy"). You will only be lying to yourself, but something tells me that happens a lot. It isn't only the "poor" who go bankrupt due to medical bills. 62% of bankruptcies are triggered by medical bills and 78% of those who filed for bankruptcy as a result of medical bills HAD PRIVATE INSURANCE, in other words, weren't being subsidized by "the rich" at all. People in many different income groups face the specter of bankruptcy due to illness, but it doesn't matter to you, anything is enough to send you off on a rant about how much "the poor" take from your pockets. http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/content/jun2009/db2009064_666715.htm Another insult proving that you are intellectually bankrupt. SWEET!!! The rich enjoy the best that American society has to offer, and a significant portion of the reason is because we have the best roads, an educated population, and a court system that is the envy of the world. You can continue claiming that they don't enjoy the fruits that American society hangs low for them to pick, but [sniff] such claims just don't pass the smell test. I admit we are falling behind, it is insane that Koreans have better broadband than Americans and that Europeans and Japanese have ubiquitous high speed trains and we don't. However, we still have the best network of roads in the entire world and still have better infrastructure in general than the vast majority of the planet. The reason I am embarrassed is that the wealthy don't seem to see the need to invest in our infrastructure as the Greatest Generation did. We could easily have the best infrastructure had we invested in it rather than let it deteriorate as we have. The rich have lobbied to get their taxes lowered while the middle class have had theirs raised. By your own definition, the rich have stolen from the poor. laugh all you want, you are doing so in the face of reality. I seriously doubt you are going to find overwhelming support to take this country back to where it was in 1916. Good luck getting people to agree to turn back the clock nearly a century. You keep trying to make this about me when I am one of the people who pays income tax. Based on your definition, I am one of the bill payers, yet I am still able to see reality while you have chosen blinders. To each his own, I suppose. Yet again, you don't have a logical argument so you simple make up a BS anecdote that has no bearing on reality. The rich, particularly the VERY wealthy (who make their money mainly through capital gains and dividends) are taxed at a lower rate than the middle class. That is a direct comparison in today's dollars, no NPV calculations at all. Here is a great place for the "let them eat cake" comment, but I would be willing to bet that you don't even know the context in which Antoinette was quoted. I would be all for returning ALL tax rates to pre-Bush rates. I understand the argument for letting the upper income rates revert while keeping the middle class breaks, but in order to understand that argument, you have to be willing to look at how much of the share of income gains in the 2000s went to the wealthy and very wealthy. Since you seem to have an aversion to facts and logic, I don't have much hope that you are willing to objectively assess that argument. They are contributing a lower percentage of their paychecks to paying our bills than the lower and middle classes, which is the very definition of unfair. They have lobbied Congress to steal from the poor (having payroll taxes increased) while their taxes are cut. I don't "expect" the rich to be altruistic, I expect them to be greedy, an expectation confirmed by reality. This is the reason that taxes are the price we pay to live in a civilized society. If we depended entirely on altruism to pay government bills, we would end up with the modern equivalent of the robber baron era, which is thankfully a bygone era, albeit one to which I am certain you would like to return (to the days before the income tax). No, I see nothing wrong with helping people. However, you and I have very different definitions, you lump SS recipients into that category, even though their payroll tax contributions over the decades paid for their benefits. You told me exactly how YOU think "it is," but as usual, you showed exactly how disconnected from reality you really are. This really isn't about me, I make ~40% over the median family income all by myself. Once my wife graduates nursing school, that number will jump dramatically. One of us is acting like an "ungrateful little brat," but is isn't me. Facts are not limited to the Wall Street Journal or Bloomberg. You certainly make a compelling argument here. Thankfully, the facts are on my side. You haven't posted "facts, stats and figures," at least not here in this thread. You have posted Fox News style talking points complete with insults to make up for your inability to use logic. Until you can answer my arguments with facts and logic rather than ideologically based talking points, I will bring up the statistics and hard evidence that you avoid. Canada, however, has been virtually immune to the global financial crisis and their average effective rate is also 50%. I believe we can right our fiscal ship with rates a LOT lower than that, but the current tax rates are unsustainable. Have fun crafting your next insult, I pity you because insults are seemingly the only arrow in your rhetorical quiver.
No, I have facts, logic, and evidence, which will overcome the garbage he posts every single time. I take my CP civility pledge seriously.
Patience and civility are the things that give me the ability to show people like MFW for what they are.
They are the same facts, figures and theories, some of which you agreed to, while the others you've never bothered to respond because the wind wasn't blowing in your direction. Here is your exact quote: as found in this thread: http://bbs.clutchfans.net/showthread.php?t=203019&page=6 which as I've mentioned, is the second time you idiotically brought up the quote. Here is my response in that very same thread: So let's summarize. The French Republicans used a fabricated lie to string Marie Antoinette up a pole, when she was already dying, because they were sagging in popularity with the poor masses. It didn't even matter what the facts of the case were. Sound familiar? Chuckles. All that's spared currently is the guillotine. And the fact that you repeated your idiotic lie a second time proves even further that you have no ****ing clue what you were talking about. No moron, I insult you because it is factually correct. Those rich are rather an inconvenience aren't they? If we could do away with them it would certainly help your grand plan. I'm just thinking on your behalf. Why bother arguing what's moral and act like an idiotic little twerp. Just go right ahead and get it done. Does it matter to me? Actually it does. You think you are posting something new. You didn't. Do I support a public health insurance? Why don't you check my responses to Northside Strom in post #58 where I specifically said I: But that's not the topic of discussion is it? As a matter of fact, even a cursory scan of the title of the thread and the first couple of pages implies that the topic is "THE RICH STEALING FROM THE MIDDLE/LOWER CLASS." So let's summarize again. I support a public health insurance, except the difference, I know exactly who the hell is gonna fund it. THAT WAS THE TOPIC. IT NEVER CHANGED. The fact that you had to keep engaging your idiotic little diversionary tactics is precisely because you COULDN'T back up the lie you fabricated that the rich is stealing from the poor. And as a matter of fact, in my prior response I've addressed precisely which way the transfer of wealth went. Hint, it went from the rich to the poor/middle classes. Want to talk about a publicly versus privately funded health insurance? Start another thread. Until them hold off on the sob stories of who is going bankrupt because of what. Because if you can go off on an idiotic rant/lie that the rich is stealing from the poor, I can certainly prove you wrong without batting an eye about who's going bankrupt. You know, I get rather tired of pointing out all your diversionary tactics. You accused me of saying something that is untrue (aka. lying). I prove that I wasn't, meaning that you were lying. Then instead of admitting that you either purposefully or unintentionally (whichever) lied, or at the worst, just quietly let it went away, you had the gall to still open your filthy sewers. Yeah I insulted you. Sounds like it was perfectly justified too. I've addressed this rant many times already. Americans enjoy the best that American society can offer, and a significant portion of the reason is because we have OK roads, an educated population, and a court system that is the envy of the world... PAID FOR BY THE RICH. You can continue claiming that the rich enjoy all of the fruits they put in, but such claims just don't pass the smell test. Really want a smell test? It's pretty simple. Take the rich's portion of tax receipts from ALL form of taxes (and of course, take out how much they draw out) and see what you get. Figure out a way to balance the budget. Better road on what measure? The Interstate system is falling apart. Bridges, ports, power plants need to be upgraded. If you were comparing to Africa, yeah, it's pretty damn good. But it's nefarious at best to say "best infrastructure in the world." Where is the money to do it? No really. It wasn't a sarcastic comment (OK, maybe it was). Find me the money. First you need to make up for a $1.8 trillion (conservative estimated) budget shortfall. And that is of course prior to the hump of SS and new health care kicks in. Then building infrastructure takes years if not decades. You need to keep those projects continually funded. Got cash? If you don't then you really have to wonder where all the cash went. You've got to be kidding me. Which definition did I give that the rich stole from the poor? I've said all along. The rich paid a significant portion of the bills. Then they had that reduced to a less significant portion of the bills. They stole from you? Here's some simple math for you. A rich guy earned $100. He paid $35 to a pool. You earned $10 and paid $3. Who paid more? Now he got his portion to be reduced to $15. Yours dropped to $2.50. Who paid more? He stole $20 from you? That $20 is higher than even your total income. Chuckles. Not suggesting it at all. It was an example. People like you always find some very convenient time lines. For example, ever look at the tax bracket under George. H.W. Bush? You people for example, love to say, Obama is letting the Dubya tax cuts expire for the rich when if you went back a bit further, you could easily have said Dubya let the Clinton tax hikes (not that I necessarily disagree with them, damn, can't believe I have to bold this part so you don't drop it from your arguments again) expire. It's all very interesting and very convenient. And then LMAO, people like you love to beat up on Reagan. Not that I necessarily thought much of him as a president. But did you check who was before him? You people love to beat up on Dubya (and idiot) and say he left Obama a mess while at the same time ignoring who left Reagan a mess. All things considered, I think he could have done a lot worse. You object the term you? Fine. Replace the word "you" in that argument with the poor/middle class. Then argument is still there. It's still true. But at least you got the word "you" replaced. Not that it did much good. You've got to be kidding me. Did you EVER take an introductory finance course? No wonder your argument is so pathetic. You can't calculate an NPV at present time? Geez. Do you know what NPV stands for? Net Present Value. I have $100. What's the present value? $100. What is the NPV? $100. I'm wondering, what do I have to do to get through your thick skull? Give a mathematical proof? Draw a picture? What's even more pathetic is that you missed the point by a country mile. It WASN'T an anecdote. It was a FACT. You paid 25% (let's say effective rate) of $50,000. Heck. Let's up that to 35%, just to float your boat. Some rich guy paid 15% of $1,000,000. Who paid more taxes? I think this is what, grade 2 math? Let's see. Hmmm. Uh. Oh it's so damn hard. OK, so you paid 0.35 * 50,000 = $17,500. Rich guy paid 0.15 * 1,000,000 = $150,000. Do I get a sticker? $17,500 > $150,000.? LMAO. Like I said, it's exactly like the idiot investor who can't grasp the ROI vs. NPV argument. "Yeah *****, I earned 100% of $1. You only earned 50 bucks." I just gave it above. As a matter of fact. I've pretty much proven she most likely didn't say it. Aka, you were wrong. Owned. I just did. It doesn't take too long. The rich earned more. Good for them. Pat on the back. I hope you have as fruitful a career. But if you don't, let's not kid ourselves. We know exactly who to blame the majority of the time. Now if the US actually had an aristocracy, aka. the exclusion of opportunity, we might have problem. Last time I checked, it doesn't. I'm wondering if you are managing to keep a straight face while saying it is "unfair" when they contribute a lower percentage of "their paychecks." It's pretty amazing actually. And why not? Do payroll tax primarily benefit the rich? I'm asking you if you actually think that. But you didn't stop there did you? You got the poor the money then expect the rich to shut up and take it. Routinely you drag out an idiotic article like this to take a pots. There can be no reduction to what the rich pay or the poor's benefit regardless of the economic climate. Seriously speaking here, so if during good economic times the rich are wealthier and we can afford it so we should increase spending and benefits; and during bad economic times the poor need a hand so we should increase spending and benefits, when exactly are we supposed to cut spending? Help me out here. We've gone through this already. Actually we've gone through this not very long ago. The poor guy paid 6.2% if you ignore the other employer contribution of the other 6.2%, most likely paid by a rich guy. Please, it's getting nauseating. And then of course, there is the cap on benefits. I've shown you the PIA formula. Here it is again: http://www.ssa.gov/oact/cola/piaformula.html LMAO. I'm not even gonna bother looking up the numbers. I'll just use your numbers. Is that alright with you? Why should it? Unless you're telling me your figure is wrong. You said in post #84 that "the bottom 80% of the economic spectrum pays 32% of the federal taxes before we ever start talking about income taxes." OK, that means the top 20% paid 68% right? Who paid more? On a per capita basis, who paid more? On a total tax paid basis, who paid more? According to the CBO, income taxes are 42% of 2010 federal tax receipts. So that means the poor paid 32% of 58% of federal tax receipts. Then of course there's income taxes. The figures there are so well established that I hope I don't have to prove EVEN TO YOU, who paid the bills there. Just like I said, we know exactly who's buttering our bread. Also just like I said, you expected some rich guy to put up a whimper then grovel on his own time, in private. But instead you got me. Of course, if you can prove that the rich somehow isn't paying the majority of the bill (like I said), then we can actually start a debate, instead it just being a beat down, from me to you. Yes, you said this already. Replace you with the poor. Who cares. Oh I'm pretty grateful to the rich. Never was an issue. Chuckles. Certainly. But Vanity Fair is has just so much expertise on economics don't they? I thought so too. See? It didn't change your mind. Which facts have you posted exactly? Let's start with the simple essay process shall we? Summary, argument, evidence, conclusion. I'll get the ball rolling for you. Based on the title of the thread: Summary: The rich are stealing from the poor (which it appears to me at least you agree) Argument: Evidence: Conclusion: Let's, here are the facts I've posted in this thread, just off the top of my head. Federal tax receipts by source. PIA calculation method. Canada's fiscal history. An analysis of why Canada is in a better fiscal shape (hint, it isn't taxing the rich). Why Gini/HDI measures favour smaller, less geographically diverse countries. Milton Friedman's view and reasoning to opposing SS. Now if we include the last thread it would also include the US federal budget/spending by source from 2009 to 2016 project; economic theories including but not limited to Pareto efficiency, Harberger's Triangle; inflation adjusted real wage; an analysis of lifestyle prior to the 1950's and why we're having less savings. And of course, my favourite, Marie Antoinette!!! Who could forget that. But like I said, it's pretty simple to say I didn't bring up the facts when you stick your head in the sand like an ostrich whenever the wind doesn't blow your way. That's actually hilarious. Please cite one piece of evidence you posted. You posted one article from Business Week which turned out to be completely irrelevant. Other than that, I'm waiting for those "stats and evidence that I avoided." Somehow I managed to only see some kind of subjective moral arguments. You must be another one of those idiots who comments on Canada (like Sooner) without every actually being there. Here are the hard facts. After flirting with the line for a couple of years, Canada's personal savings rate is now officially lower than the US. Canadians have more equity in their house but a MUCH MUCH higher credit card debt, which MAY actually be worse because after all, credit card debt is unsecured debt. Its banks are slightly better ran but that's not why it avoided the financial crisis. The reason is because being a small country by population, it pretty much has only RETAIL BANKS and almost ZERO MARKET for structured products (good or bad) hence never could leverage the way a US bank could. To prop up property prices, the Ontario government (or was it Federal) halted to expansion of the GTA, natural or not. The median housing price in Toronto is $410,000, about comparable to NYC, though being much poorer. I call it the great Toronto property bubble. Lastly but certainly not the least, it doesn't take more than a cursory google search (even if you needed one in the first place) to know that the average effective tax rate in Canada isn't 50%. As a matter of fact, according to the OECD, it's around 31.0%. I'll give you better than that. I'll give you the "all-in" combine rate (Fed, Prov, SS, etc) tax wedge wedges for 2009, courtesy of the OECD: ------ %AW ------ ---------------------------- 67% -- 100% --- 133% --- 167% Canada ----- Central gvt --- 8.2% -- 10.6% -- 13.4% -- 15.1% AW=43568 -- Sub-central -- 3.8% -- 4.9% -- 6.0% -- 6.7% ------------- Combined -- 12.1% -- 15.5% -- 19.4% -- 21.9% ----------Employee SSC -- 7.1% -- 7.3% -- 5.9% -- 5.0% -----------------´All-in´-- 17.9% -- 22.8% -- 25.3% -- 26.8% --------- Employer SSC -- 11.4% -- 11.5% -- 10.0% -- 9.0% ------- Total tax wedge -- 26.3% -- 30.8% -- 32.1% -- 32.9% Making Canada's effective tax rate, marginally higher than the US, which is around 30%. Good luck catching up to Canada buddy. So I'm wondering, was this more of the "facts and evidence" that you posted? Oh I'm certainly looking at my post above and looking for my rhetorical quiver, LMAO. Well, I just found out the average effective tax rate in Canada is over 50%. See? You learn something new every day. A truth teller.
I will have time to go through and pick apart MFW's delusions one at a time over the weekend, but I wanted to point out that I think I have found the fundamental disconnect between him and reality. He doesn't believe that we should consider taxes based on the percentage of our income, he believes we need to consider taxes only based on the pure dollar amounts that a particular person pays. I'm sure he will correct me if my memory is wrong (I just don't have time to look it up right now), but I believe he is the person who said that we needed to create a flat tax where everyone in America, regardless of income, is required to pay $80,000 to the government. Of course, this position is ludicrous, but is illustrative of why he sees the poor "stealing" from the rich with regards to taxes. MFW, Your position as outlined above is mind numbingly twisted. I shouldn't have to explain to you why we use ratios rather than dollar amounts to compare companies of different sizes (if anyone else would like a discussion on this topic, I can explain). It is the exact same reason that pure dollar amounts aren't an acceptable way to measure individual tax contributions. We use percentage of income to measure an individual's tax rate because it is an accurate and fair measure of how much of a person's productivity goes to the government. Honestly, until you can understand and agree to the above, your world view is so twisted that you aren't worth talking to. That being said, I will answer your [snicker] response sometime this weekend after I get my real work done. BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Actually the taxes as theft or as theft from the poor to the rich is a sort of strange cult phrase of Libertarians that has crept into the Milton Friedman types and other extreme free marketeers. There is no logic behind it except for the idea that the government has no right to tax, a very unwordly idea.
You would have time to pick up "my dellusions" but you don't, because you can't. You would rely on some idiotic rant, exactly like the Marie Antoinette argument (or lack thereof) I just thoroughly trashed above, like just about any of the other garbage you threw my way, like say, the effective average tax in Canada being over 50%. I'm gonna go right ahead and take a guess though, those "arguments" will drop from your repetoire and I won't hear from them again. Then couple of posts later you'll say something along the lines of I " didn't post any facts except insult you." We'll see how true this turn out. But based on past history, it's about 100%. Let's do some simple math here, chuckles. Now, based on your numbers for non income tax, if we include income tax, the top 20% would pay 73.5% of all federal government receipts; and that is of course, AFTER THE BUSH TAX CUTS. Now let's forget the fact that governmental benefits program payouts (aka, federal expenses) are heavily skewed towards the poor. Let's just assume that every man, woman and child in the country derive the same benefits. What is the MAXIMUM the rich 20% would get? LMAO. Need a calculator? Hint, it's 20%. So let's summarize, the rich paid 73.5% of all revenue and derived 20% of the benefits? Which way did the wealth transfer go Sherlock? Which way COULD it possibly go? So like I've been saying all along, I find it hilarious that you are able to keep a straight face while saying the rich is stealing from the poor. And also like I said, good luck paying the bills with a percentage. My offer still stand. I'll give you a full 100% of my salary in grade school for 15% of your current income. You should have no problem with it of course. Heck, I've even tolerated that you used some bullsh1t like "the poor pays 35%" where "the rich only paid 15%" and confusing the top marginal tax bracket with effective tax rate. At first I gave you the benefit of the doubt and asusmed it was a slip of the tongue. But now I think you are purposefully misrepresenting the truth (aka. lying) to make it appear as if the poor is being paid more than they should. And to go even further, you went and did the same for Canada. It comes down to simple math really, but appears to be beyond your skill level. So I went out and found a calculator for you. http://www.moneychimp.com/features/tax_brackets.htm Let's assume a family earns a median income of $50,000. Files married filing jointly, take the standard and personal exemption, what is their effective tax rate? And of course the usual they can't be claimed as a dependent by anyone slse crap. Their effective tax rate for federal purposes is 12.32% on TI of $31,300. Now let's assume he/she is single and earned an income of $40,000. His/her effective tax rate is 13.63% on a TI of $30,650. Now let's take the rich guy. Rich married couple earned the widely agreed definition of $250,000. They would pay 23.39% on a TI of $231,300. Let's now assume it's a rich guy earning $200,000 single income. He would pay 25.19% on a TI of $190,650. Million dollar couple? 31.97% on TI of $981,300. And of course, this is before we get into the headache of AMT. I know exactly what you're gonna say. You'll say that the rich have more deductions as well. Except that: 1) The AMT takes care of most of that 2) You give a deduction and then curse someone for taking advantage of it too well. Who paid more taxes? The rich or the poor? Who paid more dollars? Who paid a higher %? Since we're talking finance here, who paid a higher NPV? Who paid a higher potential ROI? Yet apparently the poor paid more, accoring to you. This intensional dishonesty is reprehensible I am going to correct you. You are wrong. I said the rich are paying the majority of the bills (which they are). I said further that it created a moral hazard. It's kinda Bob Joe the beggar saying something like "if I was rich, I'd pay high taxes/contribute to charity." It's pretty much words, and words are cheap (actually, they're free). Removed from the risk (of actually paying for them) and deriving the majority of benefits, I said I found it hilarious that the poor get all up on their moral high horse, especially ironic since their self-interest is on full display (see the benefits part). I questioned that what does it take? I asked do we need to tax every man, woman and child $80,000 (or however much it costs to pay for all spending) to make them realize how much it is costing and just how good they have it. Lastly but certainly not the least, I theorized that IF such a system is in place, I predict spending will rapidly go down, which once again, demonstrates exactly who's paying the bills. But if the actual tax revenue/expenditure figures didn't change your mind, why would this one? So in conclusion, let's just chalk it up as another one of your selective memory taken out of context soundbytes, exactly like the supposed "Marie Antoinette" quote. You shouldn't have to tell me why you use ratios. You SHOULDN'T tell me to use ratios at all. Weren't you the one that went off on introductory accounting/finance a thread back? One of the first things they tell you in ANY introductory to finance course is to use the NPV, precisely because the varying scale and scope. As a matter of fact, they'll tell you using ROI measure absent of scale is idiotic, exactly like I told you. This is capital budgeting 101. And ANY self-respecting accountant will go even further and tell you that you SHOULDN'T COMPARE ACROSS THE FIELD, because they AREN'T DIRECT COMPARABLE. This isn't really true, but it does tend to make their job a lot easier, hence they push it. But instead you compare "productivity." LMAO. Well, what if someone is entirely unproductive yet draw the same benefits? I've yet to find you actually refute any of my points other than go on a "moral" tangent. Chuckles. This is the THIRD TIME you've mentioned Milton Friedman as a cultist. Despite my repeated attempts to address the issue, you dodged the subject like a moronic little twerp. You call him a cultist without ever coming up with an argument why he's wrong; as a matter of fact, as I've already proven, you have ZERO knowledge of his theories and beliefs. All you're good for is to engage in a perpetual and pathetic attempt to assassinate his character so you wouldn't actually need to actually come up with a rebuttal. Sadly, this tactic works rather well amongst your fellow simpletons, devoid of even the most basic of knowledge. If I'm wrong, and he's wrong. I'd love to hear it. Most amusingly though, Milton Friedman live for a pretty damn long time. As a matter of fact, he was alive as long as 2006. Your kind had plenty of chance to challenge his views. Instead your kind and no doubt, your cult hero, Paul Krugman, didn't dare to fart your mouth in his direction while he was alive but alll came crawling out of the cracks once he died. I think the timeing is most, shall we say, convenient?
I didn't have time because I have a life that includes a full time job, an education, and a family that is far more important than picking through the deluded thinking and lack of basic math skills that you exhibit. The intentional dishonesty is reprehensible, but anyone reading your posts is able to tell who is lying and who isn't. I showed how the bottom 80% of the income bracket contributes a third of the tax receipts (before considering income tax, so the ultimate number for total federal tax receipts is even higher) to the federal government and even showed my work. You began your post with an inaccurate number (73.5%) and then used that bogus number to attempt to make a point. Nice try, but lying about numbers (or not understanding them in the first place) bolsters my point, not yours. No moral hazard, just the way that a progressive income tax works. The rich, who enjoy the lion's share of the benefits of living in American society, pay more for the privileges they enjoy. For what it's worth, I would fully support changing our tax code dramatically, but as long as we have a progressive income tax, the rich will pay the majority of the bills. You can whine about "moral hazard' all you like, but you are simply complaining about the reality of the system under which we live. The ACTUAL revenue/expenditure figures directly led to my opinion on this subject. Unfortunately for you, I am considering the real figures and not the ones that you just made up out of thin air. You should realize that your attitude is exactly the same as the attitude the person who said "Qu'ils mangent de la brioche," even if it should be attributed to Marie-Therese and not Marie Antoinette. Yes, because you have exhibited a complete lack of understanding on both topics. If you don't say stupid s***, I won't feel the need to teach you how the real world works. If we were talking about the time value of money, you would be right. Unfortunately for you, we are talking about comparing the percentage of income that goes to taxes in the same year, which doesn't involve NPV calculations at all. Then learn to read.
BTW, here is the error in your math. I calculated that the bottom 80% pay 32% of the TOTAL TAX RECEIPTS for the federal government. I already accounted for payroll taxes only being 42% of total receipts.
Holy crap, you have you have a full time job, an education and a family. That's amazing. I mean, the first portion would put amongst 90% of the 150 million labour force that has a job; The second portion would put you among the 99% of people that received some form of education (or perhaps you meant college); the third would put you among at the very least, the well, just everybody, who actually has a family. Sure can't argue with that argument. LMAO. This part is rather humourous. At best it means that you are utterly incapable of presenting an argument that your post is confusing at best that it leads to misunderstandings. And yes, at best it is an MISUNDERSTANDING. It was a lie how? How does that bolster your argument? Sure, let's re-do the calculation. So that means the bottom 80% paid 40.4% of all taxes and the top 20% paid 59.6%. The argument still stands. Which way did the wealth transfer go? Not just supporting a progressive system actually; but actively accusing the rich of "stealing from the poor" despite the progressive system... That's actually hilarious. The revenue and expenditure figures which I posted in the other thread was the official budget of the US government, and of course, the expected budget revenue/expenditure for the next couple of years. So let me get this straight, you are saying the official budget figures of the US government is "made up out of thin air." Hilarious. Well, if it was, it certainly wasn't made up by me. The second set of numbers which I used were yours, which I concede may very well be made up from thin air. But even those numbers don't support your "argument" one iota. Actually, I've already mentioned many times that I CAN have a complete different attitude towards social responsibility than economics would allow, a fact you've already glossed over several times. However, if you are actively saying that the rich is stealing from the poor (which you are), then like I've said at least four times, I will have no qualms speaking of the moral hazard created by system. I honestly can't think of many other fields (though there are some) where people pay money, lots of it, to be verbally or otherwise abused. Also like I said repeatedly, it's not even the money any more. The rich are expected to pay the bills and still get abused. Well, that being the case, there's no longer need to be diplomatic now is there? And of course, like I said, I find it hilarious that the rich are being abused precisely like Marie Antoinette was (despite the facts) and that the only difference was the missing guillotine. Oh actually, I know precisely how the real world works. It's on full display here actually. The real world is about acting out of self-interest while pretending to take the moral high ground. Then finding enough supporters, which generally involves appealing to their self-interests, to further your own self-interest. No need to learn that lesson. It was obvious from the get go. That's just hilarious. I'm really cracking up over this one. Like I said, go out and actually take an introductory finance/accounting/economics course. Know another term an accountant/economist/financial would come up for taxes paid? Opportunity cost. Tax paid precisely means foregone investment/consumption opportunities. NPV has *****ing everything to do with taxes paid. By stating taxes paid generates no NPV and more importantly, opportunity cost issues, is the equivalent of stating that the government is better than anyone else at allocating finite (in this case, financial) resources, a claim that is dubious at best. What would the best asset allocation look like? Well, it would maximize NPV, implying an opportunity cost of ZERO. We already know that this is false as demonstrated in the mathematical proof of Harberger's Triangle that I ALREADY BROUGHT OUT IN THE PREVIOUS THREAD. And of course, that was assuming the US government is competent. Oh excuse me, economists prefer the term "rational." But I don't know if you noticed, chuckles, the US government is not exactly the sharpest government out there. But you may continue to live in your own little world and pretend that taxes paid has no NPV issues. You've already proven to be quite capable of living in Fantasyland in other regards, why should reality suddenly bite you in the ass in this particular issue?
Edit for clarification on this quote. We already know that taxation DOES NOT maximize NPV and lead to an opportunity cost of zero due to Harberger's Triangle.
Hmmmm, you know what, instead of being lazy and relying on your numbers, I actually went and looked it up. http://www.cbo.gov/publications/collections/tax/2009/all_tables.pdf The top 20% pay 86.3% of income tax in 2006, 43.5% of payroll tax, 87.2% of corporate tax and 34.7% of exercise, all as a percentage of federal liabilities. In total, they paid 69.3% of all federal liabilities with the total being defined as: This of course, neglecting state/local tax which are also skewed in favour of the poor. So please clarify the: Should I wait for a response or should I just call you a lying sack of **** now?
