The Government can’t give someone something without first taking it from someone else

[ThreePointTakedown]

16 minutes ago, jross said:

Will you explain how it gets the tax system wrong?

That video explains where our taxes go.

Funded programs should have cuts until the government executes debt-to-zero or surplus management.

The former labor secretary should go into how much waste there is with the tax dollars. 

The government spends the money, and when that doesn't work, it spends even more money.  Gross.

Here is one of many sources that point out how much waste there is with our tax dollars.  

 

 

Well, first you don't explain the tax system. You tell a story that paints a picture of poor people being lazy and greedy and rich being entirely benevolent. Which isn't true. I didn't say I would explain the tax system. I'll admit, its pretty complex. I don't feel the need to explain things to a bigot who doesn't have the decency to be honest about things or if they don't know, which you don't, to just be quiet. 

Is the tax system fair? No. 

Will rich people(top 10%) feel a significant sting if their taxes are raised 10-15%, or even 25% on the highest tier of earnings? Not even a little. Prove me wrong! Do you know the tiers of income taxes? Cuz that's a thing. 

Will taxing capital gains higher, hurt anyone that can afford to make those investments? Nope. 

Do any of these situations effect the bottom 50% of people? Nope(or not to enough of extent to really make a difference)

Will the investments made by those tax dollars help the bottom 50%? Very likely. 

Does one party want to help the bottom 50%? Yes. 

Does one party want to give tax cuts to the top 10% and corporations(that have had record profits in the last decade)? Yes. 

Since we're on the subject, does one party want to try to treat immigrants with dignity and respect as much as possible in the hopes of sharing the wealth and the idea of this country? Yes. Do some see that as weakness? Yes. Are those people wrong? Yes. Will immigrants likely vote for those that try to help and against those that see them with fear? Yes. Does that give the fearful group a reason to try to deny them entry for whatever reason? Yes. Does that make them bigots? Yes. 

 

[ThreePointTakedown]

40 minutes ago, JimmyBT said:

???????

Lets come up with a definition of rich what do you think? Family income 2x that of local average. 

[jross]

13 minutes ago, WrestlingRasta said:

You really kinda need to categorize teachers here. There are ‘teachers’ who publish papers and do speaking engagements and research and things like that while their grad asst is doing the teaching. And then there are teachers that are in car line every morning. 
 

And that is not to say anything negative in anyway about any form of teacher, but I think I little more is warranted given the context. 

It is sort of like losing weight.  Eat fewer calories and exercise.  Simple.

Spend less than you earn.  Stick to the plan.  Simple.

See also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Millionaire_Next_Door

[ThreePointTakedown]

40 minutes ago, JimmyBT said:

Who did I shut down with that comment???  Nobody. 

Did you get a response? You said you hadn't. So rather then asking questions to get some info you decided to shut down the conversation. Because we all know what you would've said if they said, "no" "Why not?" because that's how a toddler goes about making a point. Not to educate, inform, or make things better but to win and flex. Congrats. Did you change their mind? No. Are you still wrong? Yes. Did you avoid an opportunity to learn and grow by being a close minded bully? Oh Yeah! Just like you've done at every turn in these conversations? Yes. 

We do pay extra taxes. When we see someone struggling we help. I understand if you don't, would explain a lot. Be that with our time or our own resources. Giving a ride to the airport is that extra. So that is the answer to that question. We do. We all do. Does it all to the IRS? No. Does everyone get what they need? No. Is it possible to give everyone the most basics of what they need? Probably. Why is it so hard for you to believe that this is something we can and more importantly, SHOULD do? 

[Bigbrog]

36 minutes ago, ThreePointTakedown said:

Well, first you don't explain the tax system. You tell a story that paints a picture of poor people being lazy and greedy and rich being entirely benevolent. Which isn't true. I didn't say I would explain the tax system. I'll admit, its pretty complex. I don't feel the need to explain things to a bigot who doesn't have the decency to be honest about things or if they don't know, which you don't, to just be quiet. 

Is the tax system fair? No. 

Will rich people(top 10%) feel a significant sting if their taxes are raised 10-15%, or even 25% on the highest tier of earnings? Not even a little. Prove me wrong! Do you know the tiers of income taxes? Cuz that's a thing. 

Will taxing capital gains higher, hurt anyone that can afford to make those investments? Nope. 

Do any of these situations effect the bottom 50% of people? Nope(or not to enough of extent to really make a difference)

Will the investments made by those tax dollars help the bottom 50%? Very likely. 

Does one party want to help the bottom 50%? Yes. 

Does one party want to give tax cuts to the top 10% and corporations(that have had record profits in the last decade)? Yes. 

Since we're on the subject, does one party want to try to treat immigrants with dignity and respect as much as possible in the hopes of sharing the wealth and the idea of this country? Yes. Do some see that as weakness? Yes. Are those people wrong? Yes. Will immigrants likely vote for those that try to help and against those that see them with fear? Yes. Does that give the fearful group a reason to try to deny them entry for whatever reason? Yes. Does that make them bigots? Yes. 

 

This is why people can't have a civil conversation with you...all of this is nothing but partisan dribble.  And by the way, who is a bigot??

[ThreePointTakedown]

51 minutes ago, ThreePointTakedown said:

Is it? Where? 

I'm in favor of spending money to make money. Education, a better healthcare system, and helping people become citizens are investments. Much research has been done that returns on these investments are substantially higher. If this is the case would you be in favor of it? 

 

47 minutes ago, JimmyBT said:

Every unlawful immigrant in this country right now is where it’s happening. 

Figure I'd just put these together to highlight your lack of question answering. 

You can't just say 'Every unlawful immigrant' and expect anyone to believe you. I know you believe that. That's fine. What is your evidence that this is the case? Do we have illegal immigrants? Yes. Where do they come from? Bet you only know one place(that's a trick to make you research and learn, if you get it wrong I'll know how interested you are in being informed)? 

I know you want to believe everything you say. I'm sure you have plenty invested in keeping your beliefs. Not being called out on an anonymous forum, for one. But what else is keeping you tied to these beliefs. Many of them are untrue or at best half true talking points from one party that is loosing power and influence and desperate to hold on to it. Their policies are getting more and more bigotted and theocratic to better reflect the shrinking members of the party. Their demographic is getting older and more conservative, mostly due to these tactics of stirring up fear in the 'other' be it color, creed, or geographic. They have you committed to being angry and fearful. Which makes it difficult to absorb info that might contradict those beliefs. Just like a religion. FYI, religion also tells their members to not ask questions or to only ask questions to a select few(who have a financial stake in the members continuing to believe the things they say). I wonder why that is? (cough cough, cult)

 

[WrestlingRasta]

31 minutes ago, jross said:

It is sort of like losing weight.  Eat fewer calories and exercise.  Simple.

Spend less than you earn.  Stick to the plan.  Simple.

See also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Millionaire_Next_Door

I didn’t see a ranking of the top five professions in what the author calls the PAW’s. I did see some examples of the UAW’s. 

[jross]

8 minutes ago, ThreePointTakedown said:

Well, first you don't explain the tax system. You tell a story that paints a picture of poor people being lazy and greedy and rich being entirely benevolent. Which isn't true. I didn't say I would explain the tax system. I'll admit, its pretty complex. I don't feel the need to explain things to a bigot who doesn't have the decency to be honest about things or if they don't know, which you don't, to just be quiet. 

Correct, I did not attempt to explain the tax system, and neither does the old anecdote posted. 

The anecdote is an analogy to explain the concept of tax cuts and their impact on different income groups.   It suggests that there may be negative consequences if high-income individuals are overtaxed or criticized for their wealth.  MSPart understands and asked you about the California and New York exodus.

What part of the anecdote did you understand called poor people lazy or said that rich people are entirely benevolent?

[ThreePointTakedown]

2 minutes ago, Bigbrog said:

This is why people can't have a civil conversation with you...all of this is nothing but partisan dribble.  And by the way, who is a bigot??

Oh do tell!? I'm interested. 

I appreciate you stepping in to maintain the civility of the conversation but go pound sand if you don't have anything to add. 

 

[ThreePointTakedown]

 

1 hour ago, JimmyBT said:

You still haven’t told me why you can’t afford it 

You never asked. And I don't have to go into details of my life. That's none of your business. What you're thinking now, is that I'm lying. I can't change your mind. But ask yourself, why would I lie? What do I have to gain? You have been more than dishonest during these and other conversations to expect more. 

1 hour ago, ThreePointTakedown said:

I'd have to yes. Would I also receive a non-zero benefit from the raised taxes? Probably. Would others, in a worse situation, get more benefit from those raised taxes? I hope so. Would it be worth it? Yes. 

Do you feel it would not be worth someone less well off to get a benefit from someone who can afford it, paying higher taxes? 

So if you wouldn't mind answering this so we can continue your game. 

[Bigbrog]

5 minutes ago, ThreePointTakedown said:

Oh do tell!? I'm interested. 

I appreciate you stepping in to maintain the civility of the conversation but go pound sand if you don't have anything to add. 

 

Again, who is the bigot??

First off, when you start trying to make a point by starting it with "Does one party xyz....?" you instantly lose any credibility.  It is stupid when either side does it.  I have no problem holding a discussion if someone says, "Policy xyz that was passed seems like it is all for those that are rich and hurts lower income folks"....then a discussion can be had.  More than likely your clearly slanted political view is incapable of having a civil conversation centered around understanding/learning something you may not have known. 

Here's a hint...if you think you are 100% correct on every subject, you are 100% wrong on every subject. 

And again, who is the bigot??

[jross]

4 minutes ago, WrestlingRasta said:

I didn’t see a ranking of the top five professions in what the author calls the PAW’s. I did see some examples of the UAW’s. 

My response answered the question at a higher level, mainly that income does not matter as much as spending less than you earn.

To provide more context on teachers, see https://www.ramseysolutions.com/retirement/the-national-study-of-millionaires-research. (pdf)

Key Points

• Millionaires Are Made, Not Born
  • Despite what society might believe, only a few wealthy people inherited their money. The overwhelming majority (79%) of millionaires in the U.S. did not receive any inheritance from their parents or other family members. While 1 in 5 millionaires (21%) received some inheritance, only 3% received an inheritance of $1 million or more.
• Millionaires Don’t Always Make Big Bucks
  • Only 15% of millionaires were in senior leadership roles, such as vice president or C-suite (CEO, CFO, COO, etc.).
  • 93% of millionaires said they got their wealth because they worked hard, not because they had big salaries.
  • Only 31% averaged $100,000 a year throughout their career, and one third never made six figures in any single working year of their career.
• 85% of Millionaires use a written grocery list when shopping.

[jross]

1 hour ago, ThreePointTakedown said:

Will rich people(top 10%) feel a significant sting if their taxes are raised 10-15%, or even 25% on the highest tier of earnings? Not even a little. Prove me wrong! Do you know the tiers of income taxes? Cuz that's a thing. 

What is your definition of sting?

Top 10% of net worth, annual income, or something else?

Which taxes?  Property?  Income?  Payroll?  Sales?  Etc?  and based on annual income, net worth, unrealized investment gains?  

[Plasmodium]

1 hour ago, jross said:

Jimmy and TPT were walking around when they saw a homeless person. Jimmy did something awesome – he gave the guy his business card, saying there might be a job for him at his place, and then handed him 20 bucks just to help out.

TPT was impressed with Jimmy's kindness, so when they spotted another homeless person, TPT thought, "Why not chip in?" TPT shared directions to the welfare office, swiped 20 bucks from Jimmy's pocket, kept 15 for admin fees, and gave the homeless person a fiver. 

I kid, I kid.

Dude's name is Billy.  He showed up for work at Jimmy's and tore it up.  Nobody has ever made whatchimacallits and gizmos like that.  Immediate raise for meritocracy.  Three days later Jimmy goes in early to open the shop.  It is burned to the ground and Billy is in cuffs.  Billy is screaming he has to kill the leprechauns.  Turns out the reason Billy is homeless has nothing to do with work ethic or attitude or even substance abuse.   He is schizophrenic.

[jross]

1 hour ago, ThreePointTakedown said:

Will taxing capital gains higher, hurt anyone that can afford to make those investments? Nope. 

Please explain your answer.

[WrestlingRasta]

14 minutes ago, jross said:

My response answered the question at a higher level, mainly that income does not matter as much as spending less than you earn.

To provide more context on teachers, see https://www.ramseysolutions.com/retirement/the-national-study-of-millionaires-research. (pdf)

Key Points

• Millionaires Are Made, Not Born
  • Despite what society might believe, only a few wealthy people inherited their money. The overwhelming majority (79%) of millionaires in the U.S. did not receive any inheritance from their parents or other family members. While 1 in 5 millionaires (21%) received some inheritance, only 3% received an inheritance of $1 million or more.
• Millionaires Don’t Always Make Big Bucks
  • Only 15% of millionaires were in senior leadership roles, such as vice president or C-suite (CEO, CFO, COO, etc.).
  • 93% of millionaires said they got their wealth because they worked hard, not because they had big salaries.
  • Only 31% averaged $100,000 a year throughout their career, and one third never made six figures in any single working year of their career.
• 85% of Millionaires use a written grocery list when shopping.

Thank you for supplying the ranking source and I appreciate how they conducted it.  I agree with you that base salary does not mean everything when it comes to accumulate wealth. But it certainly means a lot more than nothing.  If you have $5 to invest at 5% you sure aren’t going to accumulate as much as if you had $50 to invest.  
 

Under that model, a kindergarten teacher at 35,000 a year with the same mortgage, used car, small school loan, and simple lifestyle isn’t going to accumulate the same as someone with the exact same expenses but a $75,000 salary.  When the context is spend less invest more, salary has a huge impact. And there is a laaaaaarge salary range within the world of professional educators, which is why I would like to see how they categorize ‘teachers’  

 

As for the tax discussion, I’d be completely in favor of one uniform tax percentage, or even dropping the percentage due from the ‘rich’,  if we could ensure that what should be collected is actually collected.    

 

[jross]

1 hour ago, ThreePointTakedown said:

Since we're on the subject, does one party want to try to treat immigrants with dignity and respect as much as possible in the hopes of sharing the wealth and the idea of this country? Yes. Do some see that as weakness? Yes. Are those people wrong? Yes. Will immigrants likely vote for those that try to help and against those that see them with fear? Yes. Does that give the fearful group a reason to try to deny them entry for whatever reason? Yes. Does that make them bigots? Yes. 

Do you mean illegal aliens?

Which party supports worsening conditions for the bottom 50% of citizens (annual income) by importing and supporting millions of illegal aliens?  

 

[jross]

16 minutes ago, WrestlingRasta said:

Thank you for supplying the ranking source and I appreciate how they conducted it.  I agree with you that base salary does not mean everything when it comes to accumulate wealth. But it certainly means a lot more than nothing.  If you have $5 to invest at 5% you sure aren’t going to accumulate as much as if you had $50 to invest.  

Under that model, a kindergarten teacher at 35,000 a year with the same mortgage, used car, small school loan, and simple lifestyle isn’t going to accumulate the same as someone with the exact same expenses but a $75,000 salary.  When the context is spend less invest more, salary has a huge impact. And there is a laaaaaarge salary range within the world of professional educators, which is why I would like to see how they categorize ‘teachers’  

As for the tax discussion, I’d be completely in favor of one uniform tax percentage, or even dropping the percentage due from the ‘rich’,  if we could ensure that what should be collected is actually collected.    

100%.

In hindsight, when I was making near that in my early career, I wish I had saved 40% of my income rather than 10%.  Multiplying peanuts is peanuts... it takes time and sacrifice to multiply dollars.  I could have managed... just didn't know better.  Then as my income increased, I could have adjusted down or up depending on my goals.  Lack of education...  

At $35K, that teacher will need a roommate (s) or a cheap cost-of-living area.  It sucks that everyone can't make a great salary doing what everyone wants to do... long-term investing is still possible... and changing to higher-paid jobs is a choice.

[jross]

2 hours ago, ThreePointTakedown said:

Does one party want to help the bottom 50%? Yes. 

Does one party want to give tax cuts to the top 10% and corporations(that have had record profits in the last decade)? Yes. 

Helping those in need is not a party issue, and there are different ways to do it.  Data shows there is a certain threshold of handouts that many people use to help themself, and then IMO people need an opportunity to independently help themself. 

You really don't want to get into which party voluntarily does more for the poorest people because data favors the religious right.

---

We might agree that corporations are not people, and if having corporations pay more is an overall data-supported net gain, then I'm for it.  I don't know the threshold but I do know there is a line that stifles growth.  Jobs and layoffs are directly impacted by corporate tax impact on the bottom line and investor expectations. 

[WrestlingRasta]

13 minutes ago, jross said:

100%.

In hindsight, when I was making near that in my early career, I wish I had saved 40% of my income rather than 10%.  Multiplying peanuts is peanuts... it takes time and sacrifice to multiply dollars.  I could have managed... just didn't know better.  Then as my income increased, I could have adjusted down or up depending on my goals.  Lack of education...  

At $35K, that teacher will need a roommate (s) or a cheap cost-of-living area.  It sucks that everyone can't make a great salary doing what everyone wants to do... long-term investing is still possible... and changing to higher-paid jobs is a choice.

Agreed. It’s all a choice. What career you take, what salary you accept, what you decide to spend. Long term investing is possible for everyone. 

[ThreePointTakedown]

6 minutes ago, jross said:

Correct, I did not attempt to explain the tax system, and neither does the old anecdote posted. 

The anecdote is an analogy to explain the concept of tax cuts and their impact on different income groups.   It suggests that there may be negative consequences if high-income individuals are overtaxed or criticized for their wealth.  MSPart understands and asked you about the California and New York exodus.

What part of the anecdote did you understand called poor people lazy or said that rich people are entirely benevolent?

These are stories that the rich and corporations tell to keep government(and people who don't have the time or the inclination to learn the tax code) from expecting they pay more taxes. Because corporations have no motivation other then profit. The exceptions to the rule are vastly outnumbered by companies that cut corners and put lives and the environment in danger to cut costs and maximize profits. The rich people that are produced through this model work to protect their wealth. Just like you're doing by trying to protect your small piece of the pie. 

Their(some at the very tippy top) slice of the pie is so outrageously huge that they wouldn't miss a few crumbs on the side. They know, however, that if they let one crumb go without a fight that someone might come for the crust(that they still wouldn't really miss) and heaven forbid their pie shrinks to a level below where their 'lifestyle' would have to change(LIKE YOU ASK OF EVERY POOR PERSON ON FOODSTAMPS). 

History of corporate tax rate,above 50% at one point. 

history of income tax above 90% at the same time. 

Isn't this when we were great again? Why don't we want to go back to that? I sure do!

You scared of winning too much. I'm not. Wish we could win like that again. That should be the hat. Raise Income/Corporate Tax Again! That'll shut those people up. TPT'28! 

[ThreePointTakedown]

1 hour ago, Bigbrog said:

Again, who is the bigot??

First off, when you start trying to make a point by starting it with "Does one party xyz....?" you instantly lose any credibility.  It is stupid when either side does it.  I have no problem holding a discussion if someone says, "Policy xyz that was passed seems like it is all for those that are rich and hurts lower income folks"....then a discussion can be had.  More than likely your clearly slanted political view is incapable of having a civil conversation centered around understanding/learning something you may not have known. 

Here's a hint...if you think you are 100% correct on every subject, you are 100% wrong on every subject. 

And again, who is the bigot??

You're coming to the defense of someone you probably share opinions with. Will you just add something to the conversation or go away? Or is it just more whining. You don't refute any points just get mad that I'm making them. So I'm right and you are deflecting or I'm wrong and you can counter. Which is it? 

Or would you rather not get in the mud with someone like me?

Word salad, try again.

100% of the conversations you don't engage in are 100% not engaged in by you. 

[ThreePointTakedown]

21 minutes ago, jross said:

Helping those in need is not a party issue, and there are different ways to do it.  Data shows there is a certain threshold of handouts that many people use to help themself, and then IMO people need an opportunity to independently help themself. 

You really don't want to get into which party voluntarily does more for the poorest people because data favors the religious right.

---

We might agree that corporations are not people, and if having corporations pay more is an overall data-supported net gain, then I'm for it.  I don't know the threshold but I do know there is a line that stifles growth.  Jobs and layoffs are directly impacted by corporate tax impact on the bottom line and investor expectations. 

How are we defining 'religious right'? The people that call themselves that? Great. Who are they? What are their numbers? What's their contribution to charity/volunteering? How do we measure how much good it does? What's the metric(s)? Just over all hours? I don't think that's a good means, maybe a good start, but not an end all number to arrive at. 

Or the religious part? The church then? Which church/denomination? How much do they take in? Do we even know? NO. WE. DO. NOT! Because they do not have to tell us. Mormon church is sitting on $100b+ (BILLION) in investments. How did they get it? Should a church be allowed to hoard its wealth like that? Why or why not? $100B could do a whole lot of good that could convince people that their religion isn't the obvious con-man-created-cult that it is!

The honest answer is we don't know. Religious, one religion or another or no religion does more. We know that numbers(%) of religiously affiliated people are dropping. Its a lot safer to come out today as athiest, gay, trans, queer not having to fear being isolated or killed(often by religious people). So if you're right today, you might not be in 10 years. Then what? Once religions are not responsible for the most volunteering/charity can we take away their tax exempt status? So they play by the same rules as everyone else. 

There might be a line and we could probably be fine coming no where close to that line. But where we're at isn't it. And any company spokesperson saying that, is trying to keep their job. That should tell you a lot.

[ThreePointTakedown]

1 hour ago, jross said:

Do you mean illegal aliens?

Which party supports worsening conditions for the bottom 50% of citizens (annual income) by importing and supporting millions of illegal aliens?  

 

I mean immigrants. People emigrating from one place and immigrating to another place. Not talking about legality right now. Lets leave that out and tackle one thing at a time. 

I reject the premise of your question. Please rephrase?

[ThreePointTakedown]

1 hour ago, WrestlingRasta said:

Thank you for supplying the ranking source and I appreciate how they conducted it.  I agree with you that base salary does not mean everything when it comes to accumulate wealth. But it certainly means a lot more than nothing.  If you have $5 to invest at 5% you sure aren’t going to accumulate as much as if you had $50 to invest.  
 

Under that model, a kindergarten teacher at 35,000 a year with the same mortgage, used car, small school loan, and simple lifestyle isn’t going to accumulate the same as someone with the exact same expenses but a $75,000 salary.  When the context is spend less invest more, salary has a huge impact. And there is a laaaaaarge salary range within the world of professional educators, which is why I would like to see how they categorize ‘teachers’  

 

As for the tax discussion, I’d be completely in favor of one uniform tax percentage, or even dropping the percentage due from the ‘rich’,  if we could ensure that what should be collected is actually collected.    

 

What does this even mean? 

Do you have any data on what that would or could do if implemented? 

https://siepr.stanford.edu/news/how-set-top-tax-rates-without-deterring-innovation