• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

1% needs to start paying their fair share of taxes >:

Page 5 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
nextJin said:
Oh you're trying to be a smart ass, I thought you meant anything resembling a solution. Yes taxing anyone making over 250k a year 100% of their income will reduce the deficit enough to satisfy government spending for 6 weeks. You got me, I confess.
Click to expand...

Well, you said "Increasing the taxes on the rich won't change a damn thing", which is a fairly strange thing to say in the first place.

The only people who would be promoting that idea, are those who are rich.

To hear it from someone who isn't rich though... that's just plain odd.
 
Veliko said:
Well, you said "Increasing the taxes on the rich won't change a damn thing", which is a fairly strange thing to say in the first place.

The only people who would be promoting that idea, are those who are rich.

To hear it from someone who isn't rich though... that's just plain odd.
Click to expand...

It wouldn't change anything, you're assuming that government spends money wisely and that all of those funds would go directly to the deficit. The overall result will be the same, even if it only went to paying for the deficit it changes it a whole 2% (out of my ass number).

My household income is around 150k, however I was raised in a '68 trailer with tire flower beds out front with 20 something dogs and 40+ riding lawn mowers in the back. For Christmas I got 50 bucks and for my birthdays I basically got a pat on my back pretty much till I was 17. I'm 30 with no college education and laugh everytime I see people crying to tax the rich. Not because I hate the poor, but because usually they have no idea wtf they are talking about and how large the problem really is. You're a smart enough fellow to understand that our problems are much more dramatic than simply raising the tax on the rich thinking it would do anything worth mentioning other than piss off the job makers.
 
It won't do anything productive . . . as soon as the government people representing our budget see "new revenue" they immediately try to spend it . . . .
 
nextJin said:
It wouldn't change anything, you're assuming that government spends money wisely and that all of those funds would go directly to the deficit. The overall result will be the same, even if it only went to paying for the deficit it changes it a whole 2% (out of my ass number).

My household income is around 150k, however I was raised in a '68 trailer with tire flower beds out front with 20 something dogs and 40+ riding lawn mowers in the back. For Christmas I got 50 bucks and for my birthdays I basically got a pat on my back pretty much till I was 17. I'm 30 with no college education and laugh everytime I see people crying to tax the rich. Not because I hate the poor, but because usually they have no idea wtf they are talking about and how large the problem really is. You're a smart enough fellow to understand that our problems are much more dramatic than simply raising the tax on the rich thinking it would do anything worth mentioning other than piss off the job makers.
Click to expand...

*sigh*

So, once again, you are promoting the idea that more money doesn't make any difference to anything.

I seriously don't see what it is that you think you are laughing at.

The efficient use of money is a separate argument entirely.
 
Look, I am game for a solid plan to address this problem. Tax the rich, fine. But there needs to be some serious government spending cuts and liability reforms of which no Democrat will take lightly just like Republicans will not touch tax increases.
 
Veliko said:
*sigh*

So, once again, you are promoting the idea that more money doesn't make any difference to anything.

I seriously don't see what it is that you think you are laughing at.

The efficient use of money is a separate argument entirely.
Click to expand...

Hmm, we are talking about three things: Government, Deficit/Debt, and Money. Yep, pretty sure they go hand in hand.
 
nextJin said:
Hmm, we are talking about three things: Government, Deficit/Debt, and Money. Yep, pretty sure they go hand in hand.
Click to expand...

So, are you now saying that you can't see the difference between the revenue generated through taxes, and the efficient use of that revenue?
 
Veliko said:
No, it's a childish and stupid statement, promoted by rich people.
Click to expand...

Out of curiosity how much would you be willing to cut from all forms of government spending (across the board) with a proposal of say 50% income tax for Americans making over a million dollars a year and 35% Capital gains taxes?
 
nextJin said:
Out of curiosity how much would you be willing to cut from all forms of government spending (across the board) with a proposal of say 50% income tax for Americans making over a million dollars a year and 35% Capital gains taxes?
Click to expand...

That's an utterly inane and vague question.
 
Veliko said:
No, it's a childish and stupid statement, promoted by rich people.
Click to expand...

It IS childishly simple how things go. . . . If you dump water into a bucket with a hole in the bottom it won't fill up will it? Promoted by rich people? It's simple math.

The calculations are out there, confiscating the income/wealth of the top 1% would last us weeks as said previously.
 
Veliko said:
So, are you now saying that you can't see the difference between the revenue generated through taxes, and the efficient use of that revenue?
Click to expand...

When the government is running trillion dollar deficits I'd rather shy away from anything mentioning "efficient" and "government" in the same sentence.
 
Veliko said:
So, are you now saying that you can't see the difference between the revenue generated through taxes, and the efficient use of that revenue?
Click to expand...

I can, and I'm saying that BECAUSE of the inefficient use of revenue is the reason that the revenue generated through taxes will be useless . . .
 
Veliko said:
That's an utterly inane and vague question.
Click to expand...

What would you be willing to sacrifice? I'll take anything tbh I just want to know what you would "give up" in government spending to get those taxes established. I'm playing a Republican willing to compromise, you play a Democrat!
 
Lithium381 said:
I can, and I'm saying that BECAUSE of the inefficient use of revenue is the reason that the revenue generated through taxes will be useless . . .
Click to expand...

So, to reiterate:

- You don't think more money can help anyone.
- You can't see the difference between generating tax revenue, and the actual use of that revenue.
 
nextJin said:
What would you be willing to sacrifice? I'll take anything tbh I just want to know what you would "give up" in government spending to get those taxes established. I'm playing a Republican willing to compromise, you play a Democrat!
Click to expand...

What on earth do you mean? I am not privy to the expenditures of the thousands of government departments and projects, and I am pretty sure that you don't either.

What sort of answer are you actually expecting?
 
Veliko said:
So, to reiterate:

- You don't think more money can help anyone.
- You can't see the difference between generating tax revenue, and the actual use of that revenue.
Click to expand...

Apparently you are not grasping what is trying to be conveyed, even though I think he pointed out pretty plainly. Increasing revenue does not solve the problem it is trying to solve. In fact it does not even effect it much at all, yes if perfectly done it will help address the 2% of the deficit for that year.

I'll pick this back up tomorrow though, gotta go grab the boy and head back to the house.
 
nextJin said:
Apparently you are not grasping what is trying to be conveyed, even though I think he pointed out pretty plainly. Increasing revenue does not solve the problem it is trying to solve. In fact it does not even effect it much at all, yes if perfectly done it will help address the 2% of the deficit for that year.
Click to expand...

I am trying to grasp the notion that increased money doesn't help.

It doesn't make sense on any level.
 
Veliko said:
What on earth do you mean? I am not privy to the expenditures of the thousands of government departments and projects, and I am pretty sure that you don't either.

What sort of answer are you actually expecting?
Click to expand...

A simple one? I am willing to drastically increase taxes on the rich if you are willing to compromise on some forms of government spending. Just give me some percentages from the departments or any of the various welfare programs.

Are you willing to cut any spending or do you just want to tax the rich 100% thinking it will solve all of our problems? I've already said I could care less about taxing the rich, but I am looking for solutions not bs arguments from people that do not solve anything.
 
Veliko said:
I am trying to grasp the notion that increased money doesn't help.

It doesn't make sense on any level.
Click to expand...

Hmmm,

Has the formation of the Department of Education and it's yearly increases in spending helped keep the US educational system in the top 5 where it was prior to that Department being created?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top