Kyrsten Sinema finally comes out of the closet just in time to weaken the historical Democratic majority in the Senate

Page 6 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Pohemi

Diamond Member
Oct 2, 2004
9,456
12,989
146
Like you said no one should be paying ZERO taxes in our system but many do.. Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos just to name 2.
Small nitpick disclaimer- Musk paid a good chunk for last year, but only because he sold a shit ton of Tesla shares. Otherwise, you are correct, sir. Most years, they pay no taxes.

Also: wasn't this a thread about Sinema? lol
 
Mar 11, 2004
23,280
5,721
146
What's not to understand? It's an example of an extremely wealthy person paying something more than zero, but nowhere near what is appropriate. Good to hear about the corp tax.

I like hearing people attempt to support opinions I find to be at odds with the facts. Trying to support Sinema's craven fiction also quite interesting. If no one here cares about your posts why are you posting to begin with? Yes you got barked at but let's not get too emo about it. He apologized. Like it or not you're a regular who has been here awhile - means you don't get immediately disregarded like a newbie with month old join date. That's a good thing, isn't it?

Speak for yourself. He's simply dishonest and his antics on here is why his posts should be immediately disregarded, because they're constantly either completely stupid or intentionally bullshit. The only way his opinions would be even fit to wipe my ass with would be if they were printed on TP.

He acts exactly like right wing newbies that try to troll on here. I'm sure that's just a coincidence, although I'm certainly open to the idea that they are collectively just that formulaic and stupid. But the same reason I disregard their posts is the same reason I disregard his, or the inverse as I'm not actually sure which I noticed first, just that I noticed striking similarities between the common clown routines that conservatives like him run. I think the only difference is he's stuck around long enough to live up to the other weirdly consistent conservative concern, and that's what age females should be considered old enough to consent to sex. Not because they care about sexual agency of them, but because they're concerned about statutory rape laws.
 
Last edited:
Mar 11, 2004
23,280
5,721
146
Black if you have 2 million net worth now and somehow it becomes 200 mil is not what causes the problem.

The problem starts when someone that has a lot of money starts influencing policy so the middle class has to pay their 24% tax bracket and the guy with money doesn't have to pay the 24% is the starting point of what causes problems.

Then you get into cutting more taxes to balance the books for that rich guy not paying and you end up having to cut road repairs, teacher funding and medical funding.

You're not a stupid guy.. so I'm sure you can figure this stuff out on your own too. The problem isn't the rich getting richer.. the problem is them using their wealth to make sure the middle class gets the short end of the stick!

We'll have to agree to disagree. I frankly am not even sure they can read considering how often they can't seem to even notice the articles they link outright refutes what point they're trying to make. Even if he's intentionally dishonestly stupid, you should treat him as simply stupid because the result is the same. Sure the one is more malicious, but if you treat people that act stupid as though they are in fact actually stupid, it tends to get the point across that the behavior just makes them look stupid and as such they should be treated that way, and largely ignored and dismissed.

It is truly baffling how regularly you people keep insisting to fall for the same bullshit antics over and over.
 

kage69

Lifer
Jul 17, 2003
28,745
40,187
136
AZ should answer her stunt with a recall.

How about no committee assignments and no caucusing with the Dems?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Indus

Indus

Lifer
May 11, 2002
11,871
8,282
136
Yeah its obvious she was never a dem, and has never voted like one.

She can't win as a democrat because she's undermined Biden's agenda.

She also voted to convict Trump twice so she can't win as a republican.


Who's vote is she exactly looking likely to get?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ken g6

kage69

Lifer
Jul 17, 2003
28,745
40,187
136
I wouldn't say that, pretty sure she voted lockstep with President Biden during the 116th Congress. Like, 100%.

She's an opportunist out to get rich, that's the main problem. The donor class and certain special interests have found her to be very cooperative lately, she'll be a lobbyist soon I'm sure.

Unfortunately while AZ does allow for recall apparently it can only be done due to Expulsion? Boo hiss. It should be up to the voters of AZ if she has a job or not, not other politicians from other states.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Pohemi

ivwshane

Lifer
May 15, 2000
32,548
15,425
136
Gotta love it! “I’m against raising taxes for anyone”, “No one should pay zero in taxes”. Of course that’s a contradiction and one you’ll happily accept because you think those who pay zero in taxes don’t pay their fair share, of which are typically the poor. So you support raising taxes on the poor but not the rich.

For you, the millionaire who pays $100 in taxes is paying their fair share compared to the person making $25k who pays zero in federal taxes.

I’m guessing you are a flat tax type of guy. I’m also guessing the source of income doesn’t matter to you and people should only have to pay taxes on traditional income. This is despite the fact that the ultra wealthy don’t earn a traditional income.

You strike me as a libertarian, someone who supports policies that sound good in theory but are completely ignorant of how they work in reality.
 
Last edited:

linkgoron

Platinum Member
Mar 9, 2005
2,408
977
136
The minute you realize the rich getting richer doesnt affect the middle class is the moment your eyes are opened.
This is extremely not true. For example, you can easily get out priced in the housing market, because rich people can buy multiple houses, afford to pay higher than market prices, and make the cost of housing skyrocket. It can also push out people from their communities or create a sharp rise in rent.
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
50,422
14,336
136
I fully expect the wealthy to try and influence tax law to make themselves be put in a better position. The only ones who can change that is congress. But complaining that the rich are the problem is stupid. Its congress who allow this to happen. But the current (and past) trend of "tax the rich" mantra has nothing to to do with anything other than electing people who will chnage laws allowing them (the rich) to keep the the "loopholes" in place. Obviously its not a a priority of the pople to change anything since we keep electing people keeping these rules in place. What Im saying is, its the people's fault, not the rich's fault.

And again, Im against raising taxes for anyone, regardless of income. As are most Americans. The elite already pay their fair share. We should have NO ONE who pays ZERO in taxes in our system. NO ONE.

edit: we dont have an income problem. We have a spending problem. Taxing the rich wont have sizable change in our economics.

You do realize that you are one of those "people" who are at fault for keeping those tax loopholes that benefit the rich, yes? By rushing in to defend those rich elites and their tax loopholes every time the subject comes up of closing them?

And no, they do not pay their fair share. The wealthy elites and the megacorporations have so many loopholes and legal manipulations that they are more likely to pay zero taxes than low-income earners or small businesses.

And I'm willing to bet that our spending problem you're so concerned about is Social Security, because you don't want to increase taxes for anyone, but you do want to take away from regular people whatever it is they pay taxes for.
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
50,422
14,336
136
This is extremely not true. For example, you can easily get out priced in the housing market, because rich people can buy multiple houses, afford to pay higher than market prices, and make the cost of housing skyrocket. It can also push out people from their communities or create a sharp rise in rent.

And they are incentivized to do all that because of tax loopholes created for investment property owners by the GOP.
 

cytg111

Lifer
Mar 17, 2008
23,993
13,519
136
The minute you realize the rich getting richer doesnt affect the middle class is the moment your eyes are opened.

Yes. In principle it doesnt. Or doesnt have to. Supply demand etc, it's not that the super wealthy is gonna dry up supply with extra demand on oranges and 55" led TV's.

The minute you realize this is not the point though is the moment your...
 

blackangst1

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
22,902
2,359
126
So how does the rich getting richer not affect others?
Let me turn this around. Musk has lost about 50 BILLION in the last month. Kanye has lost 2 BILLION. Is the middle class better off?

Pro-tip: no. One cant be true while the other isnt.

edit: I would argue people are worse off with Elon losing so much with haf of Twitter getting let go among others. Pretty shitty time of year to get let go.
 
Last edited:
  • Haha
Reactions: Pohemi

MrSquished

Lifer
Jan 14, 2013
23,082
21,203
136
Let me turn this around. Musk has lost about 50 BILLION in the last month. Kanye has lost 2 BILLION. Is the middle class better off?

Pro-tip: no. One cant be true while the other isnt.

edit: I would argue people are worse off with Elon losing so much with haf of Twitter getting let go among others. Pretty shitty time of year to get let go.
What do those have anything to do with each other. Actually you make our point. Wealth inequality is so bad that the super rich can lose billions and still be super wealthy and have zero effect on their lifestyles.

Elon only fired people because he made a stupid deal his dumb ass couldn't get out of. And he also has no idea how social media works, and is dishonest as fuck.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Captante and Pohemi

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,634
50,860
136
Let me turn this around. Musk has lost about 50 BILLION in the last month. Is the middle class better off?

Pro-tip: no. One cant be true while the other isnt.
Maybe it would help if you laid out your position more clearly. Are you saying tax policy that favors rich people does not affect the rest of the country? If so, presumably the right tax rate on the rich is 0%.

I don’t think you actually believe this though.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Pohemi

blackangst1

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
22,902
2,359
126
Maybe it would help if you laid out your position more clearly. Are you saying tax policy that favors rich people does not affect the rest of the country? If so, presumably the right tax rate on the rich is 0%.

I don’t think you actually believe this though.
If its effectively 0% why do the rich pay the most in taxes? You arent making sense.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Pohemi

blackangst1

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
22,902
2,359
126
What do those have anything to do with each other. Actually you make our point. Wealth inequality is so bad that the super rich can lose billions and still be super wealthy and have zero effect on their lifestyles.

Elon only fired people because he made a stupid deal his dumb ass couldn't get out of. And he also has no idea how social media works, and is dishonest as fuck.
OK? Why is being rich bad? Do you propose Frances idea of taxing wealth which proved stupid and was reversed? Outcomes are not guaranteed in this country. Nor should they be.

edit: let me ask and please pre precise. I someone in the top 1% increases their net worth by 1B who in the middle class is hurt? And how? You dont think wealth is static...do you?
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,634
50,860
136
If its effectively 0% why do the rich pay the most in taxes? You arent making sense.
What I’m saying is if the taxes rich people pay have no effect on everyone else then why pay them?

Wouldn’t it be right to tax the rich at 0% because it doesn’t affect anything?
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
50,422
14,336
136
OK? Why is being rich bad? Do you propose Frances idea of taxing wealth which proved stupid and was reversed? Outcomes are not guaranteed in this country. Nor should they be.

edit: let me ask and please pre precise. I someone in the top 1% increases their net worth by 1B who in the middle class is hurt? And how? You dont think wealth is static...do you?

No one is talking about "being rich bad" or guaranteed outcomes.
The discussion is about wealthy people who buy tax policy that gives them a competitive advantage over other people.
 

blackangst1

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
22,902
2,359
126
What I’m saying is if the taxes rich people pay have no effect on everyone else then why pay them?

Wouldn’t it be right to tax the rich at 0% because it doesn’t affect anything?
But they do. They pay the majority of federal taxes which helps those that arent rich. I never suggested their taxes dont affect anything. What said was their wealth doesnt negatively affect anything. Theres a difference.
 

blackangst1

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
22,902
2,359
126
No one is talking about "being rich bad" or guaranteed outcomes.
The discussion is about wealthy people who buy tax policy that gives them a competitive advantage over other people.
Who cares? They still pay the majority of taxes.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Pohemi