Jump to content
  • Hey There!

    Please register to see fewer ads and a better viewing experience:100_Emoji_42x42:

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Gazi

Taxes drop to lowest level in 60 years

Recommended Posts

So cantrell believes that a government fed only by the taxes of the richest white men should take care of everybody. cantrell has some serious hate to deal with.

so you believe that a system that leads to the upper class being predominantly male and white is just fantastic. you have some serious hate to deal with.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


oh, let me try.

small government: we let you keep whatever money you acquire while acting as if we live in a meritocracy where the acquisition of wealth is solely determined by just how much "want to" you have.

big government: your tax money will go to social programs that will ensure that everyone is given fair opportunity to succeed. you can still become a billionaire or completely destitute in this system. however it will be more likely to do with effort or the lack thereof, rather than the results of a genetic lottery that is bared out in contemporary studies.

Wait.....ok, let's take a "social program" and apply your thought process.

We have 10 people, 9 of whom earn a pay check. 3 of them make $10,000 a year, 5 make $50,000, 1 makes $100,000. The top 6 pay check earners decide to help out the other four. So they each take a percentage of their yearly income and distribute it evenly among the four who "need" it. The ones who make $50,000 take 5% out and the one who makes $100,000 takes out 10%. The pool of money is now $22,500. Split four ways, this equals out to $5625 per "needy" person. Split out over a year, each of those people will get an extra $108.17 a week. How does that extra income afford the lower four a greater opporotunity to succeed?

Also, I can't tell if you hate your parents for not being rich or if you feel guilty because your parents are rich, but what is the obsession with inheritance? I'm assuming that's what you mean by "genetic lottery".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And in this conversation with option this and option that, the middle ground isn't even a consideration.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With cantrells logic, things like college would be a real hoot:

In a university that has 10,000 undergrads, there would be a test to find the top 100 smartest of the smart. These 100 kids would study their asses off to achieve the best grades possible. Meanwhile, the other 9,900 students are f*cking around in art class. At the end of 4 years, we will take the average grade of those top 100 and distribute that grade to the other 9,900 students.

cantrell must loves the BCS system.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wait.....ok, let's take a "social program" and apply your thought process.

We have 10 people, 9 of whom earn a pay check. 3 of them make $10,000 a year, 5 make $50,000, 1 makes $100,000. The top 6 pay check earners decide to help out the other four. So they each take a percentage of their yearly income and distribute it evenly among the four who "need" it. The ones who make $50,000 take 5% out and the one who makes $100,000 takes out 10%. The pool of money is now $22,500. Split four ways, this equals out to $5625 per "needy" person. Split out over a year, each of those people will get an extra $108.17 a week. How does that extra income afford the lower four a greater opporotunity to succeed?

if you can't see the value in allowing $100 of help per week for those living below the poverty line then i'm just going to go ahead and assume that you're libertarian for life.

Also, I can't tell if you hate your parents for not being rich or if you feel guilty because your parents are rich, but what is the obsession with inheritance? I'm assuming that's what you mean by "genetic lottery".

genetic lottery refers to more than just inheritance. studies show that those lucky enough to be born in wealthy families are far more likely to be wealthy than those who are not. doesn't sound like equal opportunity to me but whatevs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

so you believe that a system that leads to the upper class being predominantly male and white is just fantastic. you have some serious hate to deal with.

I have never said that. I'm just pointing out your seething hatred. You're a damn joke. A pathetic, racist joke. You prove it daily.

Further more, this country doesn't owe me sh*t. The richest 5% in our country don't owe me sh*t. I'm cool with that.

Why in the hell do you think successful people owe you a damn thing?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

if you can't see the value in allowing $100 of help per week for those living below the poverty line then i'm just going to go ahead and assume that you're libertarian for life.

I am a Libertarian for life, and also heartless. Please explain the value to me.

genetic lottery refers to more than just inheritance. studies show that those lucky enough to be born in wealthy families are far more likely to be wealthy than those who are not. doesn't sound like equal opportunity to me but whatevs.

Ok. Why are the children of wealthy people more likely to be wealthy?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have never said that. I'm just pointing out your seething hatred. You're a damn joke. A pathetic, racist joke. You prove it daily.

Further more, this country doesn't owe me sh*t. The richest 5% in our country don't owe me sh*t. I'm cool with that.

Why in the hell do you think successful people owe you a damn thing?

i'm the racist because i'm appalled by the fact that white men are more likely than any other group to be wealthy.

you are literally retarded.

I am a Libertarian for life, and also heartless. Please explain the value to me.

$100 a week isn't going to change the life of someone who isn't living paycheck to paycheck. $100 a week could significantly change the life of someone who lives below the poverty line. an extra $100 would mean the difference between eating a decent dinner every night and eating ramen for dinner. an extra $100 would lessen the pressure on a family to obtain that $100 in other (see: criminal) ways. so on and so forth. an extra $100 wouldn't solve the problem, but it would be an improvement. i hate this "what good is this amount of money going to do? it's not going to totally fix this situation, only improve it? well then, might as well do nothing" argument.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

$100 a week isn't going to change the life of someone who isn't living paycheck to paycheck. $100 a week could significantly change the life of someone who lives below the poverty line. an extra $100 would mean the difference between eating a decent dinner every night and eating ramen for dinner. an extra $100 would lessen the pressure on a family to obtain that $100 in other (see: criminal) ways. so on and so forth. an extra $100 wouldn't solve the problem, but it would be an improvement. i hate this "what good is this amount of money going to do? it's not going to totally fix this situation, only improve it? well then, might as well do nothing" argument.

The $100 would be a benefit because it would improve the quality of life of the recipient. Why is the recipient unable to obtain the extra $100 on their own? And how does an improvement in quality of life lead to a greater chance at success?

Also, I don't care what you like and don't like.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd be for a flat tax if everyone paid an equal % of their income on the products they buy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The $100 would be a benefit because it would improve the quality of life of the recipient. Why is the recipient unable to obtain the extra $100 on their own? And how does an improvement in quality of life lead to a greater chance at success?

you can't be fuging serious

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites



×