Steve Ballmer Drops Massive Data Dump on How Tax Dollars Are Spent

[Pusher of Buttons]

If you are making <$45K, you aren't paying income taxes (Social security yes, income taxes no)

I assure you from personal experience that is patently not true in the slightest. Maybe if you've got a gaggle of children.

 

[Ducman69]

This is a completely nonsensical analogy. It bears absolutely no resemblance to the situation being discussed. Try again. Maybe choose something non food related.

Explain to me what you think taxes pay for, and how Romney is using hugely more tax dollars than you are, as I'm curious on your opinion on that. For example, lets say that myself and my boss cost both roughly $25K per person in taxes to the government (total made up number for argument's sake). Would it be fair if we both paid roughly $25K in taxes, or do I have a moral right to complain if I'm paying $2K in taxes and my boss is paying $48K in taxes that my boss isn't paying enough based on how he's richer than me, even though he's paying WAY more than I am?

In my opinion there should be a balance between how much in taxes you cost and how much in taxes you pay, but adjusted for the practical amount someone can pay. Obviously, some people will always be leaches on society, because they don't have a sufficient skillset and may have high costs, such as having many children that have to be put through public school. But by the same token, if someone is paying literally millions of dollars in taxes, what right does someone paying far less have of saying they aren't paying enough? That's stupid.

 

[Pusher of Buttons]

Explain to me what you think taxes pay for, and how Romney is using hugely more tax dollars than you are, as I'm curious on your opinion on that. For example, lets say that myself and my boss cost both roughly $25K per person in taxes to the government (total made up number for argument's sake). Would it be fair if we both paid roughly $25K in taxes, or do I have a moral right to complain if I'm paying $2K in taxes and my boss is paying $48K in taxes that my boss isn't paying enough based on how he's richer than me, even though he's paying WAY more than I am?

In my opinion there should be a balance between how much in taxes you cost and how much in taxes you pay, but adjusted for the practical amount someone can pay. Obviously, some people will always be leaches on society, because they don't have a sufficient skillset and may have high costs, such as having many children that have to be put through public school. But by the same token, if someone is paying literally millions of dollars in taxes, what right does someone paying far less have of saying they aren't paying enough? That's stupid.

Simply put, it's the way the economy works. Unless places are willing to balance out their wages so the CEO isn't making 1000x as much as the day to day workforce, the system is going to be broken. So you're not wrong. But the question is, why is your boss making so much more than you? Do you do that much less work? Or is the system so screwed up we have to constantly artificially pump money back down so it doesn't get top heavy and collapse completely?

 

[Semantics]

It's way easier to do those things when you're well off. How the person making $20k a year is supposed to use their income toward anything that isn't food, shelter, or transportation is beyond me. I'm all for people needing to better themselves to improve their station in life, but the game is rigged in a lot of ways.

It really takes 2 people and alot of time, If I didn't put my wife though school working 2 jobs she wouldn't have been able to help get me though it. Not something I would want to do again working all the time and barely sleeping in entry/just above entry level jobs you can get out of high school. The game is really different from those who grow up with a inherented wealth and those who grow up without it. Even after doing that you're still 6+ years behind your peers(by age) because of that detour. Really is better though than taking up debt just because of how rigged debt is vs saving. Leaving college with no debt allowed us to quickly save up and form strong equity. Also working low level management in retail really shows the difference between what employers is willing to pay for just simply a degree vs no degree doesn't matter how effective the worker is. It also taught me how idiotic retail logistics entry level jobs can be, hey you know your reward for busting your ass to get the job done as quickly as possible? Less hours because we don't need to use as many hours to get the job done, so why bust your ass? Also taught me to never work with people unless it's on my own terms, god retail consumers are the worst people in the world.

 

[tetris42]

If you and I decide to split a pizza together, and the pizza is $10, does the person paying $2 (because he has less money) get to complain that the other guy who paid $8 didn't pay enough (because he has more money)? Seems dumb, and the bigger problem IMO is just why there is such huge income disparity, rather than having one guy pay very little in tax dollars while another guy pays fortunes, as a form of income redistribution.

The thing is, democracy is not a pizza. The idea behind it (at least in theory) is an inherent sense of fairness. Say I commit a hit and run, and I get 10 years in prison. Ideally, I should be getting 10 years whether I'm rich or poor, because that's still time off my life as a free man that affects us the same. Now say I got a speeding ticket for $300 and I bring in 20k a year. Well that's a big deal to me, I'm really going to have to economize to compensate for that. Now say I get a speeding ticket for $300 and I bring in 6 million. Well that's completely trivial to me, I'll speed all day long. It sends the message that laws only apply to you if you have less money. If the rich aren't paying at least the same percentage of their income as the middle class, it sends the message that the system is rigged in their favor. I mean it is, but why the hell ENDORSE that?

Truth being told the top 1% of earners in the USA pay half of all tax collected by the IRS. http://www.cnbc.com/2015/04/13/top-1-pay-nearly-half-of-federal-income-taxes.html

Well I would hope so, seeing as how they own over half the wealth.

Stocks and bonds aren't a true liquid assets. The second you cash them out you get taxed for short term capital gains (40%) or long term capital gains. This does not count as income tax. So in essence the rich do pay a lot more than you realize. [/quote] Oh yeah, and I'm sure the 15% on long term capital gains income really bites them hard too. Sure, they can theoretically pay more unless they hire some creative accountants to move the cash around to regions where it won't get taxed. We have over 21 trillion in offshore bank accounts for a reason.

But there is a side benefit, when you invest in businesses through stocks that gives businesses more working capital from which more people can be hired. This is a win-win. You save on taxes by tying it up in businesses, and in return, more jobs are created. You also get to watch your money grow, which gets taxed at a decent clip when you retire. This is also a win-win.

In theory, sure. In practice, this is what shell companies are for. Jobs are only created when they're an absolute necessity. Most businesses operate so that they need to hire as few people as possible as they're a drain on capital. I understand your reasoning, but I think you vastly underestimate how many tricks the wealthy have up their sleeve for tax avoidance.

 

[Pusher of Buttons]

I will say, as a gov employee that 90% of your money is spent on audits, auditors, people to review the auditors, planners on how to review the next audits review, a committee to decide which committee should be chosen to hire the planners of the next audit review's review, and so on....because the government is so concerned about being perceived as wasting your money that they waste all of it.

I have personally seen 45 minutes of phone time, plus a $1.21 stamp, to get a refund on a misprinted $2 stamp.

 

[tetris42]

Simply put, it's the way the economy works. Unless places are willing to balance out their wages so the CEO isn't making 1000x as much as the day to day workforce, the system is going to be broken. So you're not wrong. But the question is, why is your boss making so much more than you? Do you do that much less work? Or is the system so screwed up we have to constantly artificially pump money back down so it doesn't get top heavy and collapse completely?

I thought the idea was they were modern day pharaohs favored by the gods, so whatever they need to be paid is worth it for society.

Really is better though than taking up debt just because of how rigged debt is vs saving.

Actually it's even worse than that. If you save your money now, you slowly lose money over time since savings rates don't outpace inflation anymore. So if you're in debt, you're screwed (something I kind of agree with, though I also think it would be better to have a system where there's no good REASON to go into debt). If you save, you're screwed a little bit. You have to have enough to actually invest in order for the system to be working for you.

 

[Lizard Testes]

Then you are doing it wrong. My standard deduction was $12,000. Itemized, I had $30,000 in deductions. This doesn't include my pre-tax items like health insurance or 401k.

Yes, I'm doing it wrong by not having kids, not having health problems, and not having a huge mortgage.

 

[Krab]

Truth being told the top 1% of earners in the USA pay half of all tax collected by the IRS.

As it should be.Taxing people with no money doesn't make a lot of sense.

In my opinion there should be a balance between how much in taxes you cost and how much in taxes you pay, but adjusted for the practical amount someone can pay.

This is just another way of saying we should cut taxes for the wealthy and tax poor people more.

 

[Verge]

Easy: Find all the tax shelters, and use them to your advantage.

Donate clothes / books / tvs to good will
Use a HSA
Use a ROTH (okay that doesn't help with taxes now, but it will in the future)
Use a 401K
Contribute to a 529 (if you have kids)
Get a mortgage.
Re insulate your house
Get solar panels
Get a battery powered car and charging station
Write off bad business investments as a loss.

Because I take advantage of a lot of these legal tax shelters, I pay only about 14%. And I make good income.

The entire system is set up so that it encourages you to invest and save rather than consume. Dumping money back into business is income you can't use. So it doesn't count against you. That's how rich people get richer.

Getting a mortgage is a pretty shit way to lower your tax burden. You are only getting your taxable rate taken off the interest you pay.

If you're single and live in a cheap suburb, you won't even get that. As you need at least a 200-250,000 dollar mortgage to even hit the standard deduction.

 

[Lizard Testes]

Explain to me what you think taxes pay for, and how Romney is using hugely more tax dollars than you are, as I'm curious on your opinion on that. For example, lets say that myself and my boss cost both roughly $25K per person in taxes to the government (total made up number for argument's sake). Would it be fair if we both paid roughly $25K in taxes, or do I have a moral right to complain if I'm paying $2K in taxes and my boss is paying $48K in taxes that my boss isn't paying enough based on how he's richer than me, even though he's paying WAY more than I am?

In my opinion there should be a balance between how much in taxes you cost and how much in taxes you pay, but adjusted for the practical amount someone can pay. Obviously, some people will always be leaches on society, because they don't have a sufficient skillset and may have high costs, such as having many children that have to be put through public school. But by the same token, if someone is paying literally millions of dollars in taxes, what right does someone paying far less have of saying they aren't paying enough? That's stupid.

Your notion that "fair" = amount of dollars and not percentage of income is not a fact, no matter how much you'd like it to be. What's fair is a progressive federal income tax.

1. There are shitloads of regressive taxes. Sales tax, drivers license fees, registration fees, tolls, property taxes, etc, etc, etc. Fed income needs to be progressive to help offset this, but it isn't (or it is, but only up to a certain point).
2. It's not the cost to the government of the person (how you going to calculate that anyway?), it's the benefit to the person from the government. Someone that makes 50 million a year is getting a much greater benefit than someone making 50 thousand a year. The Mitt Romneys of the country aren't likely to be making 50 million a year if the US has zero roads, zero education system, zero military, etc.
3. What's stupid to say is that the middle class is only entitled to 80% of the money they earn while the ultra rich are entitled to 90-100% of theirs. I'm perfectly happy paying a much higher percentage than someone that makes 30 or 50 or whatever grand a year, rich people should be perfectly happy paying a higher percentage than me (or at least the same percentage for christs sake).
4. Arguing in favor of massive tax cuts for the rich during unprecedented income inequality? Wow. That's just...wow.

 

[Ducman69]

Your notion that "fair" = amount of dollars and not percentage of income is not a fact, no matter how much you'd like it to be.

Oh give me a break, its a matter of opinion either way.

People are generally selfish, and people like to think that they shouldn't have to pay and that other people should. This is nothing new. And please stop with this concept that poor people pay other taxes in a higher amount than rich people. That's idiotic and not a matter of opinion and patently false.

Rich people pay more of all forms of taxes, including the "regressive" taxes you have described, as an absolute dollar amount.

I'm perfectly happy paying a much higher percentage than someone that makes 30 or 50 or whatever grand a year

At least I was being honest in my argument. I guarantee you pay as little taxes as you are required to by law, and would not be happy to pay a penny more.

 

[Ducman69]

As it should be.Taxing people with no money doesn't make a lot of sense.

No, it shouldn't be like that. It should be that a person's contribution and compensation were more better balanced. A private makes less than a captain who makes less than a general, and the pay is generally fair for their contribution. In the private sector unfortunately the "general" in this equation has a pay grade often completely divorced from their contribution and skillset. That's what needs to be fixed, not leave the huge pay disparity and use the government to redistribute income via taxation... that's stupid IMO.

This is just another way of saying we should cut taxes for the wealthy and tax poor people more.

Yeah, that's not what I said at all, but thanks for playing. I'm saying that if you eat five pieces of pizza, you should pay for five pieces of pizza, with everyone paying their fair share. But the poor shouldn't be as poor as they are and the rich shouldn't be as rich as they are, as people aren't being compensated properly for their contribution to pizza production. Romney is already paying FAR FAR FAR more than his fair share of taxes, but the problem is why is Romney getting paid (or shall we say taking so much) in the first place.

 

[Pusher of Buttons]

I'm saying that if you eat five pieces of pizza, you should pay for five pieces of pizza, with everyone paying their fair share. But the poor shouldn't be as poor as they are and the rich shouldn't be as rich as they are, as people aren't being compensated properly for their contribution to pizza production. Romney is already paying FAR FAR FAR more than his fair share of taxes, but the problem is why is Romney getting paid (or shall we say taking so much) in the first place.

Eh, I don't disagree with that.

I think a "maximum wage" (however unenforcable of a concept it would be) is far more useful than a minimum wage. But taxes need to be based upon, to some degree, how much damage they do to the person and their ability to live a normal life. Someone making $5,000,000 a year can afford to have 30% taken far easier than someone making $25k a year.

It's a problem. I'm usually a free-market proponent, bug the wage gap destroys the economy. It's one of the reasons that countries prosper after war....the rich to protect their interests spend spend spend, and the poor folks that go off to fight come back with vastly increased spending and labor value. The elite wealthy in this country simply don't reinvest enough of their income back INTO the economy. It sits and stagnates. Without taxes that money would NEVER find it's way back into the system.

Of course, if we didn't have a messed up federal reserve system that pumps out money to ensure that the wealthy continue to be able to increase in value while wages stagnate and inflation kills off the rest of us.....but that's a whole 'nother thread.

 

[Ultima99]

taxation is theft

Sure a lot of it is used inefficiently or outright wasted, but it does serve important purposes.

 

[Lizard Testes]

Oh give me a break, its a matter of opinion either way.

People are generally selfish, and people like to think that they shouldn't have to pay and that other people should. This is nothing new. And please stop with this concept that poor people pay other taxes in a higher amount than rich people. That's idiotic and not a matter of opinion and patently false.

Rich people pay more of all forms of taxes, including the "regressive" taxes you have described, as an absolute dollar amount.

At least I was being honest in my argument. I guarantee you pay as little taxes as you are required to by law, and would not be happy to pay a penny more.

It's like you literally don't know what the word regressive means when applied to taxes. Sales tax is regressive, that is not a matter of a opinion and it is patently true.

I'm fine with the amount of taxes I pay. I'm fine with the amount of taxes that people poorer than me pay. I'm not fine with ultra wealthy paying a lower percentage than me. I'm not sure what part of that is dishonest. It seems like you're just grasping at straws trying to make an argument.

Thinking that if it takes 25k per person to run the federal government that it makes sense and is "fair" if someone that makes 100k pays 25k and someone that makes 10,000,000 also pays 25k is just so dumb that its not even worth discussing.

 

[Lizard Testes]

No, it shouldn't be like that. It should be that a person's contribution and compensation were more better balanced. A private makes less than a captain who makes less than a general, and the pay is generally fair for their contribution. In the private sector unfortunately the "general" in this equation has a pay grade often completely divorced from their contribution and skillset. That's what needs to be fixed, not leave the huge pay disparity and use the government to redistribute income via taxation... that's stupid IMO.

Yeah, that's not what I said at all, but thanks for playing. I'm saying that if you eat five pieces of pizza, you should pay for five pieces of pizza, with everyone paying their fair share. But the poor shouldn't be as poor as they are and the rich shouldn't be as rich as they are, as people aren't being compensated properly for their contribution to pizza production. Romney is already paying FAR FAR FAR more than his fair share of taxes, but the problem is why is Romney getting paid (or shall we say taking so much) in the first place.

Romney ate 99.9% of the pizza but the people that ate 0.1% should pay for half. That is your argument.

Romney is actually paying FAR FAR FAR less than his fair share of taxes.

 

[ssnyder28]

If you are making <$45K, you aren't paying income taxes (Social security yes, income taxes no)

LOL what are you smoking buddy

 

[Wrecked Em]

Owning a home has multiple economic and social impacts. So to encourage you to get a home, the government gives you tax breaks on mortgage interest. This is a win-win..

And then takes it back tenfold in property taxes. It's like getting a back rub before taking it up the pooper.

 

[Ducman69]

Romney ate 99.9% of the pizza but the people that ate 0.1% should pay for half. That is your argument.

Romney is actually paying FAR FAR FAR less than his fair share of taxes.

Wrong, Romneys tax burden for social services to society is unlikely to be particularly high, and in fact may be lower if he private schools his kids. Try again.

 

[Ducman69]

It's like you literally don't know what the word regressive means when applied to taxes. Sales tax is regressive, that is not a matter of a opinion and it is patently true.

I'm fine with the amount of taxes I pay. I'm fine with the amount of taxes that people poorer than me pay. I'm not fine with ultra wealthy paying a lower percentage than me. I'm not sure what part of that is dishonest. It seems like you're just grasping at straws trying to make an argument.

Thinking that if it takes 25k per person to run the federal government that it makes sense and is "fair" if someone that makes 100k pays 25k and someone that makes 10,000,000 also pays 25k is just so dumb that its not even worth discussing.

Everyone knows what regressive taxes are. That deals with percentage of income, NOT contribution as I clearly explained. Paying approximately for what you use is not rocket science and is a very simple concept.

 

[Lizard Testes]

Wrong, Romneys tax burden for social services to society is unlikely to be particularly high, and in fact may be lower if he private schools his kids. Try again.

The pizza is the benefit he receives, not his burden for social services.

 

[Lizard Testes]

Everyone knows what regressive taxes are. That deals with percentage of income, NOT contribution as I clearly explained. Paying approximately for what you use is not rocket science and is a very simple concept.

You pitched a fit because I used the word and you put it in quotes. I never said that a poor person actually pays more in absolute dollars for their car registration, did I? Those taxes are all regressive which puts a larger burden on the poor and middle class.

The fact that you think this doesn't matter is just mind boggling. You bitch about income disparity but want the tax system to be set up so it fucks the middle class while the rich laugh all the way to the bank. Your arguments just don't make any sense at all. Is there even a word for the type of taxation you're talking about? If your ideas about taxes are so insane that literally no one but you and a couple other people are talking about them, may be time to go back to the drawing board and reevaluate your opinion.

 

[Ranulfo]

Yeah, this is true. The Snowflakes might melt if they have to think or work for themselves. All countries have this block of people though.

I support my taxes being used for:

4. Healthcare for everyone, this should be a right of humanity

So you support slavery then? You think we should by law (aka force) tell medical workers where they can work and how much they'll be paid? You support forcing people to buy healthcare "insurance" that is financially not in their interest because it will help people YOU think should be helped? Should I just open my wallet now and let you take what you want?

 

[Grimlaking]

That's pretty awesome!

We also need a database of all politicians and how they are funded as part of law, perhaps under freedom of information act expansion. I never understand how people like Nancy Pelosi have a salary of around $200K a year, and has a net worth of $26 million despite a super lavish lifestyle throwing money around like its nothing... maybe its legit income, maybe its lobbyists and Hillary style bribes of $400K "speaking fees" for a 5-minute speech in exchange for future favors.

This exists.. there is even a handy google plugin to see this when a politicains name comes up It's called Greenhouse. Though it is limited to congressional information only.

 

[Grimlaking]

So you support slavery then? You think we should by law (aka force) tell medical workers where they can work and how much they'll be paid? You support forcing people to buy healthcare "insurance" that is financially not in their interest because it will help people YOU think should be helped? Should I just open my wallet now and let you take what you want?

You support a moderatly successful middle income retiree having his entire savings, retirement, and home pilfered from them in the event that their spouse has cancer and needs aggressive long term treatment at a chance for continued life, that only ends after several years in death. Because that's the reality... we have it today. MANY people in the older age groups re ignoring aches and pains just saying "it comes with age" only to trip,. bump a wall lightly and break two ribs only to discover that they had a form of cancer that is now in their bones and they are garunteed a slow nauseating death experience while paying out all they have to institutions of health care in order to "treat" the disease.

Nope.. they get hosed because they arn't you right?

Families who discover cancer in their wives and start agressive treatment that lasts for nearly a decade. Bankrupting them completely and wiping out any chance of their late teen child of going to college outside of some sort of grant or scholarship, oh and the living spouse.. garunteed to work every day of their lives because anything they make is absorbed by debt from the medical treatments.

Lets not think about those people though. Lets just assume that all people that want free health care really just want to go get their little short term boo boo taken care of on your dime. Because yea... that's what it's all about.

 

[Grimlaking]

Explain to me what you think taxes pay for, and how Romney is using hugely more tax dollars than you are, as I'm curious on your opinion on that. For example, lets say that myself and my boss cost both roughly $25K per person in taxes to the government (total made up number for argument's sake). Would it be fair if we both paid roughly $25K in taxes, or do I have a moral right to complain if I'm paying $2K in taxes and my boss is paying $48K in taxes that my boss isn't paying enough based on how he's richer than me, even though he's paying WAY more than I am?

In my opinion there should be a balance between how much in taxes you cost and how much in taxes you pay, but adjusted for the practical amount someone can pay. Obviously, some people will always be leaches on society, because they don't have a sufficient skillset and may have high costs, such as having many children that have to be put through public school. But by the same token, if someone is paying literally millions of dollars in taxes, what right does someone paying far less have of saying they aren't paying enough? That's stupid.

And you are basing your statement on what exactly? See I support this based on thresholds. If I make say 90k a year, and you make 40k a year. I'm going to pay more taxes, but on the same token I'm going to have more money I can spend and allocate into tax shelters to actually make my taxible income... LESS than what you make while maintaining a lifestyle beyond what you can afford. Is it fair then to say that I should be paying more in taxes? That is the simple math but it is actually MORE extreme than that.

People in the upper tax brackets that care to do so.. (so not all but lets presume a majority because it makes sense and is completely legal.) can have an income of lets say... 12 million a year on average. Now 8 million of that is from gains from the market that are capped at 15% tax for capital gains. So lets presume the rest.. at 4 million a year are taxed and at close to 40%. Now this individual will smartly to avoid paying these taxes invest in property for agriculture and other properties that require cash infusion in order to see any return on. While they are spending on these things they declare 100% of this as loss broken up over lets say a 4 year time period. They've done this for years. So after all is said and done... Oh and the maximum tax break for charitable donations don't forget. They income remainder that is taxable is actually... get this. 0, Yes their beginning tax rate was NIL. But because they invest every year over year on improving their personal wealth through aqusition and development... they pay 0 in taxes and get back any money they did happen to put in. This happens ALL the damn time.

Yet you want us to presume that the person putting in 40k a year to taxes, unable to grow their own personal wealth for any reason... bad choices... life slaps them upside the head all the time. Whatever. Doesn't deserve to bitch because others don't put in their fair share?

HEAVEN FORBID you be a middle income household making in the 100-150 range on income... because YOU GET REALLY SCREWED if you can't invest in wealth growth.

But that's a different conversation.

 

[Ducman69]

You pitched a fit because I used the word and you put it in quotes.

You can't be this obtuse.

Lets recap here.

My point is that you likely pay jack shit compared to Romney.

Romney likely uses less in social service costs to society (tax dollars) than many, and is if anything about average.

He pays in taxes far above the national average.

I don't care if your income per year is $38 because you're a hobo that contributes nothing to society, and you paid $10 in taxes, while you cost $45K to society in tax dollars that your PERCENTAGE of your income you paid in taxes is high. Dollar amounts matter. And a tax burden to society bitching about a massive net tax contributor not paying their "fair share" of taxes is beyond idiotic.

That's why I put "Regressive" in quotes, because the entire context of the argument here is HOW MUCH MONEY YOU PAID INTO THE SYSTEM, which part of that is confusing to you? Even for so called regressive taxes, Romney is still paying far more of those taxes than you (or the average person) likely are, so its not really regressive as a dollar amount.

And no, I did not say the tax system should be altered... I swear I'm talking to a brick wall. Be quiet. Take a deep breath, use a paper bag if you have to, and actually read what I am writing.

Romney pays a metric fuckton in taxes, far greater than his consumption of taxes.

The problem is not that Romney isn't paying enough money into the pool, and its shameful and embarrassing to hear someone that surely pays a 100th of what he does in taxes that Romney somehow isn't paying enough, as if they are contributing so much to society's tax pool (when chances are they aren't even net tax contributors and in fact COST society more than they contribute in taxes.

What I have said, repeatedly, in simple language, is that the problem isn't that Romney doesn't pay his fair share of taxes, he in fact pays far too much in taxes. The problem is that Romney's income is divorced from his contribution to society in my estimation.

Romney should pay less taxes and Romney should have a lower income in an ideal world.

Yes, I know its not an ideal world, and income redistribution to compensate for a failing of the capitalist system to divide resources fairly is not ideal, that's my point.

 

[Ranulfo]

You support a moderatly successful middle income retiree having his entire savings, retirement, and home pilfered from them in the event that their spouse has cancer and needs aggressive long term treatment at a chance for continued life, that only ends after several years in death.

Yes lets play that game darlin. Where did I say I preferred the pre-Obamacare healthcare "industry/insurance" screw job? You're talking to a cancer survivor and witness to watching family die slowly from cancer. Have you actually read the Affordable Healthcare Act? If you don't pay, the Feds can come in and take all your assets to pay for that debt after you die. Of course, I watched that happen to a relative years ago long before obamacare because they didn't protect their assets from seizure by the corrupt state and fed VA etc..

You want to fix the system? Get government out of it. Who do you think is the Walmart of the healthcare market bucko? That would be the state and federal gov's via welfare feelgood ideas like medicare/medicaid etc.. They set the prices and everyone else gets the screw job to make up for it. Make the healthcare market actually a marketplace that is competitive and you solve the actual cost problem, a problem that even before obamacare was leading us to economic distruction. The government lets the medical industry create monopolies and oligarchies. It can be cheaper to fly to another country now to get a basic MRI or other imaging done. They let hospitals charge $30k for scorpion anti-venom that costs $100 over the counter in Mexico where it is made. Can you import or re-import cheaper drugs from overseas? Hell no, that could be a felony to bring in that cheap anti-venom even if it is just for yourself.

 

[Grimlaking]

Yes lets play that game darlin. Where did I say I preferred the pre-Obamacare healthcare "industry/insurance" screw job? You're talking to a cancer survivor and witness to watching family die slowly from cancer. Have you actually read the Affordable Healthcare Act? If you don't pay, the Feds can come in and take all your assets to pay for that debt after you die. Of course, I watched that happen to a relative years ago long before obamacare because they didn't protect their assets from seizure by the corrupt state and fed VA etc..

You want to fix the system? Get government out of it. Who do you think is the Walmart of the healthcare market bucko? That would be the state and federal gov's via welfare feelgood ideas like medicare/medicaid etc.. They set the prices and everyone else gets the screw job to make up for it. Make the healthcare market actually a marketplace that is competitive and you solve the actual cost problem, a problem that even before obamacare was leading us to economic distruction. The government lets the medical industry create monopolies and oligarchies. It can be cheaper to fly to another country now to get a basic MRI or other imaging done. They let hospitals charge $30k for scorpion anti-venom that costs $100 over the counter in Mexico where it is made. Can you import or re-import cheaper drugs from overseas? Hell no, that could be a felony to bring in that cheap anti-venom even if it is just for yourself.

Or you know... universal heath care. But I'm sure you have personal experience horror storries with that too. Right Darlin?

And you are aware that big pharma are in an absolute TISSY over the idea that we will be able to import drugs from other nations saying it will be the downfall of all that is good about american Medicine. But lets just pretend that they want government hands off because we drive up costs.

Special medicine needed to sustain life... that's 1200 a month. Addictive pain medicine.. 3 bucks. That's American medicine today.

 

[Ducman69]

they pay 0 in taxes and get back any money they did happen to put in. This happens ALL the damn time.

No it doesn't, stop making up nonsense. The wealthy pay craptons of taxes, and we can easily look up the numbers to prove it, by noting that almost all income tax collected from the government comes from a small percentage of the population, and the bottom 45% of earners, 77.5 million households, in the United States pay nothing.

The wealthy pay too much in taxes, and the poor don't pay enough. The wealthy are also able to accumulate wealth far greater than their worth to society. Percentage and progressive percentage taxes are a bandaid means to correct this market problem and redistribute wealth, but it doesn't redistribute based on contribution to society again... so its a broken system, that's all I'm saying. Ideally, people's incomes would more accurately reflect their skillset and work-ethic so the better you are and the harder you work, the more you make, but within reason.

For example, lets say a goal is to move a pile of bricks up a hill, and to encourage people to do so they are paid $1 a brick, so most people want to move as many as they can comfortably manage since the harder and smarter they work, the more they get. People are selfish, this is good.

If Joe moves 20 bricks a day up the hill and Jane moves 5 bricks a day up the hill, then Joe should make $20 and Jane should make $5.

Now they can decide that it would be nice if they built stairs on the hill, to make it easier to climb, but that costs bricks/money. So each person can contribute two bricks, which is fair, because they are all going to use it. You don't say, "well Joe moves more bricks so he should pay for all of it, and Jane shouldn't have to contribute at all to building the stairs because she's not as hard a worker".

That's punishing success and hard-work and rewarding failure and sloth, which is stupid.

Whats also stupid though is that in the real world, you may have say a supervisor that isn't moving any bricks at all, but is just coordinating. While this has value, its gotten to a point in society where that value is broken and we will say that supervisor has moved the equivalent of 1000 bricks a day, which is dumb. He helped, but not that much, its his compensation that is broken. We haven't thought of a good way to fix that, so what we do is we say he has to contribute 500 bricks for the stairs to balance things out, but it doesn't and he's still compensated too much and also paying too much for one person as a fair contribution to the stairs. Worse yet, the government will take 300 of those bricks, and give 100 to themselves who aren't even lifting any bricks, and distribute 200 more of those bricks to people that don't even move a single brick at all, in exchange for their support.

And this kind of socialist BS when taken to an extreme for a long enough period is what results in the financial collapse you see in places like Venezuela, as no one wants to move bricks anymore and eventually no work gets done.

 

[xX_Jack_Carver_Xx]

I love the conservative types. Pay no attention to the US Constitution ... "Levy taxes to pay for Defense and to PROVIDE FOR THE GENERAL WELFARE"

We all know of course, there is no "general welfare" in the conservative universe, so just ignore it.

 

[Lizard Testes]

You can't be this obtuse.

Lets recap here.

My point is that you likely pay jack shit compared to Romney.

Which is a stupid point, because I pay a higher percentage and all you do is keep insisting "It's fair if everyone pays the exact same amount!" which is ridiculous nonsense.

entire context of the argument here is HOW MUCH MONEY YOU PAID INTO THE SYSTEM

What argument? All I've seen is you repeating your unsupported opinion about what you think is fair over and over again.

Even for so called regressive taxes, Romney is still paying far more of those taxes than you (or the average person) likely are, so its not really regressive as a dollar amount.

Except regressive taxes refer to percentage, not absolute dollar amount, so saying it's not really regressive as a dollar amount is just nonsense. They're regressive taxes, period.

Romney pays a metric fuckton in taxes, far greater than his consumption of taxes.

And yet it's not enough. There's no reason he should pay less as a percentage than people that make far less than him, and there are a lot of reasons he should pay as much or more. One, the utility/benefit/economic boon of a millionaires last dollar is far less than that of the lower/middle class. Two, concentrating an every increasing amount of wealth in the hands of the top 0.01% is a horrible and stupid idea, which is why progressive taxes (and estate taxes) are very good things. Three, he massively benefits from the all the aspects of society which have enabled him to make massive amounts of wealth so it is only FAIR that he pay a massive amount of taxes commensurate with that.

The problem is not that Romney isn't paying enough money into the pool, and its shameful and embarrassing to hear someone that surely pays a 100th of what he does in taxes that Romney somehow isn't paying enough, as if they are contributing so much to society's tax pool (when chances are they aren't even net tax contributors and in fact COST society more than they contribute in taxes.

What I have said, repeatedly, in simple language, is that the problem isn't that Romney doesn't pay his fair share of taxes, he in fact pays far too much in taxes.

Yes, you've said it repeatedly, but you're complately wrong and have done a piss poor job of providing any support whatsoever for your opinion.

The problem is that Romney's income is divorced from his contribution to society in my estimation.

Romney should pay less taxes and Romney should have a lower income in an ideal world.

Yes, I know its not an ideal world, and income redistribution to compensate for a failing of the capitalist system to divide resources fairly is not ideal, that's my point.

Yes. It's not an ideal world, so in this not ideal world Romney should be paying 20 or 30 or 40%, not the 10% that he pays, and not the ~0.1% that you're advocating for. So why are you advocating for it?

 

[Lizard Testes]

No it doesn't, stop making up nonsense. The wealthy pay craptons of taxes, and we can easily look up the numbers to prove it, by noting that almost all income tax collected from the government comes from a small percentage of the population, and the bottom 45% of earners, 77.5 million households, in the United States pay nothing.

The wealthy pay too much in taxes, and the poor don't pay enough. The wealthy are also able to accumulate wealth far greater than their worth to society. Percentage and progressive percentage taxes are a bandaid means to correct this market problem and redistribute wealth, but it doesn't redistribute based on contribution to society again... so its a broken system, that's all I'm saying. Ideally, people's incomes would more accurately reflect their skillset and work-ethic so the better you are and the harder you work, the more you make, but within reason.

For example, lets say a goal is to move a pile of bricks up a hill, and to encourage people to do so they are paid $1 a brick, so most people want to move as many as they can comfortably manage since the harder and smarter they work, the more they get. People are selfish, this is good.

If Joe moves 20 bricks a day up the hill and Jane moves 5 bricks a day up the hill, then Joe should make $20 and Jane should make $5.

Now they can decide that it would be nice if they built stairs on the hill, to make it easier to climb, but that costs bricks/money. So each person can contribute two bricks, which is fair, because they are all going to use it. You don't say, "well Joe moves more bricks so he should pay for all of it, and Jane shouldn't have to contribute at all to building the stairs because she's not as hard a worker".

That's punishing success and hard-work and rewarding failure and sloth, which is stupid.

Whats also stupid though is that in the real world, you may have say a supervisor that isn't moving any bricks at all, but is just coordinating. While this has value, its gotten to a point in society where that value is broken and we will say that supervisor has moved the equivalent of 1000 bricks a day, which is dumb. He helped, but not that much, its his compensation that is broken. We haven't thought of a good way to fix that, so what we do is we say he has to contribute 500 bricks for the stairs to balance things out, but it doesn't and he's still compensated too much and also paying too much for one person as a fair contribution to the stairs. Worse yet, the government will take 300 of those bricks, and give 100 to themselves who aren't even lifting any bricks, and distribute 200 more of those bricks to people that don't even move a single brick at all, in exchange for their support.

And this kind of socialist BS when taken to an extreme for a long enough period is what results in the financial collapse you see in places like Venezuela, as no one wants to move bricks anymore and eventually no work gets done.

Except the vast majority of the earnings of the rich comes from capital gains tax so your entire "fair compensation for fair work" is a moot point and unless you're going to confiscate 99% of their wealth, your arguments are just meaningless hypothetical drivel.

Tell ya what chief, as soon as you get the 0.1%s income down to reasonable levels, we'll talk about the merits of your ideas on taxes. Until then you're just pissing in your own face.

 

[digitalmango]

This is how the government should lay out it's expenses. Easy to follow and understand, not hiding behind a bunch of red tape.

 

[MrGuvernment]

Website sooo slow... must be using IIS and asp.net

Likely and for the $10million he paid for it, maybe the same web team that did the obama care site

 

[tempertantrum]

Now maybe just a few lemmings will break free and realize that the word free doesn't actually mean free. It's being paid for somewhere.

Seriously. What kind of a libtard thinks things are free?

I jest. No one does, liberal or conservative. People want things to be "free" because they pay for them... with taxes. Now on the other hand, there are people who try to score free points in arguments by suggesting things that aren't true are true...

 

[Ducman69]

Tell ya what chief, as soon as you get the 0.1%s income down to reasonable levels, we'll talk about the merits of your ideas on taxes. Until then you're just pissing in your own face.

So let me get this straight.

I made a simple statement that the taxes aren't the problem since the wealthy pay far more than is reasonable compared to their consumption of government resources, the income is the problem, so rather than admit that you flew off the handle for absolutely no reason whatsoever due to a reading comprehension failure on your part, or perhaps some massive insecurity about your own finances, you decided... "no, you know what, I'm going to double-down and be even more annoying and ignore everything I don't want to hear".

*slow clap*

I can tell you're one of those people that don't even care what the original debate or point is, and are just so entrenched and invested that you can't bare to be wrong, so can we at least call it a day and just both agree that you're insufferable?

 

[odditory]

At first glance thread title read "Steve Ballmer Drops Massive Dump" which didn't necessarily seem surprising.

 

[Semantics]

No it doesn't, stop making up nonsense. The wealthy pay craptons of taxes, and we can easily look up the numbers to prove it, by noting that almost all income tax collected from the government comes from a small percentage of the population, and the bottom 45% of earners, 77.5 million households, in the United States pay nothing.

You know that seems outlandish so i clicked on the link and got to where the data was taken, which brings you to this table they used to get that number, we're looking at 2015 and 77.5 million

Now irrc population is something like 315mil in the US with roughly 20% of that being children of non-working age so under 16, so that leaves 252mil of "working age" adults(including over 65), take the over 65 out of it you get like 213mil, US working participation rate is roughly 62-63% for that group irrc. 171/213 is a 80% participation rate, they're counting kids in college, stay at home parents, retires etc not all of them but atleast quite a few of them. Something not quite disclosed in that article, i'm guessing because they didn't quite read all of the taxpolicycenter's data in full but just found a number and wrote around it.

I also noticed how they categorized the top 20% paying most of the taxes, there are 7 tax brackets last time i checked not 5. That plus the whole "45.3% of American households" It would actually be individuals as even said by the table they used to get that 77.5mil number, there is only something like 125mil households in the US. Basically that whole article is being misleading on purpose.

Numbers don't lie people do. I barely did some dead-reckoning and quickly found discrepancies in quite a few of those statements.