Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Sprin]

I don't remember jesus saying Ceasar was the one to be giving generious. Pretty sure he told his folowers to do that.

Also to qualify for the top its not that amazing compared to the number that is trillions.
Top 1%: $380,354

Top 5%: $159,619

Top 10%: $113,799

Top 25%: $67,280

Pretty nice incomes, not exactlly the trillions required to run the government.

[mainiac]

What? I was just saying how much debt we're in when he brought up the government having money. Money that requires taxation, taxation implying the use of force to take.

No, you made a vague allusion to the entire economy.  If you want to make a specific complaint, dont post an obnoxious macro image and then act like people should work it out.  If you cant even be bothered to explain your argument, it isn't an argument.

And yeah, deadweight losses of taxes exit.  Believe it or not, people are aware of those.  Try picking up a CBO report sometime.

I don't remember jesus saying Ceasar was the one to be giving generious. Pretty sure he told his folowers to do that.

The entire point of that passage is that Jesus was saying he wasn't a temporal authority.  You are using that passage to say that the government should take it's cues from the bible.  Yeah...

[Orange Wizard]

Did you just ignore the link I posted? 40% of the wealth in the US is in the hands of 1% of the population. For comparison, US federal budget is ~4 trillion. Which amounts to half the amount flowing through Wall Street and the like.

[Sprin]

What? I was just saying how much debt we're in when he brought up the government having money. Money that requires taxation, taxation implying the use of force to take.

No, you made a vague allusion to the entire economy.  If you want to make a specific complaint, dont post an obnoxious macro image and then act like people should work it out.  If you cant even be bothered to explain your argument, it isn't an argument.

And yeah, deadweight losses of taxes exit.  Believe it or not, people are aware of those.  Try picking up a CBO report sometime.

I don't remember jesus saying Ceasar was the one to be giving generious. Pretty sure he told his folowers to do that.

The entire point of that passage is that Jesus was saying he wasn't a temporal authority.  You are using that passage to say that the government should take it's cues from the bible.  Yeah...

Nah I was just saying after taxes Jesus would still be saying give your money. Please don't assume that I think the bible should be US law.

As for the macro image I thought it was smaller woops. Sue me. I was just saying we have a huge situation with debt. I was also saying it will take a whole lot more tact to pay off then just taxing the top 1% of income earners to pay off.  Since to qualify to be in the top 1% doesn't exactlly mean your making billions every single day.

Costs about 10,460,188,800 a day to run the gov as it is now. I think the main problem is spending.

[Orange Wizard]

As for the macro image I thought it was smaller woops. Sue me. I was just saying we have a huge situation with debt. I was also saying it will take a whole lot more tact to pay off then just taxing the top 1% of income earners to pay off.  Since to qualify to be in the top 1% doesn't exactlly mean your making billions every single day.

If the 1% were taxed at a 50% rate the debt wouldn't exist; the income from that alone would cover the entire federal budget.

[Sprin]

The 1% based upon the income I presented taxed at 100% onlly equals 1,209,525,720,000 doing 50% 604,762,860,000 assuming of course they don't try going down a tax bracket by making less.
Thats about 3,180,000 people. Again I think we need a bit more tact then taxing the hell out of everyone.
Add the 8 trillion wallstreet has acording to you we still barelly make a dent and doing stuff like that isn't stable income, its a one off.

I have a video somewere that goes into the eat the rich tactic if your interested.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=661pi6K-8WQ

[Powder Miner]

The vast majority of US debt doesn't come from subsidies -- it comes from entitlements. Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, the like. If you want to have the most meaningful fight about cutting spending (and by far the most vicious), look there. Subsidies take up a couple hundred billion dollars of our budget. Entitlements take up two trillion dollars of our budget, on the other hand. I get that cutting benefits is not something people want to do (it directly affects people negatively), but already healthcare and social security take up two thirds of our budget, and they increase and increase in size, and in the process prevent us directly from discretionary spending. It's not sustainable either. At the current rate, social security WILL buckle heavily before I ever get to see it, for example, or most people in the United States.

[Sprin]

I wasn't brave enough to bring up entightlement spending in this crowd ;-;

But yeah thoes REALLY need to be dealt with imediatlly

[Lord Shonus]

If Bush II hadn't forced tax cuts on the rich down our throats, there would be no national debt today - simply continuing the Clinton era tax levels would have reduced the debt to 0 by 2007. If the minimum wage had merely kept up with the rate of inflation (inflation, by the way, is the mark of a healthy economy - it means the national wealth is growing faster than the population), most of the economic woes of the previous decade would not have happened. Too bad the rich would rather pay billions in propaganda (the cost of paying the insurance required by Obamacare for most businesses is less than what they spend on a single promotional campaign, let alone the fortune they've spent attacking it) than pay millions in taxes. Too bad the oil industry panics if they only make three trillion in profits instead of four. Too bad employers want the freedom to say "work three shifts in a row or you're fired" than sign employment contracts.

[USEC_OFFICER]

The 1% based upon the income I presented taxed at 100% onlly equals 1,209,525,720,000 doing 50% 604,762,860,000 assuming of course they don't try going down a tax bracket by making less.
Thats about 3,180,000 people. Again I think we need a bit more tact then taxing the hell out of everyone.
Add the 8 trillion wallstreet has acording to you we still barelly make a dent and doing stuff like that isn't stable income, its a one off.

That number you gave us to enter the 1% is the minimum money you need to make per year to get into the 1%, not the average amount of wealth they make. As such taxing them 50% of their income will actually make more than $604,762,860,000 a year, since logicially a majority of them will be making more than the minimum dollar threshold. I don't have the numbers in front of me to tell how much will actually be taxed, but I wouldn't be surprised if that amount was doubled or more.

Though on the other hand, going off of the numbers you gave us, that $600~ billion is enough to run the government for about 60 days. That 2 months being paid for by 3.18 million people alone. Is the US government hemorraging so much money that 1/6th of their yearly expenses is not worth using?

[Orange Wizard]

The vast majority of US debt doesn't come from subsidies -- it comes from entitlements. Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, the like.

Most countries actually spend a much smaller portion of their budget on those things (and provide a better service at the other end), the US just has craptons of administrative inefficiency gobbling it all up.

The 1% based upon the income I presented taxed at 100% onlly equals 1,209,525,720,000 doing 50% 604,762,860,000 assuming of course they don't try going down a tax bracket by making less.

The incomes you presented are misleading. I don't know if those are accurate or not, but assuming $300k puts you in the top 1%, you're still alongside CEOs and investors raking in tens of millions. That is not saying that everyone in the top 1% of earners is bringing in that sum.

Thats about 3,180,000 people. Again I think we need a bit more tact then taxing the hell out of everyone.

How else do you propose the government pay down its obscene debt?

Add the 8 trillion wallstreet has acording to you we still barelly make a dent and doing stuff like that isn't stable income, its a one off.

That's cash flow, not assets. If we're including assets the total wealth in the hands of the 1% is closer to a soul-crushing fifty trillion dollars, accounting for debt.

[Sprin]

Cutting entightlements like powder sugested could be a start. At the very least making an effort to not make people rely on them for their well being.

Yeah I onlly had the minimum in front of me to do math with. Many people have mathed better then me if you wish to hunt them down.

Now in order to make money off assets we have to sell them afterwards which... Yeah Im not buying that and I don't think you will either. Im not entirelly sure who would other then the rich. On the plus side they bought that stuff, the costs have been paid for. Im not seeing a problem with that I thought them buying stuff was a good thing.

[Orange Wizard]

Cutting entightlements like powder sugested could be a start. At the very least making an effort to not make people rely on them for their well being.

The Free Market™ will make everyone able to afford housing/education/healthcare/food/etc., right?

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Automation means that "entitlements" are going to be the new normal. The most common job in the majority of US states is truck driver, and surprise, surprise, that's the automation tech that's getting the biggest and baddest investments.

There's no point in resisting shifts in the economic paradigm, it can be done, yes, but it just results in isolation and the slow burn. Whatever group of people gets their heads out of their asses first and understands that the work model can be essentially cored out and replaced of all human interaction is going to own the whole fucking world a hundred years from now.

[DJ]

Why not go for the obvious big spender - defence? USA invests a downright ridiculous amount of money into that, with questionable returns.