Print

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

[Vector]

Ew, breeders are gross, I dont wanna be like you.

Okay, dude, seriously?

Cool it.  Both sides, just cool it.  This is not a "take your anger out on forumites who may or may not ascribe to some arbitrary label" thread, unless that arbitrary label is "flaming bucket of asshole."

It's ridiculous that I have to say it here, but this is not a place to express anger towards all straight, white, cisgendered, male, rich, able-bodied, able-minded, republican, conservative, or Christian people.

So cool your jets.

[Aqizzar]

It's ridiculous that I have to say it here, but this is not a place to express anger towards all straight, white, cisgendered, male, rich, able-bodied, able-minded, republican, conservative, or Christian people.

To be fair, it is titled the "Progressive Rage Thread".  That's kinda the definition of Progressive Rage right there, absent any particular target to attach it to.  Hence, you need constructive, appropriate targets, from stories about happenings in the world.

[mainiac]

Okay, dude, seriously?

No, I was actually being facetious.

I think as a rule of thumb, if someone ever uses the word "breeder" to describe straight people they are being facetious.

[Vector]

To be fair, it is titled the "Progressive Rage Thread".  That's kinda the definition of Progressive Rage right there, absent any particular target to attach it to.  Hence, you need constructive, appropriate targets, from stories about happenings in the world.

That... that was indeed the attempt.  Hurrrrgh, time to rethink the plans.

I think as a rule of thumb, if someone ever uses the word "breeder" to describe straight people they are being facetious.

Ah-ha.  I've heard the word "breeder" used to describe those who believe Having Children Is The Entire Purpose of Life For Not Just Me But Everyone, which kind of makes sense.

Thank you for clarifying.

[mainiac]

Also, full disclosure, I'm half breeder myself.

[scriver]

This is not a "take your anger out on forumites who may or may not ascribe to some arbitrary label" thread, unless that arbitrary label is "flaming bucket of asshole."

This might need siggification.

[RedKing]

This just in: Rick Santorum is running for President. Guess Obama just lost the angry homophobe vote. Oh wait...

[Angle]

Heres something RAEGworthy. The corporations are making off with all our money, and not even paying taxes on it.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/56809745/12-Corporations-Pay-Effective-Tax-Rate-of-Negative-1-5-on-171-Billion-in-Profits
RAEG

[Scaraban]

Heres something RAEGworthy. The corporations are making off with all our money, and not even paying taxes on it.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/56809745/12-Corporations-Pay-Effective-Tax-Rate-of-Negative-1-5-on-171-Billion-in-Profits
RAEG

...but isn't that how its always been?

[Angle]

It didn't use to be this bad. In the 1950's, corporate taxes accounted for 30% of federal revenue. Now they're 6%, despite the giant increase in corporate profits. RAEG.

[freeformschooler]

It didn't use to be this bad. In the 1950's, corporate taxes accounted for 30% of federal revenue. Now they're 6%, despite the giant increase in corporate profits. RAEG.

It makes sense, a little bit, though. For example, Wal-mart avoids paying potentially suicidal taxes by not firing people. They just cut their hours down to almost nothing, until they quit.

[Aqizzar]

It didn't use to be this bad. In the 1950's, corporate taxes accounted for 30% of federal revenue. Now they're 6%, despite the giant increase in corporate profits. RAEG.

It makes sense, a little bit, though. For example, Wal-mart avoids paying potentially suicidal taxes by not firing people. They just cut their hours down to almost nothing, until they quit.

While certainly a practice of note, how would that keep them from paying taxes?  We're talking about gross corporate income, not payroll tax, and even if we were, it would be the same percentage as ever.

[freeformschooler]

It didn't use to be this bad. In the 1950's, corporate taxes accounted for 30% of federal revenue. Now they're 6%, despite the giant increase in corporate profits. RAEG.

It makes sense, a little bit, though. For example, Wal-mart avoids paying potentially suicidal taxes by not firing people. They just cut their hours down to almost nothing, until they quit.

While certainly a practice of note, how would that keep them from paying taxes?  We're talking about gross corporate income, not payroll tax, and even if we were, it would be the same percentage as ever.

Yeah, I'm specifically talking about the (word won't come to mind but it's probably payroll taxes, I had it a minute ago) tax that increases for the company every time they fire someone for a reason that's not "they're the worst employee, they don't do any work" or they refused to do this or that or some other perfectly legitimate reason, plus providing records and employees reviews to prove it. At least, that's what I heard. I'm not quite old enough to do my own taxes or get really into it so I need some research there. If this is true, and every wal-mart across America had a regular or irregular stream of people being fired for this little reason or that, like a sizable portion of company's I've heard of, their tax on that would be pretty ridiculous, right?

If we're not talking about that though then I apologize. You're looking at my extent of knowledge on taxes here.

[Aqizzar]

Yeah, I'm specifically talking about the (word won't come to mind but it's probably payroll taxes, I had it a minute ago) tax that increases for the company every time they fire someone for a reason that's not "they're the worst employee, they don't do any work" or they refused to do this or that or some other perfectly legitimate reason, plus providing records and employees reviews to prove it.

I'm definitely going to need a name or description of some kind, because I have never in my life heard of a rolling "frivolous firing" tax on business, certainly not at a federal level anyway.  I wouldn't be too surprised if there was a state or two that did that, but the idea that at any time in America's history there could have been a bill to prorate a tax on businesses based on how often and why they fire people would be ludicrous, for lack of a less condescending term.

If I'm wrong about that, I'll be flabbergasted, but I'd sure love to hear about it.

[freeformschooler]

I was completely wrong. Asked my dad about it and he corrected me: it's not a tax at all, I completely misheard. (Almost) Everything I said applies, but only to unemployment benefits: A company must pay benefits to all of its fired employees that weren't fired for a very legitimate reason, because at that point the employee is likely to start drawing unemployment. Apparently, the portion they have to pay increases in a small but very real manner with each time they frivolously fire an employee, or they fire an employee and they otherwise draw unemployment.

Sorry for the confusion, Aqizzar. I'm sure I'll know a lot more about this when I'm older.