[Optimus Prime]

Shinrei no Shintai;362510 said:

That's not what I read. Source please?

As for Gore being god/ascendent or whatever? Saying stuff like that just lends credence to the right's talking point of global warning being a "religion" that liberals have joined.

Again, I'm very happy with Obama's ideas on foreign policy, but I'm still not sold on his domestic approach (his economic plan per his website is still very sparse).

I'm sure he was being sarcastic Shin. I know Obama wants to tax the wealthy and I'm down with that all day :cool:

[Cold Iron]

Shinrei no Shintai;362510 said:

That's not what I read. Source please?

The source is you. If 3% of emissions are ours, then we are adding 3% worth of carbon each year that doesn't get absorbed normally (ok over-simplified but go along with it) which then means next year there is 103% in existence, of which we then emit another 3% (ok so this number needs human emissions to also be increasing by 3% to keep up with total emissions, which is about 3 times higher than the current annual increase) so not exactly exponential increase. My bad, I knew it was wrong as I said it but left it anyway. I'm part of the misinformation machine, kill me.

[Raymond Luxury Yacht]

Cold Iron;362512 said:

My bad, I knew it was wrong as I said it but left it anyway. I'm part of the misinformation machine, kill me.

I'm speechless. WHo has hijacked CI's login and is posting under his name?

[Optimus Prime]

Raymond Luxury Yacht;362529 said:

I'm speechless. WHo has hijacked CI's login and is posting under his name?

The amount of rainforest devastation has reached all time highs I believe. We are reaching the tipping point, where no matter what we do the damage can never be fully prevented or repaired.

[Raymond Luxury Yacht]

We need to at least get those guys cutting down the rainforsest to replant. In some cases where the land is used for something else it's not possible, but in some cases it is.

[Cold Iron]

Raymond Luxury Yacht;362529 said:

I'm speechless. WHo has hijacked CI's login and is posting under his name?

What? I'm wrong sometimes! The reason you thought I never admit when I'm wrong is probably because you have not previously witnessed me being wrong... It's kinda like an eclipse...

[Raymond Luxury Yacht]

Ah yes. Ecllipse is the word I've always used to describe you!

[Shinrei]

Optimus Prime;362511 said:

I'm sure he was being sarcastic Shin. I know Obama wants to tax the wealthy and I'm down with that all day :cool:

I know this is just goading me into replying, but I still don't get "Tax the rich" as some sort of policy.

In 2005 (under president bush)

The top 1% pays 40% of the taxes, while making 20% of the income. Comparing their tax burdon to their portion of income earned says a lot, and that means basically that the top 1% are already pulling more than their fair share of the load.

The top 10% of income earners in the nation pays 71% of the taxes collected. The top 50% (we're talking middle class) paid 97% of all the taxes collected!!!

In 1999 (under clinton)

The top 1% paid 36% of the taxes, the top 10% paid 66%, top 50% paid 96%.

I guess Bush must be your hero since the tax burden for the rich went up under him. This is why, from what I understand from the economic standpoint of the bush tax cuts, tax burdens were lifted from all wage classes, not just the rich as the democrats keep saying over and over.

Is it simply that you don't believe anyone should be allowed to keep the money that they earn? Have you seen these numbers before? Any sane person would look at this and think, "my, the rich are really taxed hard, aren't they." What more do you want?

I am not rich and I'm certainly nowhere near the top 10% so I have no personal invested interest in defending them, I'm just saying I don't understand why you're so concerned with taxing the rich more. To what end?

We shouldn't be in trillion dollar wars, we should be funding schools and infrastructure etc., but that could be done with the money being wasted by the federal government now, not with more tax revenue.

Or did I just miss the big sarcasm button at the bottom of your post?????????????????????????????

[Obdigore]

Quote

If the federal taxation rate is compared with the wealth distribution rate, the net wealth (not only income but also including real estate, cars, house, stocks, etc) distribution of the United States does almost coincide with the share of income tax - the top 1% pay 36.9% of federal tax (wealth 32.7%), the top 5% pay 57.1% (wealth 57.2%), top 10% pay 68% (wealth 69.8%), and the bottom 50% pay 3.3% (wealth 2.8%).

Add in the fact that the 'rich' can afford to have more tax paid, because of their huge surplus over the cost of living, can you really argue that this system of taxation is unfair?

I agree we shouldn't be in these huge wars, but you know who pushed them? Defense contracters, Oil companies, and pretty much any other big buisiness that MAKES money off war.

[Shinrei]

That looks pretty, but we pay taxes on earnings, not on wealth, so I'm not sure I understand what you're suggesting. Not everyone who makes over 100,000 a year has accumulated wealth, so just taxing their income more would just make it more difficult for them to become wealthy.

Also, if we start taxing wealth, then I guess no one can ever retire since it's already difficult for most people to invest and save enough to build up a "nest egg" to enjoy retirement.

I believe in they US system where people can strive to become wealthy, because by doing so they help move the economy. Successful entrepreneurs create jobs. There is nothing wrong with working hard and seeking opportunity and being subsequently rewarded. Why is it so evil to be rich?

[caladanbrood]

Over-taxing the wealthy purely "because they can afford it" is a very bad way to run an economy, because evertually all those wealthy will bugger off and live somewhere else, and then you'll be in trouble...

[Obdigore]

Shinrei no Shintai;362786 said:

That looks pretty, but we pay taxes on earnings, not on wealth, so I'm not sure I understand what you're suggesting. Not everyone who makes over 100,000 a year has accumulated wealth, so just taxing their income more would just make it more difficult for them to become wealthy.

And yet taking 30% from someone who makes minimum wage takes much more away from their quality of life than taking 50 or even 80 percent from someone who makes 20mil a year plus bonuses and stock options.

Quote

Also, if we start taxing wealth, then I guess no one can ever retire since it's already difficult for most people to invest and save enough to build up a "nest egg" to enjoy retirement.

Nice straw man argument, I am not even going to comment on this

Quote

I believe in they US system where people can strive to become wealthy, because by doing so they help move the economy. Successful entrepreneurs create jobs. There is nothing wrong with working hard and seeking opportunity and being subsequently rewarded.

I agree. Why do you think I don't? The government CANNOT squeeze more money out of the middle or lower classes. So when the upper classes who run this country push it into a war and don't bother to think that the government needs any kind of budget, they are the ones that ultimately need to help foot the bill, since they CAN afford it.

Quote

Why is it so evil to be rich?

Who said it was evil to be rich? You did. Hypothetical (or is it): You have a group of people who are barely being able to feed their children and barely able to afford to put a roof over their families heads, and a seperate group of people with millions lying around in bank accounts that they don't do anything with. You need more money for public works, military defense, whatever, where do you pull it from? Do you Tax the first group into destruction, and destroy your economy since you don't have much of anyone buying the goods your buisinesses need to sell, or do you tax the people who can afford it?

I agree with you Shin, that everyone should pay a flat, same percentage tax. But here in reality, when the government refuses to follow any kind of budget, and always needs more money, you have to tax the people who it will not ruin to pay those taxes.

You cannot really up import/export tarrifs, because you don't make any more money when people stop trading.

Since you think the current system of taxation is unfair, I want to see what you propose that will A) Deal with the government and its current need for hard cash, and Be 'fair' to every single person in the United States of America.

[Optimus Prime]

Damn Obdi, I couldn't have said it better myself.

Have some rep.

[frookenhauer]

@Caladanbrood, can you change your picture back to what it was, I miss it and I can't take you seriously now, bring back the faustian mask. I know you're not happy with it either because you keep chopping and changing.

Obdigore;362797 said:

Nice straw man argument, I am not even going to comment on this

I agree with you Shin, that everyone should pay a flat, same percentage tax. But here in reality, when the government refuses to follow any kind of budget, and always needs more money, you have to tax the people who it will not ruin to pay those taxes.

Since you think the current system of taxation is unfair, I want to see what you propose that will A) Deal with the government and its current need for hard cash, and Be 'fair' to every single person in the United States of America.

Ditto on the rep, good words and an excellent challenge. Bet you shinreis going to come up with a plan

[Shinrei]

First of all, you're failing by the supposition that by throwing more money at our problems we're going to fix them.

I do not argue from the standpoint that there should be no taxes, NOR do I support a flat tax.

The point where I essentially draw my arguements from is that the federal government is a bungling, inefficient, short-sighted behemoth that is more beholden to its own interests of electability than the interests of the people.

The senate couldn't even run its own FOOD SERVICE properly.

Therefore, NOBODY should be getting squeezed for more money by these clowns. Not the rich, or the poor.

Instead, you cut out the things which are useless, mismanaged, obsolete and misguided and introduce some actual accountability (and accounting practices for that matter).

So when you say "here in reality, when the government refuses to follow any kind of budget, and always needs more money,"

I ask two things:

1) It wasn't always like this and unfortunately we've slid further and further into this mire, but why can't we work to turn it around? America was founded on not wanting to pay taxes. Surely we can engineer a proper budgeting way out of this mess IF THE PEOPLE DEMAND IT.

And 2) I don't know where you're coming from Obdi, but I know others like Optimus Prime are arguing from the standpoint of giving the "spend without consequences" federal government even more programs to bungle around with like universal health care. Why is it ok to tax more for this sort of thing?




"So when the upper classes who run this country push it into a war"
Talk about introducing strawmen. Like all the upper classes were sitting around thinking we needed a war...


And I still say a "strawman" is creating an argument for the otherside and then knocking it down because there is nothing to it. That's not really what you and I did. I said what I did about taxing wealth because you made it sound like you wanted to do so, which would most certainly hit peoples retirement funds considering you need hundreds of thousands of dollars to maintain a middle class existence in retirement.

[Optimus Prime]

Shin you're twisting my words or just down right making them up.

[frookenhauer]

I lose the bet. so no world shattering tax plan as such, but we do get a barrage of cliches. Beholden behemoths, throwing more money and the like.

Shinrei no Shintai;362971 said:

Instead, you cut out the things which are useless, mismanaged, obsolete and misguided and introduce some actual accountability (and accounting practices for that matter)

Agreed, but can you be more specific.

Shinrei no Shintai;362971 said:

The senate couldn't even run its own FOOD SERVICE properly.

Hate to break it to you pal, but most organizations contract out these days, all they've done in this case is chosen the wrong people to do the job.

Shinrei no Shintai;362971 said:

giving the "spend without consequences" federal government even more programs to bungle around with like universal health care. Why is it ok to tax more for this sort of thing?

Its better than being taxed to go to war with a bunch of angry natives and their angrier cousins, armed with AK47s and RPGs sitting atop a huge sand dune under which lies the second biggest reservoir of crude oil in the world.

[Cold Iron]

Solution: we need 2 trends, not 1. The trend towards large international unions (this one is already happening), and the trend towards legislative power for small local governments. The one should control companies and the other individuals.

Thoughts?

[Shinrei]

Xander? Where? You've said on many occasion that you want to tax the rich and you want the government to take care of our health care. What did I make up?

And frookenhauer, what's your problem man... I say what I believe, and you call it cliche. Well let's get a slice of your high and mighty intellect then.

I don't claim to be smart enough to create a tax code. I'm an english major for gods sake.
The senate moved to privatize their food service. That had nothing do to with who they contract out to.

And no, spending irresponsably on war or on health care is irresponsible regardless of where the money goes. Either way, it would be spending money that we don't actually have, i.e. borrowed funds from our friends the chinese and the saudis etc. Borrowing and spending us into inflation and enormous deficit is not my idea of fiscal responsibility, it doesn't matter what you spend it on. "It's the thought that counts" is not a sound basis for government policy.

I may sound conservative, but that doesn't mean I approve of all the money we waste on defense. You want specifics? Wasteful spending by the pentagon could keep me typing on this forum for a day or two.

[Optimus Prime]

I have never said to give the government that "spends without consequence" more...but National Health Care should be one of the things they should handle. Get it right Rush Limbaugh

And yes, I believe taxing the rich is the best and most fair tax policy we've come up with. Convince me of something else.