War on The Rich: Dumbest Idea in History of Man

[The Rabbi]

Regular working class people dont pay income tax by and large.

Bull shit, absolute and complete fucking bullshit. Which middle income people don't pay taxes? You are as just about as completely full of shit as you can possibly be.

Makes you wonder why any one would engage such stupidity. But they do say some astounding things ie middle class people not paying income taxes..

I know people making less than $30,000 per year who pay a higher income tax rate than the people they work for.

Oh yeah? I know people begging in the streets who are paying more than Bill Gates.

Perhaps you just failed to make the distinction between rate and amount.

Perhaps you failed to make the distinction between anecdote and evidence.

 

[Andylusion]

The SS tax is regressive the flat tax treats everyone the same.

Oh it's opposite world today???

The SS tax hits lower income people harder than higher income people THAT is the very definition of a regressive tax.

That's just plain stupid. Lower income people get more out of SS than they put in.. this as opposed to upper income folks who get less out of SS than they put in.

First off... that's totally irrelevant. It doesn't matter what benefits are given out, to determine if a tax is regressive.
Regressive tax - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
"A regressive tax is a tax imposed in such a manner that the tax rate decreases as the amount subject to taxation increases."

Social Security, and Medicare, are both regressive taxes. Benefits are irrelevant to determining whether the tax fits the definition of regressive or not.

Bottom line: It is a regressive tax. You can either accept that, or prove you are disqualified from this discussion.

Now as for benefits to tax ratio, I will in fact concede to you, that at the absolute lowest end of the income spectrum, people get out, more than they put in.

However, I think you need to realize just how few fit that group.

http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/41...dicare-Taxes-and-Benefits-over-a-Lifetime.pdf

A single Male, Earning $45K a year, turning 65 in the year 2015:
Paid in Taxes: $337K

Will collect in benefits: $287K
Female Benefits: $314K (women tend to live longer)

That's significantly less in my book. Which means well more than 50% of the country, is collecting less than they paid in taxes.

Yet it's true that if you earn $20K for your entire life, you will collect far more in benefits, than you paid in taxes.

However, you seems to be missing our point.

If I earn $20,000 a year, until I retire, for doing that I get $12,000 a year in benefits. So taxes keep me broke until I retire, and then I'm even more broke until I die.

Do you think people who live on $12,000 a year in Social Security benefits, are sitting there going "Man this is great! I'm getting back more than I paid in!" while they live in a roach apartment with a beat up 20 year old car to get around in? I did meals on wheels to exactly these people. They are the most pitiful sight you could see.

6.5% of $20,000 a year, is $1,300 a year in taxes.
If you take that $108 a month, and put it into a growth stock mutual fund, over that same time frame of age 20 to age 67, you would end up with..... $1.2 Million dollars.

But thanks to you... those people have $12,000 a year. Now that's a good trade off.

On top of that.....

What you miss, is what advancement those people may have made, had they kept their own money.

Back in the year 1999-2000, I made some really terrible financial mistakes. I spent literally 6 years of my life, paying off loans and debts I had built up in 2 years. In 2006, I paid off nearly all of my debt, and closed out all debts, all credit cards, and all loans of any kind in 2008.

But most of it I paid off in 2006. When I got my account closed letter, and paid-in-full notices in 2006, I tallied up, and found that I had paid off $20,000 worth of debt and loans by 2006.

I received from the Social Security administration, that I had also paid into Social Security $23,000 in taxes.

If *I* had been able to keep *MY* own money, I would NOT have had to spend 6 years of my life working for the bank.

Millions of low wage earners could use that money to.... fix their cars, or repair their homes. Maybe they could have paid for some education, or training. Maybe they could have used the money to start a new business.

Seriously, during that 6 years, I did NOTHING. I bought NOTHING. I didn't even buy new clothes. I wish I had pictures of the rags that I wore during that time. The ripped shirts and torn pants, and so on.

So the Social Security tax, holds people down while they are working, so they can live impoverished when they retire?

And lastly.....

All the calculations, all the estimates, all the graphs and charts, all assume that people sit there and collect their meager $12K a year.

Problem is.... many don't. Most of the retired people, don't just sit on their butts, collecting impoverishment benefits. Most go back to work, because they can't possibly survive on so little.

But when they go to work..... they lose their benefits.

If I reach 67, I am certainly not going to live off of $12K a year. That's not going to happen. I'll keep working.

But then I'll lose my benefits.

So how much benefits will I collect over my taxes paid in, if I keep work? None... in fact, if I keep working, I'll be paying even more taxes into the system, for the benefits I don't receive.

All of that BULL CRAP, that the lowest income people will collect more than they paid in, all fo that is tossed out the window if they keep working at retirement age.

Bottom line..... Socialist Insecurity, is a terrible terrible program that ruins everyone.

And by the way...... It *IS* going broke. The retirement age will have to be raised, and taxes will have to be increased. Sooner, or later, the system will have to be changed, and it will make the already miserable benefit-to-tax ratio, far worse.

Clearly you are just masterbating. You are incapable of reading even simple sentences without going off on complete tangents. But yes SS is a horrible program for the middle class and an even more horrible program for the upper middle class. However, the rate of return being 8x for low income makes SS a good plan for the poor.

So "good plan" is dooming them to impoverishment while they work, and then dooming them to impoverishment while they retire, and if they don't retire and continue to work, then they get nothing from their good plan?

No. It's not. Sorry.

 

[Skull Pilot]

It's not imaginary. You guys are too much. You sit here day in and day out, railing against the rich, calling them every possible name in the book, accusing them of being greedy corrupt assholes, calling for draconian measures to "fix" wealth disparity, demanding we sock it to the rich who you claim are not paying their fair share, harkening back to the old 'robber baron' days, insinuating that wealthy people don't deserve their wealth, but somehow, some way, your attacks are not to be seen as a "war" on them. LOL... Yeah, right! AND... Obamacare was a Republican idea! LMFAO... You guys should do comedy, seriously!

They don't pay anything like their fair share. Regular working people on average pay a far higher proportion of their income in taxes. Just unfortunate I guess that middle class folks can't afford their own corporate lobbyists to write laws.

Regular working class people dont pay income tax by and large.

Bull shit, absolute and complete fucking bullshit. Which middle income people don't pay taxes? You are as just about as completely full of shit as you can possibly be.

Makes you wonder why any one would engage such stupidity. But they do say some astounding things ie middle class people not paying income taxes..

I know people making less than $30,000 per year who pay a higher income tax rate than the people they work for.

bullshit.

Most people making 30K pay a net tax of something less than 10%

 

[zeke]

Hey skull, is paying 10% more or less than 0%?

 

[Skull Pilot]

Hey skull, is paying 10% more or less than 0%?

So now prove to me that people who have employees that make 30K a year pay zero taxes.

 

[Boss]

Hey skull, is paying 10% more or less than 0%?

10% of zero is the same as 0% of zero, is it not???

 

[Barb]

67 pages and you have failed to convince anyone that the rich are our natural masters and should be treated like unaccountable royalty. If anything you have strengthened resolve with your horrible attitude and derisive attitude towards everyone who isn't rich. With few exceptions the rich do not act like you do and have no need for such a mean-ass hostile cheerleader as you.

Screwing with a person's livelihood is going to bring some negative blow-back. Many of them think we are screwing with their livelihood by taxation and regulation while many of the non-wealthy think they are screwing with our livelihood because the recovery seems to be very one-sided and all of the income growth seems to be for the 1% alone. Hostility on your part does not help their case, if they are indeed blameless in the crash or overtaxed or over-regulated or whatever then attitudes such as yours does them a great disservice.

If you really want to help out your aristocratic masters than quit presenting them as people who will kill any or all of us if we get uppity and go to any length to protect their profit margins because that only confirms my feelings that such dangerous people should be opposed.

I don't know where you get your ideas from, ass clown. I'm not here to be nice to you or court your approval of my attitude. My objective wasn't to convince you or anyone else that wealthy people are our masters, or whatever mindless drivel you imagined. It was simply to point out that your War on The Rich is the Dumbest Idea in the History of Man.

I think I did that, and I think I supported my claim well because none of it has been refuted. All we get from you is whining and name calling, along with the usual barrage of Marxist propaganda copy-n-paste that everyone has seen a thousand times. Now you want to scold me like a school marm, as if you have some sort of integrity and authority over me. It's enough to make me LOL.

You keep making these cryptic references to "Marxist Propaganda". Perhaps you can point out the operative phrases so everyone can know what Marxism really looks like......being your field of special expertise and all.

Rule of thumb

If the government is the regulatory entity you have fascism.


If the government owns the means of production then you have socialism

Plain and simple

Over and out

.

If the government is run by corporations you have fascism.

 

[The Rabbi]

67 pages and you have failed to convince anyone that the rich are our natural masters and should be treated like unaccountable royalty. If anything you have strengthened resolve with your horrible attitude and derisive attitude towards everyone who isn't rich. With few exceptions the rich do not act like you do and have no need for such a mean-ass hostile cheerleader as you.

Screwing with a person's livelihood is going to bring some negative blow-back. Many of them think we are screwing with their livelihood by taxation and regulation while many of the non-wealthy think they are screwing with our livelihood because the recovery seems to be very one-sided and all of the income growth seems to be for the 1% alone. Hostility on your part does not help their case, if they are indeed blameless in the crash or overtaxed or over-regulated or whatever then attitudes such as yours does them a great disservice.

If you really want to help out your aristocratic masters than quit presenting them as people who will kill any or all of us if we get uppity and go to any length to protect their profit margins because that only confirms my feelings that such dangerous people should be opposed.

I don't know where you get your ideas from, ass clown. I'm not here to be nice to you or court your approval of my attitude. My objective wasn't to convince you or anyone else that wealthy people are our masters, or whatever mindless drivel you imagined. It was simply to point out that your War on The Rich is the Dumbest Idea in the History of Man.

I think I did that, and I think I supported my claim well because none of it has been refuted. All we get from you is whining and name calling, along with the usual barrage of Marxist propaganda copy-n-paste that everyone has seen a thousand times. Now you want to scold me like a school marm, as if you have some sort of integrity and authority over me. It's enough to make me LOL.

You keep making these cryptic references to "Marxist Propaganda". Perhaps you can point out the operative phrases so everyone can know what Marxism really looks like......being your field of special expertise and all.

Rule of thumb

If the government is the regulatory entity you have fascism.


If the government owns the means of production then you have socialism

Plain and simple

Over and out

.

If the government is run by corporations you have fascism.

I dont think the word means what you think it means.

 

[Discombobulated]

You evidently forgot to read your link.

Boom. Called it or what?

No, I'm saying the information in your link is correct. You just didn't read it, or if you did you didn't understand it.

I am certain you misunderstood it and thought it supported your case. I assure you the opposite is true.

Then you agree with the link in saying that the people who pay no federal income taxes are low income wage earners, not middle class.

Really?

Of the 43 percent of households that will owe no federal income tax this year, nearly half will be off the rolls because their incomes are too low. The rest won’t pay because preferences wipe out the taxes they would otherwise owe - See more at: TaxVox
]

Uh oh!
Like I said, you didnt read the article.

So in other words: No middle income families included in that statistic. You keep trying though, eventually you may come to realize that your ignorance is matched only by your dishonesty.

 

[The Rabbi]

Boom. Called it or what?

No, I'm saying the information in your link is correct. You just didn't read it, or if you did you didn't understand it.

I am certain you misunderstood it and thought it supported your case. I assure you the opposite is true.

Then you agree with the link in saying that the people who pay no federal income taxes are low income wage earners, not middle class.

Really?

Of the 43 percent of households that will owe no federal income tax this year, nearly half will be off the rolls because their incomes are too low. The rest won’t pay because preferences wipe out the taxes they would otherwise owe - See more at: TaxVox
]

Uh oh!
Like I said, you didnt read the article.

So in other words: No middle income families included in that statistic. You keep trying though, eventually you may come to realize that your ignorance is matched only by your dishonesty.

OK so now we're in total denial. Also not a river in Egypt.

 

[Discombobulated]

Funny how all the casualties are middle class in your imaginary war on the rich. Maybe they're just collateral damage or something.

What's funny is how the middle class are still becoming the new wealthy in spite of all you are doing to prevent that from happening. Darnit... if you could just figure out some way to keep all these people from becoming rich, you might be able to sell people on your Neo-Marxism.

A few people holding all the wealth does nothing to expand the middle class. But you keep droning on about Marxism because that must by your safe place, your fall back position when you don't actually have an argument.

I don't care about expanding the middle class, I had rather keep expanding the wealthy instead. It's better for more middle class and poor to become wealthy than for more wealthy to join the middle class and poor.

That makes absolutely no sense of any kind to anyone.....even to rich people.

 

[Discombobulated]

No, I'm saying the information in your link is correct. You just didn't read it, or if you did you didn't understand it.

I am certain you misunderstood it and thought it supported your case. I assure you the opposite is true.

Then you agree with the link in saying that the people who pay no federal income taxes are low income wage earners, not middle class.

Really?

Of the 43 percent of households that will owe no federal income tax this year, nearly half will be off the rolls because their incomes are too low. The rest won’t pay because preferences wipe out the taxes they would otherwise owe - See more at: TaxVox
]

Uh oh!
Like I said, you didnt read the article.

So in other words: No middle income families included in that statistic. You keep trying though, eventually you may come to realize that your ignorance is matched only by your dishonesty.

OK so now we're in total denial. Also not a river in Egypt.

You are apparently as illiterate as you are ignorant and dishonest.

 

[The Rabbi]

Funny how all the casualties are middle class in your imaginary war on the rich. Maybe they're just collateral damage or something.

What's funny is how the middle class are still becoming the new wealthy in spite of all you are doing to prevent that from happening. Darnit... if you could just figure out some way to keep all these people from becoming rich, you might be able to sell people on your Neo-Marxism.

A few people holding all the wealth does nothing to expand the middle class. But you keep droning on about Marxism because that must by your safe place, your fall back position when you don't actually have an argument.

I don't care about expanding the middle class, I had rather keep expanding the wealthy instead. It's better for more middle class and poor to become wealthy than for more wealthy to join the middle class and poor.

That makes absolutely no sense of any kind to anyone.....even to rich people.

That's because you're a ding dong.
Conservatives want everyone to be wealthy.
Liberals want everyone to be poor.

 

[The Rabbi]

I am certain you misunderstood it and thought it supported your case. I assure you the opposite is true.

Then you agree with the link in saying that the people who pay no federal income taxes are low income wage earners, not middle class.

Really?

Of the 43 percent of households that will owe no federal income tax this year, nearly half will be off the rolls because their incomes are too low. The rest won’t pay because preferences wipe out the taxes they would otherwise owe - See more at: TaxVox
]

Uh oh!
Like I said, you didnt read the article.

So in other words: No middle income families included in that statistic. You keep trying though, eventually you may come to realize that your ignorance is matched only by your dishonesty.

OK so now we're in total denial. Also not a river in Egypt.

You are apparently as illiterate as you are ignorant and dishonest.

That's projection.
I quoted the relevant section. You just choose not to believe it because it doesnt fit in with your conceptions as fed to you by liberal media and the like.

 

[RKMBrown]

I didn't deny it. I showed you the graph from the US Census Bureau showing where the declining and shrinking middle class are going. You are the one who wants to deny the obvious facts.

Funny how all the casualties are middle class in your imaginary war on the rich. Maybe they're just collateral damage or something.

It's not imaginary. You guys are too much. You sit here day in and day out, railing against the rich, calling them every possible name in the book, accusing them of being greedy corrupt assholes, calling for draconian measures to "fix" wealth disparity, demanding we sock it to the rich who you claim are not paying their fair share, harkening back to the old 'robber baron' days, insinuating that wealthy people don't deserve their wealth, but somehow, some way, your attacks are not to be seen as a "war" on them. LOL... Yeah, right! AND... Obamacare was a Republican idea! LMFAO... You guys should do comedy, seriously!

They don't pay anything like their fair share. Regular working people on average pay a far higher proportion of their income in taxes. Just unfortunate I guess that middle class folks can't afford their own corporate lobbyists to write laws.

Regular working class people dont pay income tax by and large.

Poorest 20% pay 10% state/local taxes and once again

"Households in the middle fifth of the income spectrum paid an average of 11.5 percent of their income in overall federal taxes in 2010, the latest year for which data are available, according to CBO."

Federal Income Taxes on Middle-Income Families Remain Near Historic Lows mdash Center on Budget and Policy Priorities


Mittens probably averaged less TAXES than people making $50,000 a year, THAT is the posit you lying, distorting POS

ROFL Retard thinks the bottom 20% of income earners includes people who have no income. ROFL

 

[Discombobulated]

Then you agree with the link in saying that the people who pay no federal income taxes are low income wage earners, not middle class.

Really?

Of the 43 percent of households that will owe no federal income tax this year, nearly half will be off the rolls because their incomes are too low. The rest won’t pay because preferences wipe out the taxes they would otherwise owe - See more at: TaxVox
]

Uh oh!
Like I said, you didnt read the article.

So in other words: No middle income families included in that statistic. You keep trying though, eventually you may come to realize that your ignorance is matched only by your dishonesty.

OK so now we're in total denial. Also not a river in Egypt.

You are apparently as illiterate as you are ignorant and dishonest.

That's projection.
I quoted the relevant section. You just choose not to believe it because it doesnt fit in with your conceptions as fed to you by liberal media and the like.

Why can't you get through the day without lying? You tried posting a link you didn't understand yesterday and now you want to bluff your way through again. It isn't working.

 

[Discombobulated]

Funny how all the casualties are middle class in your imaginary war on the rich. Maybe they're just collateral damage or something.

What's funny is how the middle class are still becoming the new wealthy in spite of all you are doing to prevent that from happening. Darnit... if you could just figure out some way to keep all these people from becoming rich, you might be able to sell people on your Neo-Marxism.

A few people holding all the wealth does nothing to expand the middle class. But you keep droning on about Marxism because that must by your safe place, your fall back position when you don't actually have an argument.

I don't care about expanding the middle class, I had rather keep expanding the wealthy instead. It's better for more middle class and poor to become wealthy than for more wealthy to join the middle class and poor.

That makes absolutely no sense of any kind to anyone.....even to rich people.

That's because you're a ding dong.
Conservatives want everyone to be wealthy.
Liberals want everyone to be poor.

More rhetorical horse shit with no basis in reality.

 

[Discombobulated]

Bull shit, absolute and complete fucking bullshit. Which middle income people don't pay taxes? You are as just about as completely full of shit as you can possibly be.

Makes you wonder why any one would engage such stupidity. But they do say some astounding things ie middle class people not paying income taxes..

I know people making less than $30,000 per year who pay a higher income tax rate than the people they work for.

Oh yeah? I know people begging in the streets who are paying more than Bill Gates.

Perhaps you just failed to make the distinction between rate and amount.

Perhaps you failed to make the distinction between anecdote and evidence.

That's exactly what you do every day.

 

[RKMBrown]

Oh it's opposite world today???

The SS tax hits lower income people harder than higher income people THAT is the very definition of a regressive tax.

That's just plain stupid. Lower income people get more out of SS than they put in.. this as opposed to upper income folks who get less out of SS than they put in.

First off... that's totally irrelevant. It doesn't matter what benefits are given out, to determine if a tax is regressive.
Regressive tax - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
"A regressive tax is a tax imposed in such a manner that the tax rate decreases as the amount subject to taxation increases."

Social Security, and Medicare, are both regressive taxes. Benefits are irrelevant to determining whether the tax fits the definition of regressive or not.

Bottom line: It is a regressive tax. You can either accept that, or prove you are disqualified from this discussion.

Now as for benefits to tax ratio, I will in fact concede to you, that at the absolute lowest end of the income spectrum, people get out, more than they put in.

However, I think you need to realize just how few fit that group.

http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/41...dicare-Taxes-and-Benefits-over-a-Lifetime.pdf

A single Male, Earning $45K a year, turning 65 in the year 2015:
Paid in Taxes: $337K

Will collect in benefits: $287K
Female Benefits: $314K (women tend to live longer)

That's significantly less in my book. Which means well more than 50% of the country, is collecting less than they paid in taxes.

Yet it's true that if you earn $20K for your entire life, you will collect far more in benefits, than you paid in taxes.

However, you seems to be missing our point.

If I earn $20,000 a year, until I retire, for doing that I get $12,000 a year in benefits. So taxes keep me broke until I retire, and then I'm even more broke until I die.

Do you think people who live on $12,000 a year in Social Security benefits, are sitting there going "Man this is great! I'm getting back more than I paid in!" while they live in a roach apartment with a beat up 20 year old car to get around in? I did meals on wheels to exactly these people. They are the most pitiful sight you could see.

6.5% of $20,000 a year, is $1,300 a year in taxes.
If you take that $108 a month, and put it into a growth stock mutual fund, over that same time frame of age 20 to age 67, you would end up with..... $1.2 Million dollars.

But thanks to you... those people have $12,000 a year. Now that's a good trade off.

On top of that.....

What you miss, is what advancement those people may have made, had they kept their own money.

Back in the year 1999-2000, I made some really terrible financial mistakes. I spent literally 6 years of my life, paying off loans and debts I had built up in 2 years. In 2006, I paid off nearly all of my debt, and closed out all debts, all credit cards, and all loans of any kind in 2008.

But most of it I paid off in 2006. When I got my account closed letter, and paid-in-full notices in 2006, I tallied up, and found that I had paid off $20,000 worth of debt and loans by 2006.

I received from the Social Security administration, that I had also paid into Social Security $23,000 in taxes.

If *I* had been able to keep *MY* own money, I would NOT have had to spend 6 years of my life working for the bank.

Millions of low wage earners could use that money to.... fix their cars, or repair their homes. Maybe they could have paid for some education, or training. Maybe they could have used the money to start a new business.

Seriously, during that 6 years, I did NOTHING. I bought NOTHING. I didn't even buy new clothes. I wish I had pictures of the rags that I wore during that time. The ripped shirts and torn pants, and so on.

So the Social Security tax, holds people down while they are working, so they can live impoverished when they retire?

And lastly.....

All the calculations, all the estimates, all the graphs and charts, all assume that people sit there and collect their meager $12K a year.

Problem is.... many don't. Most of the retired people, don't just sit on their butts, collecting impoverishment benefits. Most go back to work, because they can't possibly survive on so little.

But when they go to work..... they lose their benefits.

If I reach 67, I am certainly not going to live off of $12K a year. That's not going to happen. I'll keep working.

But then I'll lose my benefits.

So how much benefits will I collect over my taxes paid in, if I keep work? None... in fact, if I keep working, I'll be paying even more taxes into the system, for the benefits I don't receive.

All of that BULL CRAP, that the lowest income people will collect more than they paid in, all fo that is tossed out the window if they keep working at retirement age.

Bottom line..... Socialist Insecurity, is a terrible terrible program that ruins everyone.

And by the way...... It *IS* going broke. The retirement age will have to be raised, and taxes will have to be increased. Sooner, or later, the system will have to be changed, and it will make the already miserable benefit-to-tax ratio, far worse.

Clearly you are just masterbating. You are incapable of reading even simple sentences without going off on complete tangents. But yes SS is a horrible program for the middle class and an even more horrible program for the upper middle class. However, the rate of return being 8x for low income makes SS a good plan for the poor.

So "good plan" is dooming them to impoverishment while they work, and then dooming them to impoverishment while they retire, and if they don't retire and continue to work, then they get nothing from their good plan?

No. It's not. Sorry.

By that argument all insurance is a bad plan... right up to the part where you need it. My point is that by average the poor get a very good deal with SS as compared to everyone else that gets to foot the bill for the poor.

 

[Barb]

See page 40 ratio of benefits to taxes:
http://www.hks.harvard.edu/jeffreyliebman/distcurrfinalv2.pdf

If your income is less than 50 percent of the poverty line you receive 89.64 times more in SS benefits than you put in.

If your income is between 50 to 100 percent of the poverty line you receive 7.49 times more in SS than you put in.

If your income is between 100 to 200 percent of the poverty line you receive 2.28 times more in SS than you put in.

If your income is between 200 to 300 percent of the poverty line you receive 0.82% percent of what you put in.

If your income is greater than three times the poverty line you receive 26% of what you put in.

BOO fuckem who. Lettuce know your fiscal and mailing address so the poor can more efficiently bleed you dry. Fucking piker.