• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

47% will pay no federal income tax

Status
Not open for further replies.
Pseudo_Sam said:
No. You are absloutely ridiculous.

You sure? Here's a pretty good example:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/05/business/economy/05simmons.html?_r=1&dbk


For most of the 133 years since its founding in a small city in Wisconsin, the Simmons Bedding enjoyed an illustrious history.

Simmons says it will soon file for bankruptcy protection, as part of an agreement by its current owners to sell the company — the seventh time it has been sold in a little more than two decades — all after being owned for short periods by a parade of different investment groups, known as private equity firms, which try to buy undervalued companies, mostly with borrowed money.

But Thomas H. Lee Partners of Boston has not only escaped unscathed, it has made a profit. The investment firm, which bought Simmons in 2003, has pocketed around $77 million in profit, even as the company’s fortunes have declined. THL collected hundreds of millions of dollars from the company in the form of special dividends. It also paid itself millions more in fees, first for buying the company, then for helping run it. Last year, the firm even gave itself a small raise.

How so many people could make so much money on a company that has been driven into bankruptcy is a tale of these financial times and an example of a growing phenomenon in corporate America.

Every step along the way, the buyers put Simmons deeper into debt. The financiers borrowed more and more money to pay ever higher prices for the company, enabling each previous owner to cash out profitably.

These private investors were able to buy companies like Simmons with borrowed money and put down relatively little of their own cash. Then, not long after, they often borrowed even more money, using the company’s assets as collateral — just like home buyers who took out home equity loans on top of their first mortgages. For the financiers, the rewards were enormous.

Twice after buying Simmons, THL borrowed more. It used $375 million of that money to pay itself a dividend, thus recouping all of the cash it put down, and then some.

These private investors were able to buy companies like Simmons with borrowed money and put down relatively little of their own cash. Then, not long after, they often borrowed even more money, using the company’s assets as collateral — just like home buyers who took out home equity loans on top of their first mortgages. For the financiers, the rewards were enormous.

Twice after buying Simmons, THL borrowed more. It used $375 million of that money to pay itself a dividend, thus recouping all of the cash it put down, and then some.

A result: THL was guaranteed a profit regardless of how Simmons performed. It did not matter that the company was left owing far more than it was worth, just as many people profited from the mortgage business while many homeowners found themselves underwater.
...
But nobody, it seems, was listening. Six months after acquiring Simmons, THL set in motion plans to take the company public. And by December 2004, THL found a way to get part of its initial investment back. Simmons issued debt that required the company to pay a hefty 10 percent annual interest rate. The proceeds were used to pay THL a dividend of $137 million.
...
By early 2007, at the very top of the credit market bubble, THL took a bit more out of Simmons. It created a holding company that it used to issue $300 million more in debt, which paid an additional $238 million dividend to the private equity firm. With that, THL had recouped its entire $327 million equity investment in Simmons and booked a profit of around $48 million. (It made an additional $28.5 million in various fees over the years.)

THL was hardly alone in undertaking this sort of financial engineering, known as a dividend recapitalization. From 2003 to 2007, 188 companies controlled by private equity firms issued more than $75 billion in debt that was used to pay dividends to the buyout firms.

Now on the flip side:

From the start, Noble Rogers loved working at Simmons.

“There were picnics, March of Dimes walks, Christmas parties, and we always had Halloween parties. It was a really family-oriented company,” Mr. Rogers, 50, recalled. “I told my wife that this was a great place for me to work. A great place for me to retire, to make a living at.”

For a long time, it was. For 22 years, Mr. Rogers worked at Simmons, the bulk of those years at a factory in Mableton, outside Atlanta. After operating the coiler machine for the company’s Beautyrest mattress, he moved into maintenance and kept all of the plant’s machinery humming.

Over the years, as Simmons passed from one private equity firm to another, and as Mr. Rogers became president of the local union at the plant, he saw little difference on the plant floor. Then, in the spring of 2008, when the slowing economy had begun to hurt sales, Simmons laid off the night shift at the Mableton plant. And on Sept. 18 that year, it gathered employees in the cafeteria to say that the plant was closing.

“So many people were hurt because they thought this was a great company to work for and they planned on spending the rest of their lives here. Their families were here. They bought houses and cars here,” Mr. Rogers recalled. “After this happened, people were really struggling.”

Between the closings and other cuts, Simmons let go of more than a quarter of its work force last year, said its chief financial officer, William S. Creekmuir.

Mr. Rogers, who received his union-negotiated severance package of two months’ pay, said he and other union representatives had tried to get a little more for workers, particularly those who would have been eligible for retirement. Simmons had a long history of giving retiring employees a bonus of $20 for each year worked and a free mattress set, Mr. Rogers said.

“They wouldn’t give us anything,” he said.

In the months after he lost his job, Mr. Rogers nearly lost his home to foreclosure and struggled to pay his family’s bills. Mr. Rogers, who eventually landed a job at an air filter company and picked up part-time work doing maintenance at an apartment complex, said Simmons bore little resemblance to the company he once loved.​

So yeah, go defend those private equity guys who basically raped and pillaged a company that thousands of people counted on for an income and their retirement. Go defend those guys who stacked more debt on top of Simmons only so that they could cash out and pay themselves a handsome sum while leaving Simmons in bankruptcy. Oops! Our bad! Sorry, dude! A few dozen people walk away millions while a few thousand people walk away without their pensions and without a job. Sound like a fair trade to you?

Of course, this isn't saying that all of those in the top 1-5% didn't work for their money. Certainly trial lawyers may put in over a hundred hours a week when working on an intense case. A doctor may pull long hours and perform critical surgeries at great risk and what not. But there's also a class of super wealthy that make most of their money off of investments (money from money instead of money from work) where capital gains taxes are less than half of their marginal tax rate.
 
LM4sure said:
One poor person's contribution may not be meaningful, but if you take a small percentage from each of those 30 million poor people, it would make a difference. But lets not do that. Lets just make all the rich people front the bill. That's fair! (sarcasm)

And good luck to Obama in his promise not to raise taxes for the middle class. I don't know how long he'll be able to keep that promise. Bush Sr all over again?

Hmmm, tax 30 million people who really need that money because, you know, THEY'RE POOR or take it from the rich fucks who don't need it anyway. Such a morally difficult question! I almost feel sorry for the rich.
 

Nerevar

they call me "Man Gravy".
CharlieDigital said:
Of course, this isn't saying that all of those in the top 1-5% didn't work for their money. Certainly trial lawyers may put in over a hundred hours a week when working on an intense case. A doctor may pull long hours and perform critical surgeries at great risk and what not. But there's also a class of super wealthy that make most of their money off of investments (money from money instead of money from work) where capital gains taxes are less than half of their marginal tax rate.

Most of the fantastically rich in this country gained most of their money from finance or real estate (look at who owns most sports teams in this country) who have very debatable contributions to the bottom line of the economy. Doctors and lawyers are hardly the top tier of American rich. And as you so clearly pointed out - capital gains taxes are taxed at a different rate than income (yes, real estate transactions are capital gains). It's absurd that we don't tax them the same, so the upper-middle class (doctors, lawyers, etc.) who make their money through actual incomes pay a disproportionate share of taxation for this country.
 

Stinkles

Clothed, sober, cooperative
Pseudo_Sam said:
my liberal friends know only of what they see on television.


You're like a 19 year old JayDubya in training, but without the basic grasp or rhetoric, logic or linguistics.
 

PantherLotus

Professional Schmuck
Just wanted to point out that the people dancing around their racist thoughts by using euphemisms like "welfare moms" and "deadbeats" and "poppin' babies out" are disgusting people. You're not fooling anybody. We know what you mean.
 
PantherLotus said:
Just wanted to point out that the people dancing around their racist thoughts by using euphemisms like "welfare moms" and "deadbeats" and "poppin' babies out" are disgusting people. You're not fooling anybody. We know what you mean.

So it's not bad enough they're being elitist, you have to make them racist? Clearly elitism doesn't have enough stigma alone these days.
 

PantherLotus

Professional Schmuck
Skiptastic said:
So it's not bad enough they're being elitist, you have to make them racist? Clearly elitism doesn't have enough stigma alone these days.

I didn't say they were racist. I said they were saying racist things. Also, lol.
 

Gallbaro

Banned
PantherLotus said:
Just wanted to point out that the people dancing around their racist thoughts by using euphemisms like "welfare moms" and "deadbeats" and "poppin' babies out" are disgusting people. You're not fooling anybody. We know what you mean.

Financial class breeds those attributes, not some genetic disposition that does.

Plenty of white trash in homogeneous nations. Minority races just happen to have a disproportionate representation in the lesser financial class.
 
PantherLotus said:
I didn't say they were racist. I said they were saying racist things. Also, lol.

Don't try dancing around your implications of racism by not blatantly saying they're racist. You're not fooling anybody. We know what you mean. :p
 

Zero Hero

Member
Wow!

The pandering to the wealthy is a t scary levels ITT. Many serfs here are answering the call of of their corporate masters to come to their defense. Defense against truth and the triumph of ignorance.
 

ToxicAdam

Member
PantherLotus said:
Just wanted to point out that the people dancing around their racist thoughts by using euphemisms like "welfare moms" and "deadbeats" and "poppin' babies out" are disgusting people. You're not fooling anybody. We know what you mean.


This is just a lazy attack from a dipshit. No different from Jimmy Carter, really.

single mothers living in poverty with children under 18 to support -- we find little difference in welfare participation by race: 74.6% of African Americans in such dire straits are on welfare, compared with 64.5% of the poor white single moms.


So really, YOU'RE the one with racist thoughts for assuming that black women are synonymous with "welfare mom".
 

Evolved1

make sure the pudding isn't too soggy but that just ruins everything
PantherLotus said:
Just wanted to point out that the people dancing around their racist thoughts by using euphemisms like "welfare moms" and "deadbeats" and "poppin' babies out" are disgusting people. You're not fooling anybody. We know what you mean.

Those phrases are often used in a racist context but I don't necessarily believe they always have racial connotations. Maybe that's naivety speaking but I'd like to give people the benefit of the doubt. I mean... it's foul enough already without mixing in racial prejudices.

Gallbaro said:
Financial class breeds those attributes, not some genetic disposition that does.

Plenty of white trash in homogeneous nations. Minority races just happen to have a disproportionate representation in the lesser financial class.

yes, this. well said.
 

Nerevar

they call me "Man Gravy".
ToxicAdam said:
This is just a lazy attack from a dipshit. No different from Jimmy Carter, really.

So really, YOU'RE the one with racist thoughts for assuming that black women are synonymous with "welfare mom".

Like there was any doubt when Reagan was calling out the Chicago "welfare queens" (who, by the way, never actually existed).
 

Ponn

Banned
Wait, are there people in this thread STILL defending trickle down economics and thinking (or at least trying to make people believe they think) that it works??

oldrichguyslaughingwithreagan.gif
 

Evolved1

make sure the pudding isn't too soggy but that just ruins everything
Ponn01 said:
Wait, are there people in this thread STILL defending trickle down economics and thinking (or at least trying to make people believe they think) that it works??
Uhm... not really? Pretty much everything except that, actually. This thread is pretty fringy... no one is really advocating the status quo.

Ponn01 said:
oldrichguyslaughingwithreagan.gif

dontchamean.jpeg?
 

PantherLotus

Professional Schmuck
ToxicAdam said:
It was 30 years ago. Time to let it go.

A little close to home there? You're awfully defensive, but glad you're acknowledging those attacks as a poor strategy by the Republican Party.

Those words and phrases are specifically chosen to illicit an expected response, designed by people with a specific target audience in mind. Which is why the "haha! YOU'RE the one that assumes I meant black people!" response is pedantic. The people that use such euphemisms are typically the white version of the people they are conditioned to despise.
 
Ponn01 said:
Wait, are there people in this thread STILL defending trickle down economics and thinking (or at least trying to make people believe they think) that it works??

oldrichguyslaughingwithreagan.gif

Arguing with libertarians is like arguing with religious fundamentalists. Their interpretation of the US constitution and Friedman's theories are their gospel and they'll keep repeating that drivel to the rest of us no matter how many times they've been proven wrong or how much logic you use to argue against them.
 

Nerevar

they call me "Man Gravy".
ToxicAdam said:
It was 30 years ago. Time to let it go.

I think you missed the point - it was essentially the Reagan campaign that created and used a lot of these phrases that entered the common lexicon, and the phrase was undeniably racist at the time. You said that it wasn't a racist comment, but historically it has definitely been used in that way.
 

Yaweee

Member
fortified_concept said:
Arguing with libertarians is like arguing with religious fundamentalists. Their interpretation of the US constitution and Friedman's theories are their gospel and they'll keep pounding that drivel to the rest of us no matter how many times they've been proven wrong or how much logic you use to argue against them.

I just don't get the GAF characterization of libertarianism. There's quite a bit of philosophical variety among libertarian camps, but GAF seems to treat them all like fringe Gold Standard loonies. Usually I'd call myself Libertarian, but by GAF standards I'm probably pretty damn liberal.
 

Evolved1

make sure the pudding isn't too soggy but that just ruins everything
PantherLotus said:
A little close to home there? You're awfully defensive, but glad you're acknowledging those attacks as a poor strategy by the Republican Party.

Do you still beat your wife?

PantherLotus said:
Those words and phrases are specifically chosen to illicit an expected response, designed by people with a specific target audience in mind. Which is why the "haha! YOU'RE the one that assumes I meant black people!" response is pedantic. The people that use such euphemisms are typically the white version of the people they are conditioned to despise.

Sometimes this is probably true...
 

ToxicAdam

Member
PantherLotus said:
A little close to home there? You're awfully defensive. Those words and phrases are specifically chosen to illicit an expected response, designed by people with a specific target audience in mind.

Which is why the "haha! YOU'RE the one that assumes I meant black people!" response is pedantic. The people that use such euphemisms are typically the white version of the people they are conditioned to despise.


Nice backpeddle. We've already established that you're the one who brought race into this conversation. Don't turn it back on me.

So while Reagan campaigned on that rhetoric in ancient times, Bill Clinton is the one who pulled the trigger on ending "welfare as we know it". Guess what? It was a success and Clinton is proud of it.

Nerevar said:
I think you missed the point - it was essentially the Reagan campaign that created and used a lot of these phrases that entered the common lexicon, and the phrase was undeniably racist at the time. You said that it wasn't a racist comment, but historically it has definitely been used in that way.


I don't expect someone that has been breastfed liberal propaganda to see it a different way. I'm not going to change your mind. Anytime a white Republican espouses a program that has an effect on poor or racial minorities, it will be deemd a "racist" attack. That's just the nature of our polarized society.
 

Ponn

Banned
recklessmind said:
Uhm... not really? Pretty much everything except that, actually. This thread is pretty fringy... no one is really advocating the status quo.

just this

Private charities exist as a direct result of the inherent goodness in people. Just because Uncle Sam isn't forcefully taking my money and siphoning it off to the populace doesn't mean I can't have morals. Let's be reasonable here, people.

and this

and people are more charitable if its not taken from them

I still hear a couple libertarian radio show hosts that cling to it to. I just didn't believe I would see some gaffers buying into it.


dontchamean.jpeg?

I'm old school with the .gif's
 
Yaweee said:
I just don't get the GAF characterization of libertarianism. There's quite a bit of philosophical variety among libertarian camps, but GAF seems to treat them all like fringe Gold Standard loonies. Usually I'd call myself Libertarian, but by GAF standards I'm probably pretty damn liberal.

It's just the Libertarians who are vocal on GAF (and propbably on other sites). I've long said that a lot of libertarian princples I agree with, just not the degree to which they are proposed.
 
Yaweee said:
I just don't get the GAF characterization of libertarianism. There's quite a bit of philosophical variety among libertarian camps, but GAF seems to treat them all like fringe Gold Standard loonies. Usually I'd call myself Libertarian, but by GAF standards I'm probably pretty damn liberal.

You can easily realize that the trickle down effect is simply bullshit if you study the history of Latin American countries where the Chicago school of economics experiments took place (or you know you could notice that in your own country -any capitalist country will do). So is the delusion that a free market can self regulate. The economic collapse proved that.

But of course Libertarians found a new excuse about that. It was the Fed's fault that banks were creating pyramid schemes because if the Fed didn't exist they wouldn't take all those risks afraid that they'll become bankrupt. In other words libertarians claim that the Fed was their safety net. What they failed to mention of course is that many of these banks went bankrupt but still did it. That's because with or without a safety net greedy fucks will always exploit the lack of regulation and will always think of ways to make quick money. It's that simple.

Btw the banks are still creating pyramid schemes even after what happened. Props to Obama for taking care of that. What a leader.
 

Nerevar

they call me "Man Gravy".
ToxicAdam said:
I don't expect someone that has been breastfed liberal propaganda to see it a different way. I'm not going to change your mind. Anytime a white Republican espouses a program that has an effect on poor or racial minorities, it will be deemd a "racist" attack. That's just the nature of our polarized society.

I'm just here to call a spade a spade. As someone who lived through the 70s yourself TA, I'd expect you to understand that it's insightful to give the kids around here a little history lesson. It doesn't take a pair of "liberal propaganda" glasses to see through transparent attacks on poor racial minorities either, and it (unfortunately) is definitely not limited to the Republican side of the aisle.
 

Gallbaro

Banned
fortified_concept said:
You can easily realize that the trickle down effect is simply bullshit if you study the history of Latin American countries where the Chicago school of economics experiments took place (or you know you could notice that in your own country -any capitalist country will do). So is the delusion that a free market can self regulate. The economic collapse proved that.

But of course Libertarians found a new excuse about that. It was the Fed's fault that banks were creating pyramid schemes because if the Fed didn't exist they wouldn't take all those risks afraid that they'll become bankrupt. Fed was their safety net. What they failed to mention of course is that many of these banks went bankrupt but still did it. That's because with or without a safety net greedy fucks will always exploit the lack of regulation and will always think of ways to make quick money. It's that simple.

Greedy fucks will also exploit regulation, creating high entry barriers, too big to fail financial institutions where created by both a lack and too much regulations, with the cumulative effect of discouraging competition from new entrants.

But what is your ideal system? Your constant arguments against capitalism would lead one to believe you to be a stringent communist, but their are even more examples of that systems failures. Die hard Jefferson/Gandhi agrarian?
 

Evolved1

make sure the pudding isn't too soggy but that just ruins everything
Ponn01 said:
I still hear a couple libertarian radio show hosts that cling to it to. I just didn't believe I would see some gaffers buying into it.

I guess I just don't associate libertarians with trickle-down theory...
 

Gallbaro

Banned
recklessmind said:
I guess I just don't associate libertarians with trickle-down theory...

Libertarianism is not a trickle down theory belief at all. I think most libertarians believe government regulation allows monopolies and discourages competition.
 
Gallbaro said:
Greedy fucks will also exploit regulation, creating high entry barriers, too big to fail financial institutions where created by both a lack and too much regulations, with the cumulative effect of discouraging competition from new entrants.

But what is your ideal system? Your constant arguments against capitalism would lead one to believe you to be a stringent communist, but their are even more examples of that systems failures. Die hard Jefferson/Gandhi agrarian?

I'm a socialist. And I still fail to understand how high entry barriers can be created by exploiting regulation. Unless you're talking about the situation where the government is being controlled/influenced by a corporation or conglomerate of corporations... which is another problem created by capitalism:

Corporations and the rich become so powerful that they can control entire governments aka corporatism the evolution of capitalism.
 

Chinner

Banned
just read this thread and it made me sick in my soup. you know whats its time for guys:

death to america. just bomb that shit and forget that little horrible mistake.
 

ToxicAdam

Member
Nerevar said:
I'm just here to call a spade a spade. As someone who lived through the 70s yourself TA, I'd expect you to understand that it's insightful to give the kids around here a little history lesson. It doesn't take a pair of "liberal propaganda" glasses to see through transparent attacks on poor racial minorities either, and it (unfortunately) is definitely not limited to the Republican side of the aisle.


That's fine, but those thinly-veiled racial attacks of the past have less and less impact or meaning today. While they may play to certain areas of the country (South Carolina) they will not let you win a national election. Aside from the changing demographics of our country, they are not based in reality.

So, while what Reagan did was wrong or moreso his speechwriters (probably Buchanan), the issue he was attacking (welfare reform) was a very real problem in America at that time. A problem that Democrats fought for years because they painted it as a "racial issue". They backed themselves into a corner for poltical points and hurt millions of poor people for years to come.
 

Xdrive05

Member
Ponn01 said:
Wait, are there people in this thread STILL defending trickle down economics and thinking (or at least trying to make people believe they think) that it works??

oldrichguyslaughingwithreagan.gif

1085.jpg


Do continue. :lol
 

Nerevar

they call me "Man Gravy".
ToxicAdam said:
That's fine, but those thinly-veiled racial attacks of the past have less and less impact or meaning today. While they may play to certain areas of the country (South Carolina) they will not let you win a national election. Aside from the changing demographics of our country, they are not based in reality.

So, while what Reagan did was wrong or moreso his speechwriters (probably Buchanan), the issue he was attacking (welfare reform) was a very real problem in America at that time. A problem that Democrats fought for years because they painted it as a "racial issue". They backed themselves into a corner for poltical points and hurt millions of poor people for years to come.

you can assign blame to either side, really, but as usual the truth lies somewhere in the middle. And as to your first point, while the issues change, the context of the debate rarely does. For a modern-day example of this exact point, look at the immigration debate - completely paralyzed because the racist undertones of the debate prevent any real progress from occurring. You can again attempt to lay blame at the feet of the democrats if you want, but from where I stand there seems to be 1 party wholly unwilling to compromise on any issue.
 

Gallbaro

Banned
fortified_concept said:
I'm a socialist. And I still fail to understand how high entry barriers can be created by exploiting regulation. Unless you're talking about the situation where the government is being controlled/influenced by a corporation or conglomerate of corporations... which is another problem created by capitalism: corporations and rich people powerful enough to control entire governments.

Almost every single regulation has a cost associated with it, both fixed and variable. Larger corporations who do often design new regulations can absorb such costs with much greater ease and often it will not affect their marketable product much. Smaller firms and start up firms do not have such large liquidity and are at a cost disadvantage when competing, harming their end product. So regulation in its current firm encourages the centralization of power in large corporations, this is actually quite prevalent in socialized countries.

The above scenario describing regulation is called "People's Choice," while it is a little too cynical for my tastes seems like looking into it would actually agree with many of your views.

I happen to believe in a more watered down version, where such corruption does exist and corporations do right the rules. But that federal regulation is just inherently designed to regulate larger, interstate companies with a greater marketplace dominance, since the federal government cant be bothered with the issues of many companies in many small markets. It is just a side effect that entrepreneurs have to suffer through regulation designed for large corporations.
 

ToxicAdam

Member
Nerevar said:
And as to your first point, while the issues change, the context of the debate rarely does. For a modern-day example of this exact point, look at the immigration debate - completely paralyzed because the racist undertones of the debate prevent any real progress from occurring. You can again attempt to lay blame at the feet of the democrats if you want, but from where I stand there seems to be 1 party wholly unwilling to compromise on any issue.


Like I said, there is no way I will ever change your mind.

Whenever Republicans try to reach out to minorities it is always shot down as a political ploy. Anytime a minority is promoted within their ranks (Judge Thomas, Condoleeza Rice, Michael Steele, Gonzalez) they are met with n times the vehemence that a white candidate in an equal position would receive. While Clinton made it a political point to say "I will create a cabinet that looks like America". Bush just did it. Didn't pat himself on the back about it.

When Bush broached the topic of immigration reform the Democrats were uniformly against it, calling it "a political ploy that offers a false promise of legitimacy". Meanwhile, many of the same issues will be included in the Obama bill when it is presented.

When Clinton passed the Welfare Reform law, he called it a testament to compromise. Who exactly was against it all those years? The Democrats.

The fact of the matter is, Democrats want no part of anything to do with helping minorities or the poor unless their name is on the bill. They will allow for them to suffer for years or decades to score political points and keep their constituency intact. That is just sad.

you can assign blame to either side, really, but as usual the truth lies somewhere in the middle.

Well, that I can agree with. The Republicans are saddled with a part of their constituency being the racist south and sometimes deserve the grief they get. Just not all the time.
 
ToxicAdam said:
The fact of the matter is, Democrats want no part of anything to do with helping minorities or the poor unless their name is on the bill. They will allow for them to suffer for years or decades to score political points and keep their constituency in tact.

When did Obama renounce his affiliation with the Democratic party?
 

dave is ok

aztek is ok
lol @ people defending the top 1%

What the fuck is wrong with you people? Do you know how little these people pay in capital gains? Do you know where that money would end up going if it didn't go to the U.S. government? Probably to the U.S. government only in the form of lobbying for even less regulation on their private interests and more loopholes. :lol

The super wealthy have RUINED this country over the past couple decades. They are at the point where it is too much work to create a bubble and exploit it - so now they're just taking the money straight out of the pockets of the U.S. taxpayers.
 
dave is ok said:
lol @ people defending the top 1%

What the fuck is wrong with you people? Do you know how little these people pay in capital gains?
It's ironic that many people call for a flat tax, which would result in higher taxes for the wealthy due to low cap gain tax.
 

Anno

Member
The class warfare here, on both sides, is crazy. Their are people who take advantage of both sides of the system and they are no better than one another. Life isn't fair and not everyone can be rich. If you don't even try you shouldn't complain. The 'rich' people at my office work 60-70 hour weeks and make risky choices with their money and the companies; the poor ones dick around in the hallways and spends hundreds they don't have on stuff they don't need. Some people deserve to be poor for their decisions.
 

Evolved1

make sure the pudding isn't too soggy but that just ruins everything
Anno said:
The class warfare here, on both sides, is crazy. Their are people who take advantage of both sides of the system and they are no better than one another. Life isn't fair and not everyone can be rich. If you don't even try you shouldn't complain. The 'rich' people at my office work 60-70 hour weeks and make risky choices with their money and the companies; the poor ones dick around in the hallways and spends hundreds they don't have on stuff they don't need. Some people deserve to be poor for their decisions.

Guy... read your own post for christ's sake. Is your attention span that short you can contradict yourself in the same paragraph?

Wow.
 
Anno said:
The class warfare here, on both sides, is crazy. Their are people who take advantage of both sides of the system and they are no better than one another. Life isn't fair and not everyone can be rich. If you don't even try you shouldn't complain. The 'rich' people at my office work 60-70 hour weeks and make risky choices with their money and the companies; the poor ones dick around in the hallways and spends hundreds they don't have on stuff they don't need. Some people deserve to be poor for their decisions.


that has absolutely nothing to do with what is going on in this thread.
 
Anno said:
Some people deserve to be poor for their decisions.

There is no doubt about this.

Many poor people are poor for a reason: because they lack the drive to improve their lot in life.

But there are many other poor people who work long hours, multiple jobs, and yet are still on the brink of poverty. A big part of this is opportunity. I think that being a first generation immigrant family gives me a certain perspective on this such that I can't help but align myself with somewhat socialistic principles. My mom, sister, and I lived in a small, 4 room apartment (bedroom, living area, kitchen, bathroom) which we rented for $300/month when we came here in the 80's.

Now my mom owns three houses (two she rents, one commercial, one residential), my sister went to Wharton, and I'm in six figures as a consultant and easily paying down a mortgage on a $430k house. How? Opportunity. And to a large degree, that's what this is all about: giving everyone an opportunity to succeed and realize the American Dream, regardless of their socio-economic background.

What does this entail? Quality public education. Social services. Welfare for the extremely poor so that at the least, they can feed their kids and send them off to school. Employment services and job creation. Public safety. These are all things that a government can and should provide.

Now, do individual elements in the government (local, state, and federal) fail from time to time? No doubt; the government is not infallible. They try things and they get it wrong some times. There are corrupt elements that are not really concerned with governance so much as with lining their own coffers. There is certainly waste; it's undeniable. But a properly functioning democratic government should promise its people nothing more than an opportunity to succeed, regardless of race, sex, economic class, religion, ethnicity, etc. Whether that success is realized is up to the individual, but as a society, it's in everyone's interest to help more of our own citizens realize their potential (especially the kids).

My wife tells me stories about how some of her parents (she's a former school teacher and now a learning disabilities coordinator) abuse their food stamps and welfare checks. I hear stories about able bodied folks abusing unemployment all the time (even here on GAF...). Yes: this sucks. But at the same time, there are people who wouldn't be able to make it month to month without government assistance and even if these poor are in their circumstances because they simply didn't work hard enough, then at least we can try to help their kids out and give them an opportunity to realize the American Dream, right? Otherwise, we simply perpetuate generations of poor, un/under-educated masses; how can that be good for our country?

Don't get me wrong: I'm realistic and the rich will always have access to greater opportunities for themselves and their kids. That's reality and that's just the way things work. But at the same time, while we can't give every child those same opportunities, we can at least give them a world class education, access to healthcare, a safe environment to grow up in, food so that their tummies aren't growling in class, and some pretty basic stuff, right?

In the end, it's about people and communities. Corporations are not responsible to individuals and their communities. Corporations answer to their shareholders and their profits. We saw what happened during the industrial revolution with regards to destruction of the environment, rampant and uncontrolled pollution, lack of sanitary conditions in food processing plants, deplorable labor practices and use of child labor, etc. These are all things that have, at one point or another, been addressed by the government and the law. These regulations are what make our quality of life possible. The government by the people, of the people, for the people, is responsible to the voting citizens of the US. The private corporation is responsible to the voting members of its board and shareholders.

Those like JD who value the latter over the former are fucking crazy and in denial about what a world without government intervention, regulations, and oversight would be like (i.e. Somalia). It would be utter shit for most of us who weren't fortunate enough to live in gated communities far from the factories that would spew pollutants into the air and water supply, far from the crime, far from the desolation that would befall most of the population. There is certainly a balance that must be maintained between public and private interests, but I -- and many others of LiberalGAF -- would contend that we are still far to the right of that fulcrum.
 

GaimeGuy

Volunteer Deputy Campaign Director, Obama for America '16
So what if the top 1% pay 50% of all the income taxes? The majority of their wealth is made on capital gains, which is taxed at a low 15% rate. the result is when you combine all their sources of wealth, including both income and capital gains, and combine all of their taxes, their NET tax rate is lower than that of the middle class.

the tax system is regressive as a net whole. And some of the most significant programs funded by income taxes are regressive in their funding mechanisms (IE: Social Security. Social Security is funded through income taxes only. So CEOs that are paid $1 salaries and $100 million in stock options contribute only a few cents to social security fundds. Social SEcurity also uses a flat tax rate for people with incomes under $100k, and a regressive tax rate for any income over $100k. So the net social security tax rates on incomes are as follows:

Tax rate on $1 of income = Tax rate on $1000 of income = Tax rate on $50k = Tax Rate on $100k > tax rate on $150k > tax rate on $1 million , etc....

But whatever, pity the top 400 richest americans that increased their net worth by $700 billion during the bush administration, that are worth $1.5 trillion (more than the bottom 150 million americans), who have a net tax rate of ~17%, who have become $30 Billion richer since the recession began, whose paychecks alone are more than 300x that of their average employees. Woe is them, for they collectively pay the most tax dollars while being individually taxed at the lowest rates out of all the income brackets.
 

dave is ok

aztek is ok
Anno said:
The class warfare here, on both sides, is crazy. Their are people who take advantage of both sides of the system and they are no better than one another. Life isn't fair and not everyone can be rich. If you don't even try you shouldn't complain. The 'rich' people at my office work 60-70 hour weeks and make risky choices with their money and the companies; the poor ones dick around in the hallways and spends hundreds they don't have on stuff they don't need. Some people deserve to be poor for their decisions.
The rich people we're talking about don't work in your office. Those people aren't really "rich"
 

Yaweee

Member
dave is ok said:
The rich people we're talking about don't work in your office. Those people aren't really "rich"

Eh, household income of ~175k is top 5%, ~350k is top 1%. Married people he works with could easily be clearing into the top ~3-5%, while upper management or owners (if he works at a small company) could be pushing into the top 1%.

A lot of what people are complaining about in this thread is restricted to a much smaller fraction of the top 1%. You have to remember that in a country of 300+ million people, that one percent is still pretty goddamn big.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom