ITT a bunch of people with no money are somehow brilliant masterminds on how much money people need.
Which is a loaded problem anyhow as 'need' varies from person to person.
We turn this debate about people on welfare buying steak and lobster and all of a sudden "need" is a vile repugnant word and use unfairly.
This is just another not so cleverly masked "I hate people with more money than me" rant in most of these postings.
People earn what people are willing to pay them. People are just salty as fuck.
Last edited by TITAN308; 2017-04-27 at 01:07 AM.
Ahh yes. That wonderful delusion. Sure, they can. Truth of the matter however is that they never do. Lower the taxes on them and they will simply have their offshore bank account cake, and eat their lowered taxes at home cake too, while simply pocketing even more money thanks to the tax breaks.
That's the point of a flat tax. And even trumps plan touches on some of the loopholes.
But the point of a flat tax is not need the IRS or tax accountants.
Every 1 dollar you earn 15 cents goes to the government. No tax right off, no marriage tax breaks, no child tax breaks for the welfare mother with 5 kids with 5 men. Flat 15%.
100k dollars, not a lot? meh, that is depressing consider here in my country I make that sum in 20 years, hmm i wonder is it's not to late to start over at 30 )
Money isn't everything to everyone. I left a corporate world that was good pay and loaded to the brim with benefits to pursue a career in civil service. Needless to say it is a hefty pay cut in salary.
With that said, people being salty about what people make are still a bunch of crotchy babies who just need to get over it and worry about themselves. If I was a betting man literally no one here complaining would suddenly turn their nose up at 250k salary nor would they "spend every penny" they earned while getting it.
They are all liars.
imo what matters is contribution, the level of contribution
the more you contribute, the more benefit you should get
and you can make a same ratio for everyone, contribute 1, get 1
contribute 100k, get 100k
(btw some persons today are contributing 100k and getting 100000k which is not normal)
at the exception that the poorest person on earth doesn't die of poverty
that rule is not true yet
we are certainly evolving toward that
given that it's not the reality yet, do you think the wealthy giving less than nowadays would help society ?
not talking about useless lazy persons in modern societies, contribute 0 get 0 (but the state won't let them die, which is sane overall because well that would be rather hardcore to see)
Last edited by Cæli; 2017-04-27 at 01:16 AM.
Per several of the posts that responded to me, its, as I expected, relative. Where I live, and even for various family/friends around the states, 100k would be difficult to live on. As I stated in my first post, I was not intending to be flippant. I was, genuinely, curious to see what people would have to say.
What people need is pretty much the same person to person, people don't NEED money - however what people need COSTS money.
It is that cost which varies from person to person.
If one doesn't wish, as a society, to furnish people with what they need - then as a society you have to allow people do suicide if they can't finance their needs.
Society needs to choose - social security, or legalise suicide ... that's it.
Challenge Mode : Play WoW like my disability has me play:
You will need two people, Brian MUST use the mouse for movement/looking and John MUST use the keyboard for casting, attacking, healing etc.
Briand and John share the same goal, same intentions - but they can't talk to each other, however they can react to each other's in game activities.
Now see how far Brian and John get in WoW.
Who is salty, other than yourself?
You and that other guy are the ones in here acting blasé about making more money than 99% of people will ever make (or so you both claim) and then getting salty yourself about catching people with your blatant bait post when they are put off by your arrogance.
Sounds nice.
I think this is part of the problem in understanding how badly people are being screwed by the truly wealthy.
100k is enough to sound like a lot for the majority of people alive today and it has historically been a good sum of money but the reality is that 70-100k is lower middle class, when people talk about taxing the rich it should be thought of as the 500k+ crowd.
Like everything, people should pay approximately whatever the value is of the service they will receive, though I think you'd have trouble making the argument that someone making 100k used 50k worth of services in a year.
There are many wealthy businesses and rich individuals right now. Are they using all of that extra wealth to create great paying jobs in the US?business can reinvest the money
This is what I don't get about people making this argument. Which companies are you talking about? Who do you think is going to suddenly create a bunch of jobs there's no demand for just because they get a tax break?
We wouldn't want to cherry pick our information... would we? You want to know what causes the deficit? How about we look at TOTAL spending:
Once you include all the promises made that we can't afford it sure does make the Military Budget look smaller... I do agree we could cut some military spending (IE: wasteful spending on a new plane that is worse than previous generations of aircraft)... but focusing on diagrams that look at the trees while ignoring the forest only shows a part of the issue.
Look at the full picture: We are 20 Trillion in debt and climbing. We collect a RECORD amount of revenue:
Yet despite more and more revenue, we fall deeper and deeper in debt.
That's not a revenue problem. That's a spending problem. Politicians making promises that they can't keep and then blaming the debt on the minority of people that pay the majority of the taxes.
Last edited by WernerCD; 2017-04-27 at 01:39 AM.
[color=blue]This thread has lived beyond its life expectancy. ... It's also met the forum quota for posters insulting the intelligence of their peers to grasp the age-old upper hand in argumentation, I believe officially coined by Plato: "Ur, like, dumb and that's why I'm right." Zarhym