Punk rockers/anarchists and Libertarians, what is the difference?

[Machismo]

If there was a flat tax... which results in more money... Taxing 80$ or taxing 10$?



Why are you adding all this nonsense to a simple question?



No, your answer changes the question to fit your narrow mind set. You can’t even answer it based on the question asked... you need to change it, so it can fit your preexisting narrative... you can’t even state the obvious, without manipulating it, so you don’t have to think, just regurgitate...

Just to make it clear... If some one asks you what 5 + 7 is... and you answer 10, since it’s your numbers and you ate 2 from the 7... you are not being logical.

This wasn't a tax, this was about me having to glasses of water.

So, are we done with your shitty analogy?

Now, if you want to talk about taxation, it was already shown that putting this all on the wealthy would mean tripling their tax burden (top 1%). Or, on corporations, it would mean quintupling their burden... in order to balance the budget.

Here's the stupid analogy:

You have two cups of the same size. One is 20% full, the other is 80% full... you are thirsty... which cup do you drink from?

Since I have two cups, I'm free to drink from both. For expedience, I either dump the 20% into the 80%, and put the empty cup in the sink, or I drink the 20%, and put it in the sink... to be left with a single cup to hold.

My guess is that you didn't really think your thought experiment through too terribly well.

[Felya]

This wasn't a tax, this was about me having to glasses of water.

Different question...

So, are we done with your shitty analogy?

Yes, I have proven my point...

Now, if you want to talk about taxation, it was already shown that putting this all on the wealthy would mean tripling their tax burden (top 1%). Or, on corporations, it would mean quintupling their burden... in order to balance the budget.

The answer is you get more money from 80$...

- - - Updated - - -

Since I have two cups, I'm free to drink from both. For expedience, I either dump the 20% into the 80%, and put the empty cup in the sink, or I drink the 20%, and put it in the sink... to be left with a single cup to hold.

That’s not what I asked...

My guess is that you didn't really think your thought experiment through too terribly well.

It proved the point I intended, so I have to disagree.

Edit: If you answered pour the cup on your head and dance like a lobster... so you think you are exhibiting a problem or just figured out a loop hole?

[Machismo]

Different question...



Yes, I have proven my point...



The answer is you get more money from 80$...

We're talking about water... remember? Both cups are mine, remember?

Do I need to copy/paste it again?

You asked which cup I drink from. You never said I could only drink from one, and you never said I couldn't do anything with the cups.

[Edge-]

Great, how do we balance the budget? I offered a short-term freeze on spending increases as a solution. How do you expect to reduce that trillion-dollar deficit?

Great question, and to answer, it's insanely complicated!

It involves a mixture of tactics and strategies, including but not limited to...

- Spending cuts in some areas where cuts can be made without longterm negative impacts
- Increased revenue generation via taxes and methods of repatriating funds stashed abroad
- Spending increases (including adding to the deficit) in areas where short-term deficits will lead to longer-term financial gains
- If you wanna get into this area, currency manipulation is pretty rad, but generally not very popular.

It's like, not remotely simple if you want to do it right. To make an analogy...

America is overweight and needs to lose 50-60 pounds. Your solution is to essentially just say, "Cut their legs off at the knee, that'll drop the weight quite simply and all will be fine." ignoring that it may not actually solve the problem and may have serious longterm consequences.

When in reality, the better approach to losing that weight would be a combination of strategies including dieting, exercise, and lifestyle changes.

I am thinking of the kids, why the fuck aren't you?

I am, and I think the debt is going to be the least of their problems when faced with climate hellscapes, wars over fresh water, economic collapses being a routine part of life, and worse. The future ain't exactly super bright.

[Mayhem]

"Their fair share..."

Once again, what exactly des that mean?

Well, probably more than -15%. Somewhere in the ballpark of what they are supposed to pay in taxes.

I'm all for stopping subsidies. Let's do it. let's stop green energy subsidies, farm subsidies, and all other subsidies pushed by the feds. Let's also get rid of tax credits and deductions while we're at it. I'd hate for people to not "pay their fair share."

Yeah, get rid of all loopholes, subsidies, treat everything someone gets in payment as income, and so on and so forth. No problem with that.

In the United States, the top 1% pay over 26% of their income, just on federal taxes. That is considerably higher than other income levels.

Except they don't if you would read sources provided to you.

As you pointed out, it's not terrible comparable, considering the sheer amount of state and local taxes that also come into play. You can see that with your source that showed the highest income bracket is 55% compared to 46%.

Are you trying to tell us that a) 55% is lower than 46% or b) that 46% even exists?

USA - income brackets:

Tax rate   Taxable income bracket  Tax owed
10%        $0 to $9,875                 10% of taxable income
12%        $9,876 to $40,125         $987.50 plus 12% of the amount over $9,875
22%        $40,126 to $85,525       $4,617.50 plus 22% of the amount over $40,125
24%        $85,526 to $163,300     $14,605.50 plus 24% of the amount over $85,525
32%        $163,301 to $207,350   $33,271.50 plus 32% of the amount over $163,300
35%        $207,351 to $518,400   $47,367.50 plus 35% of the amount over $207,350
37%        $518,401 or more         $156,235 plus 37% of the amount over $518,400

Austria - income brackets:

Income (EUR)	Tax rate (%)
11,000 and below	0
11,001 to 18,000	20
18,001 to 31,000	35
31,001 to 60,000	42
60,001 to 90,000	48
90,001 to 1,000,000	50
above 1,000,000	55

I am capable of understanding the argument, and I happily turned it back around on you. Isn't time just as valuable as money?

Isn't murder just like parking in the wrong spot?

[Machismo]

Great question, and to answer, it's insanely complicated!

It involves a mixture of tactics and strategies, including but not limited to...

- Spending cuts in some areas where cuts can be made without longterm negative impacts
- Increased revenue generation via taxes and methods of repatriating funds stashed abroad
- Spending increases (including adding to the deficit) in areas where short-term deficits will lead to longer-term financial gains
- If you wanna get into this area, currency manipulation is pretty rad, but generally not very popular.

It's like, not remotely simple if you want to do it right. To make an analogy...

America is overweight and needs to lose 50-60 pounds. Your solution is to essentially just say, "Cut their legs off at the knee, that'll drop the weight quite simply and all will be fine." ignoring that it may not actually solve the problem and may have serious longterm consequences.

When in reality, the better approach to losing that weight would be a combination of strategies including dieting, exercise, and lifestyle changes.



I am, and I think the debt is going to be the least of their problems when faced with climate hellscapes, wars over fresh water, economic collapses being a routine part of life, and worse. The future ain't exactly super bright.

So, your party has had many, many opportunities to balance a budget, yet they refuse to do so.

No, my solution was to say... stop eating so much fucking food. It was like putting that fat person on a diet, where they reduced their caloric intake slowly.

[Felya]

We're talking about water... remember? Both cups are mine, remember?

Ownership of cups is irrelevant... the point was solely that one cup had 4 times as much water. Everything else you are discussing, has nothing to do with what I asked. You think you found a loophole in what I asked, but all you are demonstrating is your bias.

You can’t even answer what would result in more money, a flat tax on 80$ or on 10$... do you see the point I just proved or you still think you found a loophole?

Do I need to copy/paste it again?

Go ahead... keep digging...

You asked which cup I drink from. You never said I could only drink from one, and you never said I couldn't do anything with the cups.

Yes, the point of what I asked was very confusing to some people... I knew you wouldn’t answer...

- - - Updated - - -

It was like putting that fat person on a diet, where they reduced their caloric intake slowly.

How does one become fat?

[Machismo]

Well, probably more than -15%. Somewhere in the ballpark of what they are supposed to pay in taxes.



Yeah, get rid of all loopholes, subsidies, treat everything someone gets in payment as income, and so on and so forth. No problem with that.



Except they don't if you would read sources provided to you.



Are you trying to tell us that a) 55% is lower than 46% or b) that 46% even exists?

USA - income brackets:

Tax rate   Taxable income bracket  Tax owed
10%        $0 to $9,875                 10% of taxable income
12%        $9,876 to $40,125         $987.50 plus 12% of the amount over $9,875
22%        $40,126 to $85,525       $4,617.50 plus 22% of the amount over $40,125
24%        $85,526 to $163,300     $14,605.50 plus 24% of the amount over $85,525
32%        $163,301 to $207,350   $33,271.50 plus 32% of the amount over $163,300
35%        $207,351 to $518,400   $47,367.50 plus 35% of the amount over $207,350
37%        $518,401 or more         $156,235 plus 37% of the amount over $518,400

Austria - income brackets:

Income (EUR)	Tax rate (%)
11,000 and below	0
11,001 to 18,000	20
18,001 to 31,000	35
31,001 to 60,000	42
60,001 to 90,000	48
90,001 to 1,000,000	50
above 1,000,000	55

Isn't murder just like parking in the wrong spot?

I never said 55% was lower, merely that's what should be taken into account, as it was your source that gave me that number. Now, I have no idea if Austria's tax structure is the same as the United States, because we also pay state and local taxes, Social Security and Medicare taxes, as well as sales taxes, and taxes on specific good/services. Does Austria do the same? I also don't know if Austria deals with tax deductions and credits like the United States does.

I never said murder was the same as parking in the wrong spot. You pointed to wanting an equitable outcome for punishments, so why not be consistent?

- - - Updated - - -

Ownership of cups is irrelevant... the point was solely that one cup had 4 times as much water. Everything else you are discussing, has nothing to do with what I asked. You think you found a loophole in what I asked, but all you are demonstrating is your bias.

You can’t even answer what would result in more money, a flat tax on 80$ or on 10$... do you see the point I just proved or you still think you found a loophole?



Go ahead... keep digging...



Yes, the point of what I asked was very confusing to some people... I knew you wouldn’t answer...

- - - Updated - - -



How does one become fat?

Well, i have two cups, why would I hold both? Emptying one and only having one cup to hold seems like the efficient solution.

As for my answer, it has everything to do with what you asked. You asked which I'd drink from. You set no other rules, so I answered how I'd do it. You can say I'm wrong, but you're dealing with a subjective solution, so it's simply a shitty analogy if you want to try and push a narrative.

Your question was simple, and I gladly answered it.

[downnola]

The push to put the full burden on the wealthy and corporations just isn't feasible, nor is it reasonable.

The rich can handle it. They just have to stop buying Avocado toast and going to Starbucks all the time.

Wanting the rich to "pay their fair share" sounds nice, but it is little more than a political talking point that isn't based on reality. Either the poor and middle class need to also pitch in more, or cuts need to be made.

This is quite possibly the most misanthropic things I've ever read on this site.

[Felya]

Well, i have two cups, why would I hold both.

I have no idea... you are so far away from what I asked, I have no clue what you are even talking about. None of this is relevant...

The correct answer was obviously pour both cups on your head and dance like a lobster... it was not to show that it’s stupid to take from less. That’s too obvious of an answer... it must have been what ever bullshit you are on about, because you know its flawed.

[Machismo]

The rich can handle it. They just have to stop getting Avocado toast and going to Starbucks all the time.



This is quite possibly the most misanthropic things I've ever read on this page.

Of course you're fine with tripling their tax burden, I never suspected otherwise.

I adore that some guy who wants to jack up taxes on others wants to call me misanthropic. That's like the Bolsheviks whining that Tsar Nicholas was evil, as they murdered his kids.

- - - Updated - - -

I have no idea... you are so far away from what I asked, I have no clue what you are even talking about. None of this is relevant...

The correct answer was obviously pour both cups on your head and dance like a lobster... it was not to show that it’s stupid to take from less. That’s too obvious of an answer... it must have been what ever bullshit you are on about, because you know its flawed.

Nope, this is what you asked:

You have two cups of the same size. One is 20% full, the other is 80% full... you are thirsty... which cup do you drink from?

if you think only your answer is the right answer, then you didn't read your own fucking question.

[Felya]

The rich can handle it. They just have to stop buying Avocado toast and going to Starbucks all the time.

That’s not the point... he knows he is wrong. He can’t even admit that it’s logical to take from abundance. Something that simple...

[Machismo]

That’s not the point... he knows he is wrong. He can’t even admit that it’s logical to take from abundance. Something that simple...

So, you want to triple the tax burden on the top 1%?

Why not just take it all, comrade?

[Felya]

Nope, this is what you asked:

if you think only your answer is the right answer, then you didn't read your own fucking question.

Yes, just like when I asked what results in more money, flat taxing 80$ and 10$, you can’t answer because you know what it means. There is only one logical answer... and it takes just a sentence to post it, if you were not disingenuous.

- - - Updated - - -

So, you want to triple the tax burden on the top 1%?

Why not just take it all, comrade?

No, like I said, I want them to pour the money over their heads and dance like lobsters.

[Machismo]

Yes, just like when I asked what results in more money, taxing 80$ and 10$, you can’t answer because you know what it means. There is only one logical answer... and it takes just a sentence to post it, if you were not disingenuous.

The issue is that there's far less people with "full cups" to tax. You aren't one of those full cups, are you?

So, how much more are you personally willing to give to balance the budget?

[downnola]

Of course you're fine with tripling their tax burden, I never suspected otherwise.

What was the giveaway? Aside from my repeated statements to raise their taxes, of course.

I adore that some guy who wants to jack up taxes on others wants to call me misanthropic. That's like the Bolsheviks whining that Tsar Nicholas was evil, as they murdered his kids.

The rich and wealthy paying the lions share of the tax burden is how a progressive tax system ought to run, bud. Flying in the face of that and claiming the poor need to pay more taxes while the uber wealthy have record gains every year is very misanthropic.

[uuuhname]

So, you want to triple the tax burden on the top 1%?

Why not just take it all, comrade?

this isn't the gotcha you think it is, in a post COVID world. where the top 1% made exponentially more to the detriment of literally everyone else.

[Machismo]

What was the giveaway? Aside from my repeated statements to raise their taxes, of course.



The rich and wealthy paying the lions share of the tax burden is how a progressive tax system ought to run, bud. Flying in the face of that and claiming the poor need to pay more taxes while the uber wealthy have record gains every year is very misanthropic.

So, when does it stop? When have you finally decided that you've taken enough from the wealthy? Do you expect them to just sit by and take it?

How very Bolshevik of you.

- - - Updated - - -

this isn't the gotcha you think it is, in a post COVID world. where the top 1% made exponentially more to the detriment of literally everyone else.

Well, the numbers back up my claim, comrade.

[Edge-]

Of course you're fine with tripling their tax burden, I never suspected otherwise.

Let me relate a story to you.

One day while I was stopping to get covfefe before jumping on the train to head into work as an intern (paid too, holy shit!). My folks live in a wealthier suburb (got in while it was cheaper!) so I'm fairly used to super rich folks being around frequently.

There was a guy on the phone talking to who I assume must have been his financial guy/accountant. He was like, losing his mind over owing the government $300K in taxes. Like, he was talking about how it was going to cripple him and he had all these big purchases he wanted to make and you'd think he was going to go homeless/starve the way he was talking.

Meanwhile, all I could think to myself was, "Holy shit, I'd be so fuckin excited if I was rich enough to owe the government $300K in additional taxes and would like, super gladly pay that because it would mean I'm rich as fucking shit and what the fuck do I care about $300K?!"

I'd think that you'll find most folks in the, "Tax the rich!" camp more than happy to be taxed to hell if any of us are ever fortunate enough to enter the top 10-1% of the income bracket.

[Felya]

The issue is that there's far less people with "full cups" to tax.

No, the issue is regardless of tax... it is basic logic... basic math... You take from abundance, not from scarcity. The “issue” is your demagoguery not being able to even admit basic reality, when it hurts your slogans.

You tax more from the rich, for no other reason than they have more. There is no bias, no jealousy or any of this window dressing. It makes logical sense in taxing abundance. That’s it...