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

[Machismo]

I mean, yeah.



Sorry I want to live in some sort of moral society where people take care of each other, and those that have benefitted from this society the most pay a bit more while still enjoying fabulous wealth and excess that the vast majority of us will never know?



There is none, this is a logically consistent and rationale position. There's like, endless economic theory (and actual practice!) backing this up as an effective system in achieving collective economic success while limiting suffering and harm to the greater population.



Ok, and? This isn't a, "Do they pay more" issue. They could pay .00001% more and they'd pay a higher percentage, but now we're getting into discussions on the relative value of money to people. This is basic economic theory shit.

$10 is worth far more to someone making $100 a week than $100 is to someone making $10,000 a week. Paying 10% of their income in taxes is likely going to be crippling for someone only making say, $12,000 a year, while paying 40% of your income in taxes won't have anywhere near the same impact on someone making $2M a year.

If you put it on corporations, you would have to quintuple their tax burden in order to balance the budget.

You don't give a fuck about morality, because you are pushing pure selfishness. People keep making that claim about those benefitting the most, but the numbers don't really agree with you on that one. Those benefitting the most, are those collecting SS, and receiving Medicare.

I get that you want to eat the rich, but the rich still have a say in the matter.

[downnola]

It wasn't a graph, it was the actual numbers of taxes paid based on income groups. My guess is that you don't have any idea what data I'm talking about.

So...

You should probably take a step back, and evaluate.

I'm specifically referring to the post in this thread where I took a graph from a link you provided. If there are other numbers you'd like to reference you can post it. I don't have time to dig through the 950 posts you have in this thread alone to find the numbers you're referring to.

[Edge-]

If you put it on corporations, you would have to quintuple their tax burden in order to balance the budget.

Cool, that's not what I suggested nor is that a remotely realistic position to take? Also, I feel like that's more than a bit vague and wrong, like, how do you quintuple a tax burden for a company that literally gets tax dollars as subsidies and pays a negative tax rate?

You don't give a fuck about morality, because you are pushing pure selfishness.

I happily pay my taxes every year, I don't write off anything like charitable donations or anything else, to me that defeats the purpose of donating to charity. I also could afford to pay higher taxes even though I hardly make a ton of money, and if it was a part of a broader program to reduce poverty, pay down the debt, and start tackling bigger issues like climate change or M4A? Hell fuck yeah, tax me, baby. Tax me good.

People keep making that claim about those benefitting the most, but the numbers don't really agree with you on that one. Those benefitting the most, are those collecting SS, and receiving Medicare.

Said someone who I guess has never had to live on/use those safety nets. I mean sure, my grandmother who never worked a day in her life benefits massively from Medicare/SS. If we're talking about proportional value, that's about as big as you can get.

But if we're talking about real value, naw dog. Not in the slightest. The money the government pays her in SS and the Medicare spending they cover annually pales in comparison to the kinds of benefits that companies earning billions and literally getting money back from the government are getting.

I get that you want to eat the rich, but the rich still have a say in the matter.

That's nice, I'll have some dinner conversation, then.

[Machismo]

Cool, that's not what I suggested nor is that a remotely realistic position to take? Also, I feel like that's more than a bit vague and wrong, like, how do you quintuple a tax burden for a company that literally gets tax dollars as subsidies and pays a negative tax rate?



I happily pay my taxes every year, I don't write off anything like charitable donations or anything else, to me that defeats the purpose of donating to charity. I also could afford to pay higher taxes even though I hardly make a ton of money, and if it was a part of a broader program to reduce poverty, pay down the debt, and start tackling bigger issues like climate change or M4A? Hell fuck yeah, tax me, baby. Tax me good.



Said someone who I guess has never had to live on/use those safety nets. I mean sure, my grandmother who never worked a day in her life benefits massively from Medicare/SS. If we're talking about proportional value, that's about as big as you can get.

But if we're talking about real value, naw dog. Not in the slightest. The money the government pays her in SS and the Medicare spending they cover annually pales in comparison to the kinds of benefits that companies earning billions and literally getting money back from the government are getting.



That's nice, I'll have some dinner conversation, then.

Great, then give more tax money. Would you like the address where you can voluntarily send more.

[Edge-]

Great, then give more tax money. Would you like the address where you can voluntarily send more.

See, this is why discussing anything with your is impossible. Rather than engage with a post, you pick out one bit and make a pithy response that you think makes you sound smarter or morally superior or some shit.

It just makes you kinda look you simply can't discuss these topics in any depth or with any nuance, like it's literally just a bunch of empty slogans and shit.

[Mayhem]

It's not a lie, I've provided the tax numbers from the United States Government. If you have an issue, take it up with the IRS.

That's the point, you're not from the US, most of you guys talking about this are not... which makes your desire to tax the wealthy even more absurd. It's someone else's money you support spending, and you want them to spend even more on the shit you want.

So, I will ask you... how much more are YOU PERSONALLY willing to spend. Of, if that's too tough for you, pretend you're an American, and dealing with out current deficit, how much more would you be willing to spend to balance our budget?

I am willing to spend as much as the wealthy, so between 0% and 20%. But that would reduce my taxes. Whew, that was really tough. Seriously, you are so far out of your league with any argument it's not even funny anymore.

Can't wait to see what else you're going to come up with to attack my character instead of my arguments.

You dropped everything else I see, I accept your tacit acknowledgement.

Oh, and just for funsies I'll give you something to think about, you could turn the whole equal impact of fines argument around, you know that, right? Keep them at for example 100$ for the highest earners and reduce them for the poor. Nothing would change for the wealthy, everyone else would be equally impacted as them. Can't have that either I guess, why exactly not?

- - - Updated - - -

It should also note that Corporations as entities are immortal and thus have infinite time to make money, they aren't living things, so taxing the fuck out of them shouldn't even be a moral problem. Wal-Mart and Amazon are not even alive and have infinite time to make money. Normal living flesh and blood people do not have infinite time.

People are immortal in Machismo's world.

[Edge-]

Oh, and just for funsies I'll give you something to think about, you could turn the whole equal impact of fines argument around, you know that, right?

Man, there was a great anecdote on how pointless fines are as a deterrent/punishment for wealthier folks I read a while back. It was a part of a discussion about how rich people and poor/middle class folks see money and its relative value etc.

You know like, parking fines? Like those nasty tickets for parking in the red zone or a loading zone or in front of a fire hydrant? The ones that like, almost everyone gets pissed about if they get because they're pretty expensive? You know, so you do your best not to park there to avoid those tickets?

Woman had just started dating a rich guy and...well...yeah that didn't exist. She was amazed as he just parked in red zones while out on a date and when she pointed it out to him his response was along the lines of, "Yeah so? That's just the cost to park here, whatever."

Because fines generally aren't a deterrent/punishment for folks once you have enough money. Not unless you scale the fines up proportionally so that they can actually have the intended harmful financial effect to act as a deterrent.

Machismo seems to have no concept of the relative value of money, and how that value increases as you have less money and decreases as you gain more of it.

I mean shit, y'all remember when we were kids and like, $5-10 was a good chunk of cash? Those were the days, right?

[Mayhem]

Man, there was a great anecdote on how pointless fines are as a deterrent/punishment for wealthier folks I read a while back. It was a part of a discussion about how rich people and poor/middle class folks see money and its relative value etc.

You know like, parking fines? Like those nasty tickets for parking in the red zone or a loading zone or in front of a fire hydrant? The ones that like, almost everyone gets pissed about if they get because they're pretty expensive? You know, so you do your best not to park there to avoid those tickets?

Woman had just started dating a rich guy and...well...yeah that didn't exist. She was amazed as he just parked in red zones while out on a date and when she pointed it out to him his response was along the lines of, "Yeah so? That's just the cost to park here, whatever."

Because fines generally aren't a deterrent/punishment for folks once you have enough money. Not unless you scale the fines up proportionally so that they can actually have the intended harmful financial effect to act as a deterrent.

Machismo seems to have no concept of the relative value of money, and how that value increases as you have less money and decreases as you gain more of it.

I mean shit, y'all remember when we were kids and like, $5-10 was a good chunk of cash? Those were the days, right?

Frankly, he has no concept of anything apart from copy-pasting GOP buzzwords and slogans.

He is pretty good at misconstruing one's argument, ignoring entire posts, and building straw men.

[Machismo]

See, this is why discussing anything with your is impossible. Rather than engage with a post, you pick out one bit and make a pithy response that you think makes you sound smarter or morally superior or some shit.

It just makes you kinda look you simply can't discuss these topics in any depth or with any nuance, like it's literally just a bunch of empty slogans and shit.

That's the point, you jumped into this conversation, where we were discussing trying to actually balance a budget... just to give your two cents.

I get that you may not care about balancing a budget, but I do. I laid out exactly trying what it would take to do so. The push to put the full burden on the wealthy and corporations just isn't feasible, nor is it reasonable.

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.

- - - Updated - - -

I am willing to spend as much as the wealthy, so between 0% and 20%. But that would reduce my taxes. Whew, that was really tough. Seriously, you are so far out of your league with any argument it's not even funny anymore.

Can't wait to see what else you're going to come up with to attack my character instead of my arguments.

You dropped everything else I see, I accept your tacit acknowledgement.

Oh, and just for funsies I'll give you something to think about, you could turn the whole equal impact of fines argument around, you know that, right? Keep them at for example 100$ for the highest earners and reduce them for the poor. Nothing would change for the wealthy, everyone else would be equally impacted as them. Can't have that either I guess, why exactly not?

- - - Updated - - -



People are immortal in Machismo's world.

The average 1%er pays over 26% of their income in federal income taxes. I have no idea where you got that number. Or, would you like to go by the highest rate in your country?

You do realize you're trying to argue fines with a guy who doesn't even think most of those laws should even exist, right? You can't really fine someone for not breaking the law in the first place.

[Felya]

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.

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?

[Machismo]

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?

Which cup is yours?

Which cup is mine?

[Felya]

Which cup is yours?

Which cup is mine?

If I ask you what 5+7 is... do you ask who’s 5 or 7 it is, before answering? This isn’t a subjective question...

Edit: I guess the answer is... Die of thirst, while trying to figure out which cup is owned by whom...

[Mayhem]

or cuts need to be made.

How about stop subsidizing corporations that also don't pay their fair share in taxes and actually make them pay? I mean, that not only reduces spending but also increases tax revenue, win-win.

The average 1%er pays over 26% of their income in federal income taxes. I have no idea where you got that number. Or, would you like to go by the highest rate in your country?

One of my sources you ignored. My current rate is higher than that, so yeah, I doubt you want your rich to be taxed by the highest rate in my country, they'd cry murder.

You do realize you're trying to argue fines with a guy who doesn't even think most of those laws should even exist, right? You can't really fine someone for not breaking the law in the first place.

Most does not mean all, so you should be capable of understanding the argument. Or does your position make you too stupid to understand simple concepts?

[Edge-]

That's the point, you jumped into this conversation, where we were discussing trying to actually balance a budget... just to give your two cents.

Because your notions of "balancing the budget" are pure fantasy.

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

It is absolutely both feasible and reasonable, and history bears this out.

The average 1%er pays over 26% of their income in federal income taxes. I have no idea where you got that number. Or, would you like to go by the highest rate in your country?

https://taxfoundation.org/top-1-percent-tax-rate/

There's pretty extensive research on this.

https://www.fool.com/retirement/2016...-in-taxes.aspx

Weird that the tax rate seems to go down for the wealthiest folks earning more than $10M a year compared to folks making between $1-10M a year, placing them closer to the $500K-$1M bracket.

And this isn't even addressing the discussion of relative value of that taxed income. Someone making $10M+ a year paying say $2.5M in taxes is paying a lot more than someone making $25K paying $200 in taxes, but the relative value of those amounts to the respective taxpayers isn't remotely the same. $200 is worth far more to someone making $25K a year than $2.5M is to someone making $10M+ a year.

[Machismo]

If I ask you what 5+7 is... do you ask who’s 5 or 7 it is, before answering? This isn’t a subjective question...

Edit: I guess the answer is... Die of thirst, while trying to figure out which cup is owned by whom...

Well, since I apparently own them both, and assuming they are the same liquid, I probably down the lower one, then work on the more-full one.

Are you through with this terrible analogy?

- - - Updated - - -

How about stop subsidizing corporations that also don't pay their fair share in taxes and actually make them pay? I mean, that not only reduces spending but also increases tax revenue, win-win.



One of my sources you ignored. My current rate is higher than that, so yeah, I doubt you want your rich to be taxed by the highest rate in my country, they'd cry murder.



Most does not mean all, so you should be capable of understanding the argument. Or does your position make you too stupid to understand simple concepts?

"Their fair share..."

Once again, what exactly des that mean?

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."

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.

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%.

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

[Felya]

Well, since I apparently own them both, and assuming they are the same liquid, I probably down the lower one, then work on the more-full one.

As in, add things to a simple question, so that it fits into your existing mind set.

Are you through with this terrible analogy?

It’s not an analogy... it’s basic logic... and you failed...

Edit: The answer is you drink from the cup that has more water, because it’s more likely to quench your thirst. That’s it... but, look what you turned it into... blind bias...

[Machismo]

Because your notions of "balancing the budget" are pure fantasy.



It is absolutely both feasible and reasonable, and history bears this out.



https://taxfoundation.org/top-1-percent-tax-rate/

There's pretty extensive research on this.

https://www.fool.com/retirement/2016...-in-taxes.aspx

Weird that the tax rate seems to go down for the wealthiest folks earning more than $10M a year compared to folks making between $1-10M a year, placing them closer to the $500K-$1M bracket.

And this isn't even addressing the discussion of relative value of that taxed income. Someone making $10M+ a year paying say $2.5M in taxes is paying a lot more than someone making $25K paying $200 in taxes, but the relative value of those amounts to the respective taxpayers isn't remotely the same. $200 is worth far more to someone making $25K a year than $2.5M is to someone making $10M+ a year.

That's the problem, you have no desire to balance the budget. You want to keep screwing over people who have literally no say in the matter, mainly because they are not old enough t vote... or have yet to even be born.

But thanks for the sources, it shows that the wealthy do pay a higher amount as a percentage of their income. Now, you surely want them to pay even more. But, as you can see... compared to the lower and middle-income earners, they are definitely paying more.

- - - Updated - - -

As in, add things to a simple question, so that it fits into your existing mind set.



It’s not an analogy... it’s basic logic... and you failed...

Edit: The answer is you drink from the cup that has more water, because it’s more likely to quench your thirst. That’s it... but, look what you turned it into... blind bias...

Nope, since they are both my cups, I want to get rid of the cup that is the fastest to get rid of, so I only have one cup to hold in order to quench my thirst.

My answer is more logical, because your answer means you're standing around holding two cups of water. As was pointed out, you said I have two cups of water.

[Edge-]

That's the problem, you have no desire to balance the budget.

You keep saying this and it keeps being a lie. Like, repeating yourself doesn't eventually make what you're saying true if it was false to begin with.

You want to keep screwing over people who have literally no say in the matter, mainly because they are not old enough t vote... or have yet to even be born.

Seriously dude, miss me with the, "THINK OF DA KEEDS!" argument. That's bog-standard bad-faith Republican argument 101, and something they've been doing for years while driving up the deficit and debt themselves.

But thanks for the sources, it shows that the wealthy do pay a higher amount as a percentage of their income. Now, you surely want them to pay even more. But, as you can see... compared to the lower and middle-income earners, they are definitely paying more.

If they only paid .001% more in their taxes would that still be acceptable to you?

Or is there some kind of qualitative analysis that we should make to see if these tax rates are fair and effective?

[Machismo]

You keep saying this and it keeps being a lie. Like, repeating yourself doesn't eventually make what you're saying true if it was false to begin with.



Seriously dude, miss me with the, "THINK OF DA KEEDS!" argument. That's bog-standard bad-faith Republican argument 101, and something they've been doing for years while driving up the deficit and debt themselves.



If they only paid .001% more in their taxes would that still be acceptable to you?

Or is there some kind of qualitative analysis that we should make to see if these tax rates are fair and effective?

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?

I am thinking of the kids, why the fuck aren't you? Fuck the GOP, they're a bunch of lying hypocrites who have no desire to balance a budget, and only use it as a political talking point.

So, show me how you plan on balancing that budget, since it's supposedly a priority.

[Felya]

That's the problem, you have no desire to balance the budget.

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

Edit: Don’t even bother typing, if you are planing to ask whose money this is... jeebus.

Nope, since they are both my cups, I want to get rid of the cup that is the fastest to get rid of, so I only have one cup to hold in order to quench my thirst.

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

My answer is more logical, because your answer means you're standing around holding two cups of water. As was pointed out, you said I have two cups of water.

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 your 5 + 7 is... and you answer 10, since it’s your numbers and you ate 2 from the 7... you are not being logical.