Joe Biden 2022: Enter Dark Brandon

[Johnny Sack 8,397]

5 minutes ago, Goofyboy said:

In order for things to be equitable, a whole lot less people would have to pay taxes. 5% of someone’s income making $30k a year hits a whole lot different than 5% of someone making $500k a year. You talk about equity, but you ignore the impact and the lower spending power that the bottom 90% are left with. How’s that equitable at all? I may be mistaken, but you seem to be leaving out the spending power side.

It is not equitable.  But not in the way you think.

 

It's a neat trick to convince people that the "rich" don't pay their fair share.  They pay their fair share and everyone else's.

[David Dennison 18,658]

7 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

Net of transfers from the government, the bottom 60% pay a negative rate.  The 60 to 80 percent pay very little.  And the top 20% pay for basically everything.

Now do all taxes.

[fattyflattie 4,636]

9 minutes ago, Goofyboy said:

You talk about equity, but you ignore the impact and the lower spending power that the bottom 90% are left with. How’s that equitable at all? I may be mistaken, but you seem to be leaving out the spending power side.

I don’t give a solitary fuck how someone spends their money. I want to understand why someone who is provided the same services by the govt, has the same access and rights as literally every other American, should not be required to contribute equally. Do they get the same vote? Same govt services?  Well then why do they have less skin in the game? 

[Goofyboy 3,205]

It is not equitable.  But not in the way you think.



 
It's a neat trick to convince people that the "rich" don't pay their fair share.  They pay their fair share and everyone else's.

You completely missed the mark. Again - what people pay in is only part of the equation for equity. $30k a year and that person is still struggling to make ends meet. So, another bracket or raising that top tier 5% isn’t going to hurt that persons ability to live like it affects someone at the bottom.

Have you ever been broke? It’s hard to be broke. Why do you and others like you want to make it harder?

[Sawbonz 27,434]

11 hours ago, fattyflattie said:

Idgaf about SS and Medicare, which will be taken back, when it’s time. 
 

https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2022/03/25/57percent-of-us-households-paid-no-federal-income-tax-in-2021-study.html

 

You are almost guaranteed to take more from Medicare and SSN than you will pay in. Why don’t you consider yourself a deadbeat?

[David Dennison 18,658]

3 minutes ago, fattyflattie said:

I don’t give a solitary fuck how someone spends their money. I want to understand why someone who is provided the same services by the govt, has the same access and rights as literally every other American, should not be required to contribute equally. Do they get the same vote? Same govt services?  Well then why do they have less skin in the game? 

LOL

[fattyflattie 4,636]

Just now, Sawbonz said:

You are almost guaranteed to take more from Medicare and SSN than you will pay in. Why don’t you consider yourself a deadbeat?

Because given the choice I’d pay neither and handle it when the time comes.  And highly suspect about the SSN part of your statement. 

[David Dennison 18,658]

Just now, fattyflattie said:

Because given the choice I’d pay neither and handle it when the time comes.  And highly suspect about the SSN part of your statement. 

Bullshit.

[fattyflattie 4,636]

3 minutes ago, Goofyboy said:

You completely missed the mark. Again - what people pay in is only part of the equation for equity. $30k a year and that person is still struggling to make ends meet. So, another bracket or raising that top tier 5% isn’t going to hurt that persons ability to live like it affects someone at the bottom.

Have you ever been broke? It’s hard to be broke. Why do you and others like you want to make it harder?

Why does this have anything to do with equity in taxes?  If I decided to live in San Diego, it would be more difficult for me, so I shouldn’t have to pay as much as the guy who lives in Baytown? 

[fattyflattie 4,636]

2 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

Bullshit.

Ok 

[David Dennison 18,658]

Apparently there are people in this country who don't remember the event that brought us Social Security in the first place.

[Sawbonz 27,434]

1 minute ago, fattyflattie said:

Because given the choice I’d pay neither and handle it when the time comes.  And highly suspect about the SSN part of your statement. 

Oh so you like to pick and choose what makes one a deadbeat. Be sure and refuse cancer treatment, trauma care, cardiac procedures, and make yourself DNR when you hit 65

[Poe It Up 126]

Isn’t social security burning through its reserves soon? I’m going to go ahead and assume it’s not going to be there in 30 years when it’s my turn. 

[fattyflattie 4,636]

15 minutes ago, Sawbonz said:

Oh so you like to pick and choose what makes one a deadbeat. Be sure and refuse cancer treatment, trauma care, cardiac procedures, and make yourself DNR when you hit 65

First, I’d like you to find where I called anyone a deadbeat. I’m just confused where equity is a good thing, and where it’s a bad thing.  If I make a good living in Houston, but an poor because I want to live in NYC, am I entitled to pay less % into the federal govt?  My spending power is less; I might even have to eat Ramen to live closer to the park. 

[Sawbonz 27,434]

46 minutes ago, fattyflattie said:

I don’t give a solitary fuck how someone spends their money. I want to understand why someone who is provided the same services by the govt, has the same access and rights as literally every other American, should not be required to contribute equally. Do they get the same vote? Same govt services?  Well then why do they have less skin in the game? 

Have you ever lived below the poverty line? Double the poverty line? 

[PenelopeWitherspoon 19,093]

19 minutes ago, fattyflattie said:

First, I’d like you to find where I called anyone a deadbeat. I’m just confused where equity is a good thing, and where it’s a bad thing.  If I make a good living in Houston, but an poor because I want to live in NYC, am I entitled to pay less % into the federal govt?  My spending power is less; I might even have to eat Ramen to live closer to the park. 

For every dollar of federal taxes a New Yorker pays in, we get less back than Texas and most the red states.  

https://www.osc.state.ny.us/reports/new-yorks-balance-payments-federal-budget-federal-fiscal-year-2020/map

And this is 2020 where everyone got more back than they paid in because COVID.  

Talk about not paying their fair share...

 

[TexArcher 37,518]

2 minutes ago, Sawbonz said:

Have you ever lived below the poverty line? Double the poverty line? 

No, and if he had he would've just pulled himself up by his bootstraps like every other middle-class-and-up white "compassionate conservative" who doesn't know what the fuck he's talking about.

[TexArcher 37,518]

39 minutes ago, Poe It Up said:

Isn’t social security burning through its reserves soon? I’m going to go ahead and assume it’s not going to be there in 30 years when it’s my turn. 

I'm a financial advisor and I've looked into this quite a bit for obvious reasons.  

Yes, the surplus will be gone by approximately 2034.  But it's mostly a pay-as-you-go system where the current FICA taxes cover the checks going out to retirees.  Even if Congress does nothing and allows the surplus to be depleted, the current working generations can cover almost 80% of the S.S. checks.  So, the worst case scenario is a reduction in benefits.  And I would bet an awful lot of money that Congress doesn't let it come to that.  We faced this situation in the 80s and Congress acted.  Old people vote.  Etc.

The notion that S.S. will be gone when it's time for Gen X-ers to collect is a complete fiction.  We may get slightly reduced benefits and/or we may get our FRA pushed back a year or two, but we will get Social Security.

Edited May 12, 2022 by TexArcher

[fattyflattie 4,636]

11 minutes ago, Sawbonz said:

Have you ever lived below the poverty line? Double the poverty line? 

Of course not. I live in a country where YouTube kids can make 10m annually by opening presents for fucks sake. 

[Sawbonz 27,434]

26 minutes ago, fattyflattie said:

First, I’d like you to find where I called anyone a deadbeat. I’m just confused where equity is a good thing, and where it’s a bad thing.  If I make a good living in Houston, but an poor because I want to live in NYC, am I entitled to pay less % into the federal govt?  My spending power is less; I might even have to eat Ramen to live closer to the park. 

I’m just trying to figure out why you think some people aren’t paying their fair share while thinking you are? I’ve paid the max into SS and Medicare are since 2001 and will until I retire. More than one major health event will wipe out what I’ve paid into Medicare. If I live to 85 I will be a net negative for SS. 

[fattyflattie 4,636]

10 minutes ago, PenelopeWitherspoon said:

For every dollar of federal taxes a New Yorker pays in, we get less back than Texas and most the red states.  

 

Which is bullshit.  

[PenelopeWitherspoon 19,093]

 

 

[PenelopeWitherspoon 19,093]

1 minute ago, fattyflattie said:

Which is bullshit.  

It is bullshit that my federal tax dollars subsidize the state of Texas because Texas has no state income tax?  Yeah.  It is bullshit that I cannot deduct my full state and local tax burden for federal tax purposes because of the shitty 2018 tax cuts?  Yes. 

However, you cannot squeeze blood from a turnip.  At the end of the day, those tax cuts were corporate welfare.  Corporations absolutely should be paying more into the system.  They should be paying their workers a living wage.  Thanks to Citizens United though, that corporation has the same rights than you and I do.  Hell, it is about to have more rights than I do since, you know, they want to take away my bodily autonomy.  Fun times we are in.

@Brisketexan, are you making Vespers on the ledge?

[Sawbonz 27,434]

Dp

Edited May 12, 2022 by Sawbonz

[fattyflattie 4,636]

4 minutes ago, Sawbonz said:

I’m just trying to figure out why you think some people aren’t paying their fair share while thinking you are? I’ve paid the max into SS and Medicare  since 2001 and will until I retire.

I think we (people, not corps) should all be equal, like every other thing in this country.  I’m younger than you, but have been maxing it out most of my career as well.  I’m trying to understand why equality is great and an absolute necessity for humans for some things, but doesn’t apply to others.  

[Sawbonz 27,434]

1 minute ago, fattyflattie said:

I think we (people, not corps) should all be equal, like every other thing in this country.  I’m younger than you, but have been maxing it out most of my career as well.  I’m trying to understand why equality is great and an absolute necessity for humans for some things, but doesn’t apply to others.  

Why do you think it’s ok for you to be a net negative to the federal govt to maintain your standard of living but not for a family of 4 living at twice the poverty level to get a tax credit to be able to have a roof over their heads and food in their bellies?

[Judge Roybeanbag 11,810]

1 hour ago, Johnny Sack said:

It is not equitable.  But not in the way you think.

 

It's a neat trick to convince people that the "rich" don't pay their fair share.  They pay their fair share and everyone else's.

Quote

But here is really the only tax graph you need: It's total tax burden by income group. And as you'll see, every income group is paying something, and the rich aren't paying much more, as a percentage of their incomes, then the middle class.

Here is the total tax burden by income bracket.  Even this doesn't tell the whole picture though, as it doesn't take into account capital gains I believe.

[fattyflattie 4,636]

5 minutes ago, Sawbonz said:

Why do you think it’s ok for you to be a net negative to the federal govt to maintain your standard of living

How is this?  The standard of living with your hypothetical after 65 care from upthread?     The equitable solution is for everyone to be treated equally, and spending habits/lifestyle/location/job preference left to the individual.  Does the family you are discussing live in Manhattan or San Angelo? 

[Creasy Bear 665]

2 hours ago, Judge Roybeanbag said:

I dunno.  A good start would be increasing the capital gains tax on people who contribute nothing but sit back and earn a living on investments and/or live on loans backed by those investments.  Exempt retirement accounts and homesteads. 

So people should be penalized for investing their money wisely?

[David Dennison 18,658]

1 minute ago, Creasy Bear said:

So people should be penalized for investing their money wisely?

Should they be rewarded for investing their money poorly?

[Sawbonz 27,434]

4 minutes ago, fattyflattie said:

How is this?  The standard of living with your hypothetical after 65 care from upthread?     The equitable solution is for everyone to be treated equally, and spending habits/lifestyle/location/job preference left to the individual.  Does the family you are discussing live in Manhattan or San Angelo? 

Right now, wherever you live, you are a net negative on the federal govt

 

eta unless you plan on killing yourself at 75

Edited May 12, 2022 by Sawbonz

[Mrs Whiggins 13,049]

22 minutes ago, PenelopeWitherspoon said:

@Brisketexan, are you making Vespers on the ledge?

If he's not, when I pickled jalapenos last week I also pickled a couple of jars of small onions so if you'd settle for a Gibson, I got you fam. I'm rather fond of making a drink dirty now and then, so be sure and say whether you prefer brine or not.

 

[David Dennison 18,658]

3 minutes ago, fattyflattie said:

How is this?  The standard of living with your hypothetical after 65 care from upthread?     The equitable solution is for everyone to be treated equally, and spending habits/lifestyle/location/job preference left to the individual.  Does the family you are discussing live in Manhattan or San Angelo? 

Fine. Eliminate every single deduction and perk for the wealthy. All of them.

How do you think that would go over?

[F250 28,689]

Wrong thread.

Edited May 12, 2022 by F250

[fattyflattie 4,636]

5 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

Fine. Eliminate every single deduction and perk for the wealthy. All of them.

How do you think that would go over?

Ok. Even across the board works.  

[Judge Roybeanbag 11,810]

14 minutes ago, Creasy Bear said:

So people should be penalized for investing their money wisely?

Not necessarily, but with the exception of a basic retirement threshold amount, capital gains should be taxed the same as income, or at least more fairly.

[David Dennison 18,658]

3 minutes ago, fattyflattie said:

Ok. Even across the board works.  

Good luck with that.

[Biff Tannen 45,495]

51 minutes ago, TexArcher said:

The notion that S.S. will be gone when it's time for Gen X-ers to collect is a complete fiction.  We may get slightly reduced benefits and/or we may get our FRA pushed back a year or two, but we will get Social Security.

Cool, what about Millennials and on down?  Serious question, because I've never in my life thought that I would ever see what I paid into SS.  I just view it as an additional tax.

[fattyflattie 4,636]

4 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

Good luck with that.

I know. Sucks. 

[David Dennison 18,658]

2 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

Cool, what about Millennials and on down?  Serious question, because I've never in my life thought that I would ever see what I paid into SS.  I just view it as an additional tax.

As long as the United States of America exists, so will Social Security. If Social Security is no longer paying benefits, it means the USA no longer exists as a going concern.

[Biff Tannen 45,495]

6 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

As long as the United States of America exists, so will Social Security. If Social Security is no longer paying benefits, it means the USA no longer exists as a going concern.

So I'll continue my belief that I will not see Social Security then.  Thanks.

[TexArcher 37,518]

8 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

Cool, what about Millennials and on down?  Serious question, because I've never in my life thought that I would ever see what I paid into SS.  I just view it as an additional tax.

Well, it is an additional tax, but it's earmarked for two specific parts of the federal budget: SS and Medicare.

If I had to guess, SS will be there for millennials and Gen Z as well, but the longer timeline means more uncertainty.

But, to be honest, and I'm not joking at all: I think your generation is going to be a lot more concered about drinkable water and trying to somehow maintain a climate you can survive in than about Social Security.  I'm afraid those problems are decades away, not centuries.  

[David Dennison 18,658]

2 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

So I'll continue my belief that I will not see Social Security then.  Thanks.

And that's fair.

[Hookah Horns 3,081]

2 hours ago, fattyflattie said:

I don’t give a solitary fuck how someone spends their money. I want to understand why someone who is provided the same services by the govt, has the same access and rights as literally every other American, should not be required to contribute equally. Do they get the same vote? Same govt services?  Well then why do they have less skin in the game? 

Because they have less skin you dolt. 

[royiv 9,160]

53 minutes ago, fattyflattie said:

I think we (people, not corps) should all be equal, like every other thing in this country.  I’m younger than you, but have been maxing it out most of my career as well.  I’m trying to understand why equality is great and an absolute necessity for humans for some things, but doesn’t apply to others.  

The first sentence demonstrates your blind ignorance to reality in this country. If you can't see that there is a massive equality gap everywhere you look in your day to day, you are living in some sort of drug induced alternate reality. And spare me the "fair" argument. Life ain't fair and if you're in the top 1%, it's been more fair to you than if you're in the bottom 1%. Don't be a shitheel and pretend to give a fuck about your fellow man.

[MonkeyDoughnut 10,145]

3 hours ago, Judge Roybeanbag said:

I dunno.  A good start would be increasing the capital gains tax on people who contribute nothing but sit back and earn a living on investments and/or live on loans backed by those investments.  Exempt retirement accounts and homesteads. 

Agree but only for those under say $1M (some number) total assets.  The "legal" abuse that goes on to allow wealthy people to accumulate more wealth in "retirement" aka for them - "I have so much I don't need it now wealth" accounts is obscene.

[Judge Roybeanbag 11,810]

7 minutes ago, MonkeyDoughnut said:

Agree but only for those under say $1M (some number) total assets.  The "legal" abuse that goes on to allow wealthy people to accumulate more wealth in "retirement" aka for them - "I have so much I don't need it now wealth" accounts is obscene.

Agree, and that was my less-than-articulate point about retirement accounts.  There needs to be a threshold of some sort.

[Goofyboy 3,205]

Ok. Even across the board works.  

Even across the board. So like a flat tax. Everyone pays 20%. Then what? That person making $30k a year is now down to $24k. Now they need food stamps… which last I checked you don’t like…. That’s why your “equality “ idea doesn’t work. It’s not realistic.

[fattyflattie 4,636]

15 minutes ago, Hookah Horns said:

Because they have less skin you dolt. 

No. They have the exact same rights the govt provides every other single person. They have earned less money. But in the eyes of the govt, they are equal. 
 

11 minutes ago, royiv said:

Life ain't fair

Correct 

11 minutes ago, royiv said:

if you're in the top 1%, it's been more fair to you than if you're in the bottom 1%.

Incorrect. 
 

 

[Hookah Horns 3,081]

1 minute ago, fattyflattie said:

No. They have the exact same rights the govt provides every other single person. They have earned less money. But in the eyes of the govt, they are equal. 
 

Rights are equal, obligations aren't. They aren't the same thing.

 

Noblesse oblige.