Will America recover?

[Sawbonz 27548]

2 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

Because they are marginal rates, I don't consider any rate punitive.

Obviously a troll. Y’all enjoy the debate 

[Guest]

People don't want recovery.

They would rather get theirs.

[Jack Burton 35]

5 minutes ago, OatmealRaisinCookie said:

Two words: Oil. Gas.

 

j/k my O&G bros

truf

[llanoflash 151]

12 minutes ago, Jack Burton said:

You have to do math for each bracket. It's not a whole amount multiplied by 0.7

my dumb ass.

the rate ends up 46% on 108000.

still...

[Anastasis 23469]

8 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

Because they are marginal rates, I don't consider any rate punitive.

notsureifserious.gif

[David Dennison 18855]

Just now, Anastasis said:

notsureifserious.gif

Of course I'm not serious.

But I would support the Eisenhower rates and would not consider the highest bracket punitive.

[RandomIdoit 655]

4 minutes ago, slorch said:

People don't want recovery.

They would rather get theirs.

They want to get what they have earned. Getting a college education in an in demand field, gaining experience in your field, learning a trade, or landing a high paying job should not be a reason to be taxed more.  Being able-bodied and mentally capable, but never getting an education after high school, taking a low paying job, not learning a trade, not taking advantage of Pell Grants, not joining the military, and living beyond their means should be a reason to be taxed less? 

[F250 28768]

21 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

This is hysterical. How the hell do you make six figures and not understand how marginal tax rates work?

Male stripper.

[BabaYaga 15290]

29 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

If you fall into the highest tax bracket, that doesn't mean all of your income is taxed at that rate. It only means that the amount you earn over the income level where that rate kicks in is taxed at that rate. Income below that amount is taxed at lower rates. That's how marginal tax rates work and it's why the magic number for paying taxes is your effective tax rate, which is the percentage of your income you actually end up paying after it's all said and done. That effective rate is much lower than the highest tax bracket.

 

Problem is, if you look back YOY at federal revenue as a % of GDP, it consistently hovers in the mid-teens, regardless of what the tax rates are.  From the 50's through the 70's top rates were around 70%.  Revenue as a percentage of GDP (5 year blocks for the sake of consistency):

1950 – 13.2% (rev as % of GDP)

1955 – 15.4%

1960 – 17.02%

1965 – 15.7%

1970 – 16.02%

1975 – 16.52%

*then in 1981 top rates went down to 50%

1980 – 18.66%

1985 – 16.88%

*dropped again to 28%

1990 – 17.25%

*then jumped back up to 39.6%

1995 – 17.63%

2000 – 19.69%

*2001, dropped for 35%, through 2012 when it went back up to 39.6)

ACA 3.8% propped up to 43.4%

2005 – 16.44%

2010 – 14.45%

2015 – 17.93%

So as you can see, these top rates mean very little.  Growth (finally above 3% for the 1st time in 8 years), population, and spending are your critical factors.  And regarding spending, what “we” are not going to recover from isn’t racism or being triggered, it’s when 100% of GDP goes toward the interest on our outstanding federal debt.  It’s an upward, compounding, linear trend at around 7+% right now.  With estimated that by 2028 our debt with top $33T.  You neither grow nor tax your way out of that big fucking hole.

Spending.  It’s our insane levels of spending that we can actually control.  And before everyone jumps on the cut military bandwagon, that accounts for a little under 20% (factoring for discretionary and mandatory spending).  Entitlements which are un-fucking touchable according to our friends on the left every time it’s brought up, account for almost 70% of the federal budget (and rising at 1.32% per year)

[wildcat09 29351]

11 minutes ago, BabaYaga said:

Problem is, if you look back YOY at federal revenue as a % of GDP, it consistently hovers in the mid-teens, regardless of what the tax rates are.  From the 50's through the 70's top rates were around 70%.  Revenue as a percentage of GDP (5 year blocks for the sake of consistency):

1950 – 13.2% (rev as % of GDP)

1955 – 15.4%

1960 – 17.02%

1965 – 15.7%

1970 – 16.02%

1975 – 16.52%

*then in 1981 top rates went down to 50%

1980 – 18.66%

1985 – 16.88%

*dropped again to 28%

1990 – 17.25%

*then jumped back up to 39.6%

1995 – 17.63%

2000 – 19.69%

*2001, dropped for 35%, through 2012 when it went back up to 39.6)

ACA 3.8% propped up to 43.4%

2005 – 16.44%

2010 – 14.45%

2015 – 17.93%

So as you can see, these top rates mean very little.  Growth (finally above 3% for the 1st time in 8 years), population, and spending are your critical factors.  And regarding spending, what “we” are not going to recover from isn’t racism or being triggered, it’s when 100% of GDP goes toward the interest on our outstanding federal debt.  It’s an upward, compounding, linear trend at around 7+% right now.  With estimated that by 2028 our debt with top $33T.  You neither grow nor tax your way out of that big fucking hole.

Spending.  It’s our insane levels of spending that we can actually control.  And before everyone jumps on the cut military bandwagon, that accounts for a little under 20% (factoring for discretionary and mandatory spending).  Entitlements which are un-fucking touchable according to our friends on the left every time it’s brought up, account for almost 70% of the federal budget (and rising at 1.32% per year)

Why are you saying things that can be easily disproved? Quarterly GDP growth exceeded 3% in 6 different quarters during Obama's presidency. If you're talking annual growth, it was only 2.6% last year (the only full year we've had under Trump) so you can't say it's exceeded 3% yet.

[SKJ 1311]

1 hour ago, BabaYaga said:

Entitlements which are un-fucking touchable according to our friends on the left every time it’s brought up, account for almost 70% of the federal budget (and rising at 1.32% per year)

Most of "entitlement" spending (known as mandatory, btw) is social security, Medicare, and Medicaid.

Usually people like to throw around the word entitlements to make it seem like it's all "welfare Queens."

[Brew 3049]

2 hours ago, wildcat09 said:

This is hysterical. How the hell do you make six figures and not understand how marginal tax rates work?

I have guys in 7 figures that don’t understand marginal rates.

[BabaYaga 15290]

1 hour ago, wildcat09 said:

Why are you saying things that can be easily disproved? Quarterly GDP growth exceeded 3% in 6 different quarters during Obama's presidency. If you're talking annual growth, it was only 2.6% last year (the only full year we've had under Trump) so you can't say it's exceeded 3% yet.

Who gives a fuck about quarterly - even yearly growth @ < 3% is pathetic.  For almost a decade?  Jesus Christ.  

[wildcat09 29351]

Just now, BabaYaga said:

Who gives a fuck about quarterly - even yearly growth @ < 3% is pathetic.  For almost a decade?  Jesus Christ.  

So you were talking about annual growth, which was not in fact over three percent last year?

Were you knowingly lying or just talking out of your ass?

[BabaYaga 15290]

14 minutes ago, SKJ said:

Most of "entitlement" spending (known as mandatory, btw) is social security, Medicare, and Medicaid.

Usually people like to throw around the word entitlements to make it seem like it's all "welfare Queens."

And Medicare is 9000% over initial budget projections?  Medicaid is close to 6000%.  They are bloated and wasteful and need reforming.  But even a slight hint, and it's throwing g-ma off the cliff and people dying in the streets..

[BabaYaga 15290]

3 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

So you were talking about annual growth, which was not in fact over three percent last year?

Were you knowingly lying or just talking out of your ass?

So we're not growing our way out of $17T in debt?  And taxing, as shown, doesn't have a linear relationship of rates to revenue.  So that leaves......

[wildcat09 29351]

4 minutes ago, BabaYaga said:

So we're not growing our way out of $17T in debt?  And taxing, as shown, doesn't have a linear relationship of rates to revenue.  So that leaves......

Stop changing the subject. You stated that we were finally exceeding 3% growth, and followed up by implying that you meant annual growth. We did not, in fact, have 3% annual growth last year. So why did you say we did?

Edited June 13, 2018 by wildcat09

[BabaYaga 15290]

And since we're talking about our abysmal GDP, are we also going to acknowledge these numbers, as low are they are, have been gamed?  How Obama changed the metric in 2013, effectively "bumping" it by around 50 basis points.  

GDP = private consumption + gross investment + government spending + (exports − imports), or GDP = C+I+G+(X-M)

"I" now includes R&D Spending and a bunch of other fluff like Hollywood royalties

Hey, tell us again why wages aren't growing.....

[Guest]

2 hours ago, RandomIdoit said:

They want to get what they have earned. Getting a college education in an in demand field, gaining experience in your field, learning a trade, or landing a high paying job should not be a reason to be taxed more.  Being able-bodied and mentally capable, but never getting an education after high school, taking a low paying job, not learning a trade, not taking advantage of Pell Grants, not joining the military, and living beyond their means should be a reason to be taxed less? 

Yes. You're generally going to produce less, thus the taxation is less.   Personally, I'd support a flat tax and no income tax rebates, even if it would cost me more. Everyone needs to have a stake at the table when it comes to taxation. 

[BabaYaga 15290]

3 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

Stop changing the subject. You stated that we were finally exceeding 3% growth, and followed up by implying that you meant annual growth. We did not, in fact, have 3% annual growth last year. So why did you say we did?

Forgot it was adjusted down - now fuck off and acknowledge that this pie in the sky bullshit about raising tax rates doesn't translate to increased levels of revenue.  And even at 4% YOY growth, current levels of debt are untenable.  Can't tax your way out.  So tell me again what that leaves us?

[RandomIdoit 655]

5 minutes ago, slorch said:

Yes. You're generally going to produce less, thus the taxation is less.   Personally, I'd support a flat tax and no income tax rebates, even if it would cost me more. Everyone needs to have a stake at the table when it comes to taxation. 

I think a flat tax would be fair also. So we agree on that. But when people say that I should pay more because I made better choices than someone else, and they should pay nothing (and even get money back), that's when I have issues with it.

[Johnny Sack 8397]

24 minutes ago, BabaYaga said:

And Medicare is 9000% over initial budget projections?  Medicaid is close to 6000%.  They are bloated and wasteful and need reforming.  But even a slight hint, and it's throwing g-ma off the cliff and people dying in the streets..

People are dying in the streets you insensitive bastard. 

[Johnny Sack 8397]

3 minutes ago, RandomIdoit said:

I think a flat tax would be fair also. So we agree on that. But when people say that I should pay more because I made better choices than someone else, and they should pay nothing (and even get money back), that's when I have issues with it.

This is very racist and sexist.  And probably homophobic.  

[BabaYaga 15290]

Quote

People are dying in the streets you insensitive bastard

In CA they are just shitting in them....

[Guest]

5 minutes ago, RandomIdoit said:

I think a flat tax would be fair also. So we agree on that. But when people say that I should pay more because I made better choices than someone else, and they should pay nothing (and even get money back), that's when I have issues with it.

I addressed that in supporting the end of tebates on income tax. I do not believe in negative tax bills. 

[RandomIdoit 655]

1 hour ago, slorch said:

I addressed that in supporting the end of tebates on income tax. I do not believe in negative tax bills. 

I was just stating my position, not saying yours was different. There are some on here that want to tax the people who made wise choices to pay people who didn't.

[BabaYaga 15290]

May Deficit: $147 Billion, Highest since Great Recession....

Bad Trump. Bad Congress. Bad every President and Congress for the past 30 years....The left will continue to ignore the difference between tax rates and tax base and claim a fall in receipts is to blame.  The right will claim an increased tax base at lower rates is not done forming forming.  Both are correct to an extent.  The economy isn't done growing.  The tax base isn't done expanding.  But F-ing Congress won't stop spending....when GDP to interest on federal debt equal 100%.  Lights out....

[Cacti 191]

This probably should go under the Charles Krauthammer thread but since several posters are convinced that our republic is either dying or dead, I thought this thread was a perfect place for his last opinion column, The guardrails hold . It’s dated but the message is current. Maybe it’ll keep certain posters from jumping off the ledge.

Quote

From the generals to the Boy Scouts, institutions are withstanding Trump.

 

Edited June 13, 2018 by Cacti

[Bullneck 19080]

8 hours ago, Johnny Sack said:

I think Americans should follow the law and report their income.  You apparently disagree.

Since you have an annual income above $1 million, you are not doubt aware of this:

 

Quote

What is the 'Double Irish With A Dutch Sandwich'
The double Irish with a Dutch sandwich is a tax avoidance technique employed by certain large corporations, involving the use of a combination of Irish and Dutch subsidiary companies to shift profits to low or no tax jurisdictions. The double Irish with a Dutch sandwich technique involves sending profits first through one Irish company, then to a Dutch company and finally to a second Irish company headquartered in a tax haven. This technique has allowed certain corporations to reduce their overall corporate tax rates dramatically.

Next Up
IEP (IRISH POUND)
GUILDER SHARE - NEW YORK SHARE
DUTCH DISEASE
TAX RATE
BREAKING DOWN 'Double Irish With A Dutch Sandwich'
This technique is just one of a class of similar international tax avoidance schemes. Each involves arranging transactions between subsidiary companies to take advantage of the idiosyncrasies of varied national tax codes. These techniques are most prominently used by tech companies, because these firms can easily shift large portions of profits to other countries by assigning intellectual property rights to subsidiaries abroad.
The double Irish with a Dutch sandwich is generally considered to be a very aggressive tax planning strategy. It is, however, famously used by some of the world's largest corporations, such as Google, Apple and Microsoft. In 2014, it came under heavy scrutiny, especially from the United States and the European Union, when it was discovered that this technique made it possible to send several billion dollars annually tax-free to tax havens.

How it Works
The technique involves two Irish companies, a Dutch company and an offshore company located in a tax haven. The first Irish company is used to receive large royalties on goods, such as iPhones sold to U.S. consumers. The U.S. profits, and therefore taxes, are dramatically lowered, and the Irish taxes on the royalties are very low. Due to a loophole in Irish laws, the company can then transfer its profits tax-free to the offshore company, where they can remain untaxed for years.

The second Irish company is used for sales to European customers. It is also taxed at a low rate and can send its profits to the first Irish company using a Dutch company as an intermediary. If done right, there is no tax paid anywhere. The first Irish company now has all the money and can again send it onward to the tax haven company.

The End of the Double Irish With a Dutch Sandwich
Due largely to international pressure and the publicity surrounding Google's and Apple's uses of the double Irish with a Dutch sandwich, the Irish finance minister, in the 2015 budget, passed measures to close the loopholes and effectively end the use of the double Irish with a Dutch sandwich for new tax plans. Companies with established structures will continue to benefit from the old system until 2020.

Compare Popular Online Brokers
Provider
Name
Description

Advertiser Disclosure
RELATED TERMS
IEP (Irish Pound)
IEP (Irish Pound) was the currency of Ireland until 2002.
Guilder Share - New York Share
An ownership stake in a Dutch company that can be traded in the ...
Dutch Disease
Dutch disease refers to the negative consequences arising from ...
Tax Rate
A tax rate is the percentage at which an individual or corporation ...
Taxes
An involuntary fee levied on corporations or individuals that ...
Income Tax
A tax that governments impose on financial income generated by ...
RELATED ARTICLES

INSIGHTS
Tim Cook Calls EU Ruling 'Political Crap' (AAPL)
Apple has been ordered to pay $14.5 billion in back taxes by the European Commission.
How to find happiness at work
SPONSORED CONTENT
How to find happiness at work
By Fidelity - Learn how to appreciate the people and places you see every day.

INVESTING
Google Sheltered $19.2B With Tax Maneuvers: Report
The search engine giant’s use of tax shelters reportedly saved it as much as $3.7 billion.

INSIGHTS
Tax Wars: U.S. Companies Are Targets (AMZN, SBUX)
The EU is targeting Amazon, McDonald's, Starbucks and others. Tax avoidance is big business, pitting governments, the EU and companies against each other.

RETIREMENT
How Much Money Do You Need to Retire in Ireland?
After the Celtic Tiger's boom and bust, retiring in Ireland may be more affordable than you think. Here's an overview of what to expect.

INVESTING
The Story Behind The Irish Meltdown
Once a lesson in national renewal, Ireland is learning that success can be fleeting. Learn the story behind Ireland's crumbling economy.

INVESTING
How Royal Dutch Shell Makes Money (RDS-A)
How does an oil company dominate the world? Following Royal Dutch Shell's business model probably wouldn't hurt.

TAXES
All You Need to Know About Tax Havens
These tax-free zones might sound appealing, but the consequences often aren't.

INVESTING
Royal Dutch Shell Strategy Update
Royal Dutch Shell held its twice a year strategy update and is well along in meeting goals set out in 2010.

TAXES
Tax Haven Vs. Tax Shelters: Is There a Difference?
Learn about the difference between tax havens and tax shelters, and how both are used to reduce tax liability or avoid paying taxes altogether.

INVESTING
Explaining Dutch Auction
A Dutch auction is a public offering auction.
RELATED FAQS
Why is Andorra considered a tax haven?
Find out why Andorra is considered a tax haven and how developments have lessened its appeal due to increased taxation and ... Read Answer >>
How does the marginal tax rate system work?
The marginal tax rate is the rate of tax that income earners incur on each additional dollar of income. Read Answer >>

Read more: Double Irish With A Dutch Sandwich https://www.investopedia.com/terms/d/double-irish-with-a-dutch-sandwich.asp#ixzz5ILdV8bTO
Follow us: Investopedia on Facebook

 

[Bullneck 19080]

10 hours ago, Sawbonz said:

This is a strange statement. The taxes he has paid in have done a tremendous amount of good despite the govt spending twice what it takes in. The taxes paid by the top 1% allow us to make interest payments on the debt and to keep borrowing at our current (unsustainable) rate if nothing else. That literally keeps people from starving and dying of disease and exposure. And pays to safeguard our borders and interests here and abroad. Many more people than you help unless you are close to their tax bracket. Oh but you clamor for more of their money, I guess that counts for something.

Also he doesn’t have to justify his income to you or anyone else. Why should anyone care that you think they should be happy with the amount of money the govt lets them keep?

This is a strange statement.  

I'm glad you think his money has done a tremendous amount of good.  I have faith in my tax dollars as well.  

But that money is commingled with the taxes of poor people who pay a much larger proportionate share of income.  

I'm not sure why Johnny Sack's money goes toward debt service and not something else.  Or why you think the national debt is unsustainable: 

Quote

How long has the U.S. run fiscal deficits? By Investopedia

 Answer: The United States began its history indebted, owing more than $70 million to the French and Dutch after the end of the Revolutionary War in 1783. However, the first actual fiscal deficit in the federal ledger was not run until the end of that decade. In September 1789, Alexander Hamilton, then Secretary of the Treasury, negotiated terms with the Bank of New York and the Bank of North America to borrow $19,608.81 to address shortfalls within the U.S. budget.

If you spend much time in any major urban area you'll see people living on the street.  It doesn't appear to be doing much for them.  

 

And I do clamor for more of their money.  What I don't understand is why you can't see why.

[Bullneck 19080]

1 hour ago, BabaYaga said:

May Deficit: $147 Billion, Highest since Great Recession....

Bad Trump. Bad Congress. Bad every President and Congress for the past 30 years....The left will continue to ignore the difference between tax rates and tax base and claim a fall in receipts is to blame.  The right will claim an increased tax base at lower rates is not done forming forming.  Both are correct to an extent.  The economy isn't done growing.  The tax base isn't done expanding.  But F-ing Congress won't stop spending....when GDP to interest on federal debt equal 100%.  Lights out....

This is not a very well written post, even for someone as ill informed as you.  

[Sawbonz 27548]

31 minutes ago, Bullneck said:

This is a strange statement.  

I'm glad you think his money has done a tremendous amount of good.  I have faith in my tax dollars as well.  

But that money is commingled with the taxes of poor people who pay a much larger proportionate share of income.  

I'm not sure why Johnny Sack's money goes toward debt service and not something else.  Or why you think the national debt is unsustainable: 

If you spend much time in any major urban area you'll see people living on the street.  It doesn't appear to be doing much for them.  

 

And I do clamor for more of their money.  What I don't understand is why you can't see why.

Man you really don’t have a clue. A big chunk of everyone’s tax payment goes to debt service. It’s unsustainable not because we have almost always run a deficit, but because it has grown so much. Just the interest on the debt will equal gdp if nothing is done. It will happen much faster if folks like johnny weren’t paying in

 

I see homeless people all the time. I treat them, often for free. actually I pay to take care of them, as that is time away from paying patients and I still have to pay rent, utilities and staff salary and benefits. You could take all Johnny’s money, all mine, and throw in yours and not solve homelessness.  But keep being a dick and thinking you care more than anyone else

[Bullneck 19080]

1 hour ago, Sawbonz said:

Man you really don’t have a clue. A big chunk of everyone’s tax payment goes to debt service. It’s unsustainable not because we have almost always run a deficit, but because it has grown so much. Just the interest on the debt will equal gdp if nothing is done. It will happen much faster if folks like johnny weren’t paying in

6%.  Say, where did you get your public policy education?

 

[Bullneck 19080]

1 hour ago, Sawbonz said:

You could take all Johnny’s money, all mine, and throw in yours and not solve homelessness.  

Interesting.  Do you think homelessness can be solved at all?  I guess if you don't, then no amount of money will help.  

But why would that be the case?   Here are some examples of places where things appear to be working:

Quote

ThinkProgress has dedicated a portion of our coverage on Wednesday, June 29th to reporting on the state of homelessness in Washington, D.C. This story is part of that series.

Homelessness is an issue for nearly every country. In recent years, the United States has increased efforts to end homelessness around the country. As the U.S. looks for new methods of handling the homelessness issue, here’s a few examples of how other countries have lowered homelessness rates.

Japan
In August 2014, homelessness in Tokyo hit record lows.

“Hiroki Motoda, a metropolitan government official, said support for the homeless offered by the city, including temporary housing provision and employment advice, had contributed to lowering the figure over the years,” the Wall Street Journal reported at the time.

Advertisement

While Japan’s homelessness issue is less racially charged, major American cities can take the lead from Tokyo — a metropolis with a population larger than New York and Los Angeles combined. The homeless population Tokyo is less than 700 according to government reports. Tokyo’s population is over 13 million (the greater Tokyo area has over 36 million residents) but in the Washington D.C. — where the population is 672,000 — there are more than 7,000 homeless people.

Denmark
The percentage of homeless people in Denmark is less than 0.1 percent. Denmark’s ‘housing first’ policy helps keep people — and particularly the youth — off the streets. It also matches a strategy that certain communities in the U.S. are advocating for after initial success in Utah. “[T]he public housing sector is about twenty percent of the total housing stock in Denmark,” an essay published by the University of Maryland says.

The country also prioritizes policies and funding for homeless people. Denmark gave the homeless their own cemetery and in the third largest city of Odense, researchers track volunteers to try and figure out how to place infrastructure that benefits the homeless.

Singapore
Singapore has “virtually no homelessness,” according to the Solutions Journal. In 1960, Lee Kuan Yew and the People’s Action Party (PAP) put together a Housing and Development Board to build 51,031 new housing units over a five year period. That legacy has lived on in modern Singapore, as government build houses were affordable enough for many residents to buy over the years.

Advertisement

“According to Statistics Singapore, 90 percent of Singaporeans own their own homes today and more than 80 percent live in government-built residential units,” City Lab reported.

The U.S. population could prove a stumbling block in repeating such a task but providing housing and supportive services for more than a half-million homeless Americans would still be less expensive than doing nothing.

Canada
In the city of Medicine Hat in Alberta, no person living without shelter goes more than 10 days before the government provides them with permanent housing. This project was started in 2009 and as of 2015 the city’s residents were almost entirely living in permanent housing. “We want to see if it’s sustainable before we announce that we’ve ended homelessness,” Mayor Ted Clugston told the Calgary Herald.

Clugston is a fiscal conservative, according to the Herald, and while he was skeptical of the plan at first, results have changed his mind.

 

Edited June 14, 2018 by Bullneck

[fattyflattie 4639]

Lol at the Johnny hate. Dude went thru same school as most of you and got a damn good law degree.  Then went to work, and not even in the family business it doesn’t sound like. That in itself is more than 95% of the people y’all want to help so bad will ever do with themselves, even if you double their handouts.  

He stands to someday inherit money, ok, I guess that’s his fault? 

My guess is he gives more to charity than many others here. I can’t understand why in the fuck anyone feels he needs to give more?  Because you assume he takes all this home and sleeps on a mattress of cash? What if he’s got lots of debt (sick, school, other)? Kids that couldn’t work (disabled, whatever) so he’s working for the next generation? Really it doesn’t make a fuck. We aren’t talking about a lottery winner  

It comes off as a bunch of have nots with uncontrollable jealously of the haves.  And I’m certain most here do pretty well. I’m also certain some of the loudest of the take it all crowd would do a 180 if they had something worth taking.  

Curious if Dennis gives 50-70% of his income to charity? I mean it’s probably used much better than thru the govt. by way of taxes. What percentage do you give to your pet charities, Dennis?  Surely you put your $$$ where your mouth is, I mean Johnny can’t pay your way entirely.  Race baiting or whatever the fuck you do for a living surely pays well. 

Upthread, there was talk about getting a nursing associates rather easily. Even more easily, truck driving, construction , etc.  There is literally no good excuse if you are able bodied to be making 5$ an hour somewhere. You are just fucking lazy, or made very poor choices in crucial times of your life  

Nearly every able bodied person can go to the military. They’ll take you even if you are poor, and then pay for your college afterward.  Nah I’m good waiting tables and getting my stipend.  And bitching about the try hards that made money, assholes the lot of them  

If I had that kind of money, I’d do every single thing I could to avoid giving it to the govt. I’ll be charitable to places that use it.  You say there’s a shortage of 1200 ft^2 houses for upcoming folks to live in, I’ll give some to habitat for humanity.  Or do what the haves do, build some.  If the market is there, someone will fill it.  

 

 

[Sawbonz 27548]

15 minutes ago, Bullneck said:

Interesting.  Do you think homelessness can be solved at all?  I guess if you don't, then no amount of money will help.  

But why would that be the case?   Here are some examples of places where things appear to be working:

 

No I do not think homelessness can be solved. We can do better than we do, but a large percentage (close to 40%) of homeless people are dependent on alcohol and other substances, and many also suffer from mental disorders. Of course spending money on treatment will help, but there will be lost causes even under the best circumstances. Many of those will never agree to abide by the rules required to be housed, so unless you want to lock them away or force non mentally ill and non substance dependent poor people to house near them then they will remain out of doors. 

As far as your graph, if we keep borrowing, the interest on the debt will keep growing as a percentage of the budget. And it has to be paid first, if we want to be able to keep borrowing. It is not sustainable. You can increase taxes to a point, but at a certain marginal rate people will just quit working. For me it’s 50%. If that rate comes back, I’ll just start taking days /weeks off when I hit it. Which not only means less revenue, it means I let staff go.  I doubt I’m the only one who thinks that way. We’ve got to get spending under control, and reprioritize where the money goes  

 

 

[David Dennison 18855]

3 minutes ago, Sawbonz said:

No I do not think homelessness can be solved. We can do better than we do, but a large percentage (close to 40%) of homeless people are dependent on alcohol and other substances, and many also suffer from mental disorders. Of course spending money on treatment will help, but there will be lost causes even under the best circumstances. Many of those will never agree to abide by the rules required to be housed, so unless you want to lock them away or force non mentally ill and non substance dependent poor people to house near them then they will remain out of doors. 

As far as your graph, if we keep borrowing, the interest on the debt will keep growing as a percentage of the budget. And it has to be paid first, if we want to be able to keep borrowing. It is not sustainable. You can increase taxes to a point, but at a certain marginal rate people will just quit working. For me it’s 50%. If that rate comes back, I’ll just start taking days /weeks off when I hit it. Which not only means less revenue, it means I let staff go.  I doubt I’m the only one who thinks that way. We’ve got to get spending under control, and reprioritize where the money goes  

 

 

At what level of income does that rate have to hit 50% for you to quit working?

 

[Bullneck 19080]

8 minutes ago, Sawbonz said:

No I do not think homelessness can be solved. We can do better than we do, but a large percentage (close to 40%) of homeless people are dependent on alcohol and other substances, and many also suffer from mental disorders. Of course spending money on treatment will help, but there will be lost causes even under the best circumstances. Many of those will never agree to abide by the rules required to be housed, so unless you want to lock them away or force non mentally ill and non substance dependent poor people to house near them then they will remain out of doors. 

As far as your graph, if we keep borrowing, the interest on the debt will keep growing as a percentage of the budget. And it has to be paid first, if we want to be able to keep borrowing. It is not sustainable. You can increase taxes to a point, but at a certain marginal rate people will just quit working. For me it’s 50%. If that rate comes back, I’ll just start taking days /weeks off when I hit it. Which not only means less revenue, it means I let staff go.  I doubt I’m the only one who thinks that way. We’ve got to get spending under control, and reprioritize where the money goes  

 

 

1. I take it you didn't read the article I posted.  

2.  You didn't say exactly how you arrived at your economic conclusions.  I suspect there may be some holes in your math.  They would be easy to find.  

BUT, I won't argue.  A man cannot be reasons out of a position he wasn't reasoned into.  

Edited June 14, 2018 by Bullneck

[David Dennison 18855]

10 minutes ago, fattyflattie said:

Lol at the Johnny hate. Dude went thru same school as most of you and got a damn good law degree.  Then went to work, and not even in the family business it doesn’t sound like. That in itself is more than 95% of the people y’all want to help so bad will ever do with themselves, even if you double their handouts.  

He stands to someday inherit money, ok, I guess that’s his fault? 

My guess is he gives more to charity than many others here. I can’t understand why in the fuck anyone feels he needs to give more?  Because you assume he takes all this home and sleeps on a mattress of cash? What if he’s got lots of debt (sick, school, other)? Kids that couldn’t work (disabled, whatever) so he’s working for the next generation? Really it doesn’t make a fuck. We aren’t talking about a lottery winner  

It comes off as a bunch of have nots with uncontrollable jealously of the haves.  And I’m certain most here do pretty well. I’m also certain some of the loudest of the take it all crowd would do a 180 if they had something worth taking.  

Curious if Dennis gives 50-70% of his income to charity? I mean it’s probably used much better than thru the govt. by way of taxes. What percentage do you give to your pet charities, Dennis?  Surely you put your $$$ where your mouth is, I mean Johnny can’t pay your way entirely.  Race baiting or whatever the fuck you do for a living surely pays well. 

Upthread, there was talk about getting a nursing associates rather easily. Even more easily, truck driving, construction , etc.  There is literally no good excuse if you are able bodied to be making 5$ an hour somewhere. You are just fucking lazy, or made very poor choices in crucial times of your life  

Nearly every able bodied person can go to the military. They’ll take you even if you are poor, and then pay for your college afterward.  Nah I’m good waiting tables and getting my stipend.  And bitching about the try hards that made money, assholes the lot of them  

If I had that kind of money, I’d do every single thing I could to avoid giving it to the govt. I’ll be charitable to places that use it.  You say there’s a shortage of 1200 ft^2 houses for upcoming folks to live in, I’ll give some to habitat for humanity.  Or do what the haves do, build some.  If the market is there, someone will fill it.  

The dude cried about scratching out a seven figure check to the IRS. Do you have any idea how well he did that tax year  and how much of an asshole he sounds like bitching about paying that amount of tax after a year that most Americans can't even imagine?

[fattyflattie 4639]

9 hours ago, OatmealRaisinCookie said:

Two words: Oil. Gas.

 

j/k my O&G bros

Troof

also, anything offsho 

[fattyflattie 4639]

7 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

The dude cried about scratching out a seven figure check to the IRS. Do you have any idea how well he did that tax year  and how much of an asshole he sounds like bitching about paying that amount of tax after a year that most Americans can't even imagine?

Most Americans don’t have the mental fortitude to be Texas law, either.  

Say he mowed 3mm worth of lawns that year, does that change anything?  Sounds like you have an  issue with the coin attorneys can sometimes pull in.  Would it be better if he was commercial re guy like my shitheel neighbor who makes waaaaay tf more than he probably should?  A small business owner? 

I’m  sure most people during a windfall pay day get pissed they have to give up a third.  Especially when it gets distributed amongst things you don’t believe in.  As an American, that’s what he signed up for, doesn’t mean he has to like it?

I guess that’s the disconnect. I don’t find it assholish at all. I hear someone saying man I worked my ass off and just lost a chunk to the govt who gives very little back to me.   Hopefully they use it on things I believe in, but we all know the answer to that, no matter what side you vote with. 

[Sawbonz 27548]

19 minutes ago, Bullneck said:

1. I take it you didn't read the article I posted.  

2.  You didn't say exactly how you arrived at your economic conclusions.  I suspect there may be some holes in your math.  They would be easy to find.  

BUT, I won't argue.  A man cannot be reasons out of a position he wasn't reasoned into.  

I read what you quoted. It doesn’t address my comments 

Explain how our level of spending is sustainable 

[David Dennison 18855]

2 minutes ago, fattyflattie said:

Most Americans don’t have the mental fortitude to be Texas law, either.  

Say he mowed 3mm worth of lawns that year, does that change anything?  Sounds like you have an  issue with the coin attorneys can sometimes pull in.  Would it be better if he was commercial re guy like my shitheel neighbor who makes waaaaay tf more than he probably should?  A small business owner? 

I’m  sure most people during a windfall pay day get pissed they have to give up a third.  Especially when it gets distributed amongst things you don’t believe in.  As an American, that’s what he signed up for, doesn’t mean he has to like it?

I guess that’s the disconnect. I don’t find it assholish at all. I hear someone saying man I worked my ass off and just lost a chunk to the govt who gives very little back to me.   Hopefully they use it on things I believe in, but we all know the answer to that, no matter what side you vote with. 

No. 

[fattyflattie 4639]

9 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

No. 

So, the harder you work, the more you should be punished?  I’m sure it makes all the sense in the world to you, but I don’t get it.  What is the point in trying to advance your lot in life?  

[SKJ 1311]

I would guess that it's quite disingenuous to think that at a certain rate, people are going to stop working. 

Most of the wealthy make quite a good bit of money from investments, though, and would just be paying capital gains on it...

I don't know, but I'm willing to trade if any of you want. I'd be pretty happy keeping a few of the millions

[SKJ 1311]

4 minutes ago, fattyflattie said:

So, the harder you work, the more you should be punished?  I’m sure it makes all the sense in the world to you, but I don’t get it.  What is the point in trying to advance your lot in life?  

Tax isn't punishment.

Stop acting like it is

[RandomIdoit 655]

2 minutes ago, fattyflattie said:

So, the harder you work, the more you should be punished?  I’m sure it makes all the sense in the world to you, but I don’t get it.  What is the point in trying to advance your lot in life?  

There is none. Why try to better yourself when you can just live paycheck to paycheck and get foodstamps and medicaid? And when that isn't enough you can pay no taxes and even get some money back!

[David Dennison 18855]

3 minutes ago, fattyflattie said:

So, the harder you work, the more you should be punished?  I’m sure it makes all the sense in the world to you, but I don’t get it.  What is the point in trying to advance your lot in life?  

You call it punishment. I call it the cost the ruling class pays for state protection.  

[SKJ 1311]

5 minutes ago, fattyflattie said:

So, the harder you work, the more you should be punished?  I’m sure it makes all the sense in the world to you, but I don’t get it.  What is the point in trying to advance your lot in life?  

The reason is because it's better to make 3mm and take home 2mm than it is to make 300k and take home 250k

[SKJ 1311]

1 minute ago, RandomIdoit said:

There is none. Why try to better yourself when you can just live paycheck to paycheck and get foodstamps and medicaid? And when that isn't enough you can pay no taxes and even get some money back!

Yeah, that's the best life