kallend 2,148 #101 February 23, 2011 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteEspecially those who benefited most from Bush's absurdly unwise tax cuts. That would be the low income folks removed from the tax rolls entirely due to the cuts. Not very good at math are you? Better than you, evidently - someome paying zero tax is better off than someone paying $1 in tax, by definition. QuoteBillionaires saved more than the poor make in total. They paid more than the poor people in total, too - coming to a point sometime soon? It sure a hell isn't going to be an answer about what he thinks a fair share to be. WHY SHOULD I, WHEN I'VE DONE IT ALREADY. Particularly www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=3772317;search_string=fair%20tax;#3772317 You really have an atrocious attention span and attention to detail Only if you are arrogant enough and self-important enough to believe that everyone should remember your posts. You could try to learn how to use the SEARCH function, it really is very useful. Quote by this example - it looks like the same old shuck and jive. You seem to refuse to let yourself have a stance on what specific percentage is YOUR personal belief, or you don't have the balls to claim one. INCORRECT - I have stated VERY clearly that I think the tax rates should return to the Pre-Bush era givaway to the wealthy. Not my fault if you can't comprehend plain English. Quote QuoteTax protocols and rates are set to give the maximum revenue with fewest complaints from supporting voters. "Fair" has nothing to do with it. See - you just can't seem to admit that you have an opinion, unless you think that the current tax system is ok and there should be no increases. My opinion is that FAIR is meaningless in the context of taxes, and that tax rates should return to the Pre-Bush era givaway to the wealthy. Not my fault if you can't understand plain English. I've said the same thing often enough.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #102 February 23, 2011 QuoteQuoteQuoteYou do understand the concept of subtraction to find a difference, don't you? Well maybe you don't. You do understand the concept of economy of scale, don't you? No, you obviously don't. How does that have anything to do with whether or not the very wealthy got more from Bush's tax breaks than the poor make altogether? Answer - it has nothing to do with it whatsoever, you are just trying to distract from the facts. I can only believe that as there are masochists in the world that enjoy their abuse.... so are there the closely related and similar people who want that little TRICKLE from those they idolize. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #103 February 23, 2011 QuoteHow does that have anything to do with whether or not the very wealthy got more from Bush's tax breaks than the poor make altogether? Answer - it has nothing to do with it whatsoever, you are just trying to distract from the facts. And there you go again. "But the rich got more out of it!!!" Economy of scale, illustrated. The people that no longer had to pay ANY tax had immeasurably more benefit than someone that simply had a tax reduction.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #104 February 23, 2011 QuoteQuoteHow does that have anything to do with whether or not the very wealthy got more from Bush's tax breaks than the poor make altogether? Answer - it has nothing to do with it whatsoever, you are just trying to distract from the facts. And there you go again. "But the rich got more out of it!!!" Economy of scale, illustrated. The people that no longer had to pay ANY tax had immeasurably more benefit than someone that simply had a tax reduction. Oh yeah... its so much better to be poor barely making it... than the Executives types... pulling down 7 or 8 figure salaries and some golden... parachutes worth far more.. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #105 February 23, 2011 QuoteOh yeah... its so much better to be poor barely making it... If you tell me what part of 'no longer had to pay any tax' (the effect of the Bush cuts) gave you the problems, I'll try to explain more clearly and use shorter words.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #106 February 23, 2011 QuoteQuoteOh yeah... its so much better to be poor barely making it... If you tell me what part of 'no longer had to pay any tax' (the effect of the Bush cuts) gave you the problems, I'll try to explain more clearly and use shorter words. Ohhhhh alittle trickle for them... instead of a living wage job from your lords and masters running the VOO DOO DOO you and your ilk bow to. I guess you got used to that... the little ..........things in life Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GeorgiaDon 380 #107 February 23, 2011 QuoteThe people that no longer had to pay ANY tax had immeasurably more benefit than someone that simply had a tax reduction. It seems to me the benefit is easily measured, it is the amount of the reduction. If someone was previously paying $500, and after the tax cut pays nothing, their benefit is $500. Similarly if someone else was paying $100,000, and their tax was reduced to $60,000, their benefit is $40,000. By what logic is $500 immeasurably more than $40,000? Don_____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,148 #108 February 23, 2011 QuoteQuoteThe people that no longer had to pay ANY tax had immeasurably more benefit than someone that simply had a tax reduction. It seems to me the benefit is easily measured, it is the amount of the reduction. If someone was previously paying $500, and after the tax cut pays nothing, their benefit is $500. Similarly if someone else was paying $100,000, and their tax was reduced to $60,000, their benefit is $40,000. By what logic is $500 immeasurably more than $40,000? Don Mike has previously confessed to being math challenged.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #109 February 23, 2011 QuoteQuoteThe people that no longer had to pay ANY tax had immeasurably more benefit than someone that simply had a tax reduction. It seems to me the benefit is easily measured, it is the amount of the reduction. If someone was previously paying $500, and after the tax cut pays nothing, their benefit is $500. Similarly if someone else was paying $100,000, and their tax was reduced to $60,000, their benefit is $40,000. By what logic is $500 immeasurably more than $40,000? Don conversely by what logic is 40% immeasurably more than 100%? So, does the word "share" mean 1 - share of each individual's income? or; 2 - share of the total community's tax load? because it depends on whether you view people as individuals vs a collective, doesn't it? this is a silly nitpic contest - one side believes all the money is the government's, so any net dollar reduction is "spending" and they want the government to take it back. The other side believes that someone has the right to their own property and that any money saved is less taken away. these too sides don't have any common ground to discuss - so it's pointless ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,148 #110 February 23, 2011 QuoteQuoteQuoteThe people that no longer had to pay ANY tax had immeasurably more benefit than someone that simply had a tax reduction. It seems to me the benefit is easily measured, it is the amount of the reduction. If someone was previously paying $500, and after the tax cut pays nothing, their benefit is $500. Similarly if someone else was paying $100,000, and their tax was reduced to $60,000, their benefit is $40,000. By what logic is $500 immeasurably more than $40,000? Don conversely by what logic is 40% immeasurably more than 100%? 40% of $1Million is immeasurably more than 100% of nothing. That's why % is meaningless in this context.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #111 February 23, 2011 Quote40% of $1Million is immeasurably more than 100% of nothing. That's why % is meaningless in this context. quote out of context all you want - but the context is what matters in terms of each individual's opinion of what's fair comes down to who really owns their stuff - the individual, or the collective now I don't believe you understand the term "immeasurable" $400,000 - $500 = ('measurable' result left as an exercise for the student) ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SpeedRacer 1 #112 February 23, 2011 Quote Boehner: 'Read my lips,' GOP will cut spending http://money.cnn.com/2011/02/17/news/economy/budget_cuts_2011/index.htm Noble sentiment, but . . . Sir, is that REALLY the phrase you wanted to use? Yeah, you've got a point. However, seeing "Bohener" and "lips" in the same sentence reminded me of yet another president. Speed Racer -------------------------------------------------- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GeorgiaDon 380 #113 February 23, 2011 Quoteconversely by what logic is 40% immeasurably more than 100%As I know you know full well, percentages are ratios and you can compare 40% and 100% only if they are % of the same, or at least a known, base value. That is why your question "by what logic is 40% immeasurably more than 100%" is deceptive. Quotebecause it depends on whether you view people as individuals vs a collective, doesn't it? Of course people are both, as I'm sure you know full well. We are individuals who live in a more-or-less organized group (a "society"), where certain generally (though not necessarily universally) accepted rules are enforced so as to maximize our ability to "pursue happiness", whatever that happens to mean to you. Things like, you are not free to shit in the communal water supply (a small loss of personal freedom), but in exchange you can drink the water with very little risk of a very unpleasant death from diphtheria, or without the need to perform a fecal coliform test on every glass of water before you drink it. Rules mean nothing without enforcement, however, and enforcement has a cost. That cost should be borne by everyone who derives a benefit from living in an organized society. We can debate about what is the most fair, or the most practical way of allocating that cost to individuals, but the cost has to be paid. Individuals who insist that they should be able to enjoy all the benefit of society without shouldering any of the cost are, simply put, parasites. Reasonable people can discuss, and disagree even, about what is the proper role of society in striking the right balance when rules trade off one freedom against another. Most people agree that rules against murder or theft are appropriate, even though that limits their own option to kill someone because they pissed you off, or to just take something because you want it and don't want to earn it. It becomes less self-evident when we talk about something like public education; it is obvious to me that an educated work force is an essential prerequisite to sustain a modern economy, which generates the wealth we all benefit from (though some benefit more than others). However, some people might think they would be just fine in a 18th century economy where only the children of the wealthier families have access to an education. In a democracy that is something we debate, we make a decision, and then we all have to pay for it one way or another. I do think everyone should contribute, according to their ability to do so, even if it's only $5. But those who say "I want to live in this society, enjoy all it's benefits, and not have to pay anything for those benefits, even if I make a $1,000,000 a year" are the tapeworms of the world. Anyone who thinks they have not derived any benefit from living in an organized society is simply delusional. Quoteone side believes all the money is the government's, so any net dollar reduction is "spending" and they want the government to take it backNo-one believes that (well maybe Dreamdancer does, but no-one else). That's just a straw-man argument designed to demonize those who have a different idea from you about where the optimal balance is that maximizes net wealth and freedom. Don_____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #114 February 23, 2011 QuoteAs I know you know full well, percentages are ratios and you can compare 40% and 100% only if they are % of the same, or at least a known, base value. That is why your question "by what logic is 40% immeasurably more than 100%" is deceptive. The known base value is each person's tax bill. The insistence of comparing only raw numbers is equally deceptive and is the 'economy of scale' that I mention above.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,148 #115 February 24, 2011 QuoteQuoteAs I know you know full well, percentages are ratios and you can compare 40% and 100% only if they are % of the same, or at least a known, base value. That is why your question "by what logic is 40% immeasurably more than 100%" is deceptive. The known base value is each person's tax bill. The insistence of comparing only raw numbers is equally deceptive and is the 'economy of scale' that I mention above. Here's a deal for you. I'll give you 100% of the tax paid by a poverty level family of 4, if you'll give me just 40% of the tax paid by someone making $1M/year. According to your math, you'll come out way ahead.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #116 February 24, 2011 QuoteQuoteQuoteAs I know you know full well, percentages are ratios and you can compare 40% and 100% only if they are % of the same, or at least a known, base value. That is why your question "by what logic is 40% immeasurably more than 100%" is deceptive. The known base value is each person's tax bill. The insistence of comparing only raw numbers is equally deceptive and is the 'economy of scale' that I mention above. Here's a deal for you. I'll give you 100% of the tax paid by a poverty level family of 4, if you'll give me just 40% of the tax paid by someone making $1M/year. According to your math, you'll come out way ahead. Misleading economy of scale argument strikes (out) again.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,148 #117 February 24, 2011 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteAs I know you know full well, percentages are ratios and you can compare 40% and 100% only if they are % of the same, or at least a known, base value. That is why your question "by what logic is 40% immeasurably more than 100%" is deceptive. The known base value is each person's tax bill. The insistence of comparing only raw numbers is equally deceptive and is the 'economy of scale' that I mention above. Here's a deal for you. I'll give you 100% of the tax paid by a poverty level family of 4, if you'll give me just 40% of the tax paid by someone making $1M/year. According to your math, you'll come out way ahead. Misleading economy of scale argument strikes (out) again. Admitting that you are wrong in a strange way. The tax BREAK due to the Bush tax cuts for the top 1% of earners (average tax BREAK = $70k) exceeded the median US household income in 2010 ($47k). Which is what I claimed in the first place (post #90, this thread). Economy of scale has nothing to do with it.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #118 February 24, 2011 QuoteAdmitting that you are wrong in a strange way. Believe whatever gets you through the day, perfesser. QuoteWhich is what I claimed in the first place (post #90, this thread). Economy of scale has nothing to do with it. "But the rich get MORE!!!!" That family making 47k get a lot more benefit out of being removed from the tax rolls entirely than Soros gets from the 70k - you know it, but you'll never admit it because it destroys your argument.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,148 #119 February 24, 2011 QuoteQuoteAdmitting that you are wrong in a strange way. Believe whatever gets you through the day, perfesser. QuoteWhich is what I claimed in the first place (post #90, this thread). Economy of scale has nothing to do with it. "But the rich get MORE!!!!" That family making 47k get a lot more benefit out of being removed from the tax rolls entirely than Soros gets from the 70k - you know it, but you'll never admit it because it destroys your argument. $70k > $47k That is all.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #120 February 24, 2011 QuoteThat family making 47k get a lot more benefit out of being removed from the tax rolls entirely than Soros gets from the 70k - you know it, but you'll never admit it because it destroys your argument. that's a pretty subjective item scenario - Soros gets his 70k and buries it in a mason jar. The family gets their $500 and buys groceries. Ok, the family benefited more. scenario - Soros gets his 70k and gives $500 each to 140 poor families as a tax writeoff for next year. The family gets their $500 and buys groceries. ok, the family had the same benefit, Soros doesn't care, but 140 other families are temporarily happy. scenario - no tax break - Government keeps the $70,500 and gives $60,000 to GM who 'loses' it, and the other $10,500 is used to fly the first family to Hawaii on vacation. Everyone loses except for GM execs and Michelle. Unfortunately, so many people think the 3rd scenario is the winner. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,148 #121 February 24, 2011 QuoteQuoteThat family making 47k get a lot more benefit out of being removed from the tax rolls entirely than Soros gets from the 70k - you know it, but you'll never admit it because it destroys your argument. that's a pretty subjective item $70k > $47k is not subjective and is not open to debate. How anyone perceives that money IS subjective and is pointless to debate.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #122 February 24, 2011 QuoteHow anyone perceives that money IS subjective you're not even trying - remember, it's 40,000 vs 500 - or 40% vs 100% - depending on how you view individualism vs collectivism In other words, you consider that $40,500 to belong to the government. Others consider that $40,500 to belong to those two families. So it's very clear, based on your replies, which group you favor. "Reckless spending" => end game is the gov should take EVERYTHING from everybody, and then divvy it out as they see fit. Do you trust Obama or GWB or Clinton or Reagan or congress to 'really' do that? obtusely not understanding the other person's point just makes you look crotchety(er) I blame the introduction of the unnecessary PRO rating. That and the 45 degree rule. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,148 #123 February 24, 2011 Quote I blame the introduction of the unnecessary PRO rating. That and the 45 degree rule. Hmmm - a point of agreement.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #124 February 24, 2011 Quote$70k > $47k That is all. 10% tax rate > 0% tax rate That is all.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #125 February 24, 2011 QuoteQuote$70k > $47k That is all. 10% tax rate > 0% tax rate That is all. Or, in terms of dollars - For the next 10 years - one guy pays $0 (10 x $0 for the math types) the other pays $4,000,000 (10 x $400,000) Paying $0 is like 100 times better of than paying $4M (4M/0 = ~100) ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
