Ron Paul 2012?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
08-03-2012, 09:47 AM
RE: Ron Paul 2012?
(07-03-2012 06:38 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  
(07-03-2012 02:05 PM)germanyt Wrote:  And if raising taxes on household incomes of only 250K to as much as 40 or 45% is his solution then I want no part of it. One day I'd like to have that kind of income and I can't imagine how pissed I'd be to get my paycheck and have nearly half of it gone.

You do understand the concepts of progressive tax rates and the decreasing marginal utility of money, right? Just checkin'.

I absolutely understand them. But if a person making 1 million is paying 45% on everything from 250K to 1M then he's taking home 662500 before his taxes on the first 250K are taken out. So he will in effect, before filing and taking loophole advantage, be paying nearly 400K in taxes on a 1M income. IMO it's absurd that the government is so big and so expensive that they would require this type of revenue to funciton. And we all know it's really just a liberal way of getting back at the evil and greedy corporate fat cat. The real kind of class warfare.

As for marginal utility. Are you suggesting that is a reason people shouldn't want more money?

“Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it's time to pause and reflect.”

-Mark Twain
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-03-2012, 12:56 PM (This post was last modified: 08-03-2012 01:04 PM by GirlyMan.)
RE: Ron Paul 2012?
(08-03-2012 09:47 AM)germanyt Wrote:  I absolutely understand them. But if a person making 1 million is paying 45% on everything from 250K to 1M then he's taking home 662500 before his taxes on the first 250K are taken out.

Let's look at it from a different perspective. To simplify things let's assume we only have 2 tax brackets, 35% for AGI <=$250K, 40% for AGI >$250K. So the guy making $350K incurs an additional $5K tax burden. Big fuckin' deal, not like he can't afford it unless he don't know how to manage his finances in the first place. That $5K don't mean near as much to him as somebody making $35K. And that's the decreasing marginal utility of money.

(08-03-2012 09:47 AM)germanyt Wrote:  As for marginal utility. Are you suggesting that is a reason people shouldn't want more money?

Nah, I don't give a shit if people want more money or not, much like I don't give a shit if KC is a Calvinist or not. No skin off my scrotum. I will say from personal experience that once you have "enough" money, living a life where you want more and more is like living a crackhead's life, particularly empty, unsatisfying and ultimately desperate. "Enough" is obviously individual. In my case, $155,500 is more than adequate for a family of 6 in a Washington D.C. suburb. In Zat's and Lady Zat's case in the middle of God's country, 10-20% of that might be sufficient.

As it was in the beginning is now and ever shall be, world without end. Amen.
And I will show you something different from either
Your shadow at morning striding behind you
Or your shadow at evening rising to meet you;
I will show you fear in a handful of dust.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-03-2012, 12:58 PM (This post was last modified: 08-03-2012 01:51 PM by mysticjbyrd.)
RE: Ron Paul 2012?
(07-03-2012 11:11 AM)germanyt Wrote:  LOL. The savings far outweigh the costs. And it's not exactly a chain link fence.

[Image: image132.jpg]

Much of it is constructed of 'I' beams that extend as far underground as above.

[Image: 1370002408_3d86cc8375_z.jpg]
That is an impressive fence, but I doubt the whole things looks like that, and even if it did thats only 1/3 of the border and it can't be patrolled completely.

I also question if the ends justify the means. How much can these people really be costing us?

(08-03-2012 12:56 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  
(08-03-2012 09:47 AM)germanyt Wrote:  I absolutely understand them. But if a person making 1 million is paying 45% on everything from 250K to 1M then he's taking home 662500 before his taxes on the first 250K are taken out.

Let's look at it from a different perspective. To simplify things let's assume we only have 2 tax brackets, 35% for AGI <=$250K, 40% for AGI >$250K. So the guy making $350K incurs an additional $5K tax burden. Big fuckin' deal, not like he can't afford it unless he don't know how to manage his finances in the first place. That $5K don't mean near as much to him as somebody making $35K. And that's the decreasing marginal utility of money.

This. He doesnt need that measly 5k, its nothing to him. He has more than enough to live on, far more than most. He is getting far more out of living in this country than others, so it only stands to reason he should pay more.


(08-03-2012 12:56 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  Nah, I don't give a shit if people want more money or not, much like I don't give a shit if KC is a Calvinist or not. No skin off my scrotum. I will say from personal experience that once you have "enough" money, living a life where you want more and more is like living a crackhead's life, particularly empty, unsatisfying and ultimately desperate. "Enough" is obviously individual. In my case, $155,500 is more than adequate for a family of 6 in a Washington D.C. suburb. In Zat's and Lady Zat's case in the middle of God's country, 10-20% of that might be sufficient.
I live in the one of the poorest area in the whole country. If you make over 30k here you are doing quite well. At least by out standards. not rich by any means, not really even well off, but enough to not live in credit card debt and maybe have a retirement fund.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-03-2012, 01:01 PM
RE: Ron Paul 2012?
(08-03-2012 12:58 PM)mysticjbyrd Wrote:  
(07-03-2012 11:11 AM)germanyt Wrote:  LOL. The savings far outweigh the costs. And it's not exactly a chain link fence.

[Image: image132.jpg]

Much of it is constructed of 'I' beams that extend as far underground as above.

[Image: 1370002408_3d86cc8375_z.jpg]
That is an impressive fence, but I doubt the whole things looks like that, and even if it did thats only 1/3 of the border and it can't be patrolled completely.

I also question if the ends justify the means. How much can these people really be costing us?


Youre right. The whole thing isn't like that. It's a painfully slow process legislating it's construction. And while I agree that the ends 'may' not justify the means we can't just have an open border policy. We'd have half of Mexico's population here looking for work.

“Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it's time to pause and reflect.”

-Mark Twain
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-03-2012, 01:51 PM
RE: Ron Paul 2012?
(07-03-2012 10:10 AM)Stark Raving Wrote:  I always find it odd that when a politician proposes extreme changes, which is often what is nescessary to make any change at all, he is considered crazy instead of revolutionary.

Extreme changes is good if its in the right direction. Going from the United States of America to the random individual states of America doesnt sound like one of those good changes. But why do we have to live in a country where you have to suggest something radical to get something mundane done?

A good extreme change would have been like if obama passed universal health care, or at least a single payer system, instead of dragging his feet trying to get the republican kiddies to cooperate and stop holding their breath.


(08-03-2012 12:56 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  
(08-03-2012 09:47 AM)germanyt Wrote:  I absolutely understand them. But if a person making 1 million is paying 45% on everything from 250K to 1M then he's taking home 662500 before his taxes on the first 250K are taken out.

Let's look at it from a different perspective. To simplify things let's assume we only have 2 tax brackets, 35% for AGI <=$250K, 40% for AGI >$250K. So the guy making $350K incurs an additional $5K tax burden. Big fuckin' deal, not like he can't afford it unless he don't know how to manage his finances in the first place. That $5K don't mean near as much to him as somebody making $35K. And that's the decreasing marginal utility of money.

This. He doesnt need that measly 5k, its nothing to him. He has more than enough to live on, far more than most. He is getting far more out of living in this country than others, so it only stands to reason he should pay more.


(08-03-2012 12:56 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  Nah, I don't give a shit if people want more money or not, much like I don't give a shit if KC is a Calvinist or not. No skin off my scrotum. I will say from personal experience that once you have "enough" money, living a life where you want more and more is like living a crackhead's life, particularly empty, unsatisfying and ultimately desperate. "Enough" is obviously individual. In my case, $155,500 is more than adequate for a family of 6 in a Washington D.C. suburb. In Zat's and Lady Zat's case in the middle of God's country, 10-20% of that might be sufficient.
I live in the one of the poorest area in the whole country. If you make over 30k here you are doing quite well. At least by out standards. not rich by any means, not really even well off, but enough to not live in credit card debt and maybe have a retirement fund.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-03-2012, 02:03 PM (This post was last modified: 08-03-2012 02:12 PM by germanyt.)
RE: Ron Paul 2012?
(08-03-2012 12:56 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  
(08-03-2012 09:47 AM)germanyt Wrote:  I absolutely understand them. But if a person making 1 million is paying 45% on everything from 250K to 1M then he's taking home 662500 before his taxes on the first 250K are taken out.

Let's look at it from a different perspective. To simplify things let's assume we only have 2 tax brackets, 35% for AGI <=$250K, 40% for AGI >$250K. So the guy making $350K incurs an additional $5K tax burden. Big fuckin' deal, not like he can't afford it unless he don't know how to manage his finances in the first place. That $5K don't mean near as much to him as somebody making $35K. And that's the decreasing marginal utility of money.

(08-03-2012 09:47 AM)germanyt Wrote:  As for marginal utility. Are you suggesting that is a reason people shouldn't want more money?

Nah, I don't give a shit if people want more money or not, much like I don't give a shit if KC is a Calvinist or not. No skin off my scrotum. I will say from personal experience that once you have "enough" money, living a life where you want more and more is like living a crackhead's life, particularly empty, unsatisfying and ultimately desperate. "Enough" is obviously individual. In my case, $155,500 is more than adequate for a family of 6 in a Washington D.C. suburb. In Zat's and Lady Zat's case in the middle of God's country, 10-20% of that might be sufficient.

Half or more of the population disagrees with you. Who are you to decide what another person finds adequate? 'Enough' money is entirely subjective.
(08-03-2012 01:51 PM)mysticjbyrd Wrote:  A good extreme change would have been like if obama passed universal health care, or at least a single payer system, instead of dragging his feet trying to get the republican kiddies to cooperate and stop holding their breath.


This. He doesnt need that measly 5k, its nothing to him. He has more than enough to live on, far more than most. He is getting far more out of living in this country than others, so it only stands to reason he should pay more.

Again, just because you think something is a good idea doesn't make it so. Your perspective makes it seem good to you. I'm thrilled that there is no single payer system because it would have destroyed our quality of health care and medical innovation. Unless you think that government run institutions ever function efficiently or effectively.

To the 2nd part. That is exactly why we have progressive tax rates. So that those that are benefiting more from society and intrastructure pay more to maintain it. And half the country currently pays no federal income tax. So explain to me how continually raising taxes on the upper class is fair while I pay an effective tax rate near 0% after my return. Do we need to clean up our tax code? Sure. But suggesting that because our government is outrageously expensive means we need to tax the crap outta the people that create tens of millions of jobs in this country is ludacris.

“Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it's time to pause and reflect.”

-Mark Twain
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-03-2012, 02:15 PM (This post was last modified: 08-03-2012 02:22 PM by mysticjbyrd.)
RE: Ron Paul 2012?
(08-03-2012 02:03 PM)germanyt Wrote:  Half or more of the population disagrees with you. Who are you to decide what another person finds adequate? 'Enough' money is entirely subjective.
People are just born greedy. Without something to put a limit on it they will collect power and wealth to infinite.

(08-03-2012 02:03 PM)germanyt Wrote:  Again, just because you think something is a good idea doesn't make it so. Your perspective makes it seem good to you. I'm thrilled that there is no single payer system because it would have destroyed our quality of health care and medical innovation. Unless you think that government run institutions ever function efficiently or effectively.

To the 2nd part. That is exactly why we have progressive tax rates. So that those that are benefiting more from society and intrastructure pay more to maintain it. And half the country currently pays no federal income tax. So explain to me how continually raising taxes on the upper class is fair while I pay an effective tax rate near 0% after my return. Do we need to clean up our tax code? Sure. But suggesting that because our government is outrageously expensive means we need to tax the crap outta the people that create tens of millions of jobs in this country is ludacris.
The US only has good health care if you are rich, and can afford more than your fair share of services. For everyone else its shit. People shouldn't have to die so some people can get additional care they don't need. Its also way too expensive. The US pays double per capita than Canada, and we cover practically no one!

A lot of those that don't pay, because they don't have excess money. What are they going to do? Pay them in blood!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-03-2012, 02:26 PM (This post was last modified: 08-03-2012 02:29 PM by germanyt.)
RE: Ron Paul 2012?
(08-03-2012 02:15 PM)mysticjbyrd Wrote:  The US only has good health care if you are rich, and can afford more than your fair share of services. For everyone else its shit. People shouldn't have to die so some people can get additional care they don't need.

A lot of those that don't pay, because they don't have excess money. What are they going to do? Pay them in blood!

What are you talking about. I know hundreds and even thousands of people on group health care policies that receive excellent care.

We have a program for the less fortunate. It's call Medicaid.

And yes, premiums are high but not necessarily because of greedy corporate fat cats. They are high because the cost of health care is high. Health care costs is high in large part because doctors are forced to peform unnecessary procedures to cover their ass from law suits.

brb x-ray, ct scan, mri, ekg, $15000 dollars.

If you want to blame high prices on someone blame medical supply companies and hospitals. But before you do that blame the legislative and legal red tape that bogs the system down. Don't blame insurance companies. If cancer treatment wasn't 6 figures insurance companies wouldn't have to drop people who are sick or turn away preexisting conditions in order to turn profits. And your precious leader Obama is only making it worse. Since insurance companies can't drop people anymore they are will either become less profitable or charge more for insurance. Obamacare does nothing to combat rising costs and at the end of the day it'll be just like oil companies. Subsidizing insurance companies to make premiums cheaper. I'm sure that will end well.

“Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it's time to pause and reflect.”

-Mark Twain
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-03-2012, 02:30 PM (This post was last modified: 08-03-2012 02:36 PM by mysticjbyrd.)
RE: Ron Paul 2012?
There isn't a single statistic to suggest we have the best health care in the world as the right likes to claim. Our health care is pure shit.

If you are poor you don't get health care, unless you are disabled.
If you actually have the insanely expensive health insurance and you do get sick, then the very 1st thing the insurance company is going to do is figure out how to throw you out on your ass. If they can't pull that off, they try to ensure you take the cheapest possibilities, and they won't improve anything else no matter the situation.
If you are rich, or work for the govt, then sure you got good health care. But not incredibly better than other countries with universal health care.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-03-2012, 02:39 PM
RE: Ron Paul 2012?
(08-03-2012 02:30 PM)mysticjbyrd Wrote:  There isn't a single statistic to suggest we have the best health care in the world as the right likes to claim. Our health care is pure shit.

If you are poor you don't get health care, unless you are disabled.
If you actually have the insanely expensive health insurance and you do get sick, then the very 1st thing the insurance company is going to do is figure out how to throw you out on your ass.
If you are rich, or work for the govt, then sure you got good health care. But not incredibly better than other countries with universal health care.

If you are poor you can get Medicaid. You don't have to be disabled.

That is not entirely the fault of the insurance company. If your care wasn't so expensive to the company they wouldn't boot you for getting sick.

Ask a person in Cuba if they'd rather come to the US to see a doctor.

“Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it's time to pause and reflect.”

-Mark Twain
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: