Current Events > i'm very liberal but lately, more and more, i have been against...

(+) Yeah! (+)

Balrog0 posted...

emblem boy posted...

MedeaLysistrata posted...
i guess i don't even know enough about taxation to have an informed opinion

flopic

http://static6.businessinsider.com/image/5a5e44bcf42149a3018b5183-1200/2018%20tax%20brackets%20for%20single%20filers.png

Then add in payroll taxes and state taxes if necessary

the 40%-60% rate is very reasonable (60% is on the high side) when talking about all taxes and not just income taxes (why would you just be talking about income taxes, anyway?)

also, it literally is true in other countries even just for the income tax:

http://money.cnn.com/2013/04/01/pf/taxes/top-income-tax/index.html

At 60.2%, Denmark last year had the highest top personal income tax rate among the 34 countries in the OECD, an organization of developed and emerging countries. And that 60.2% applied to income over roughly $55,000.

I should have been clearer in my post. i agree, adding the taxes outside of only federal taxes, total taxes can be really high. Higher than what most people think.
---

emblem boy posted...

I should have been clearer in my post. i agree, adding the taxes outside of only federal taxes, total taxes can be really high. Higher than what most people think.

I wasn't disagreeing with you, just expanding on what you said. The responses itt attacking TC are really puerile.
---

So your example of a single person making $100k would be in the 28% tax bracket, not 50% or whatever you said
And because it's a progressive tax system, only that last $10k or so would be at that level, with the bulk of the money being taxed at 25%

Anywho, I'd like to see more tax brackets at higher levels. We don't need to have a cap at $500k or so, let's have more brackets at higher levels. People who make $30k fighting against people who make $100k is small beans, both should be going after the people who make over a $1 million and more.
---

Hinakuluiau posted...

Hinakuluiau posted...

So your example of a single person making $100k would be in the 28% tax bracket, not 50% or whatever you said
And because it's a progressive tax system, only that last $10k or so would be at that level, with the bulk of the money being taxed at 25%

Anywho, I'd like to see more tax brackets at higher levels. We don't need to have a cap at $500k or so, let's have more brackets at higher levels. People who make $30k fighting against people who make $100k is small beans, both should be going after the people who make over a $1 million and more.

"...should be going after the people.."

You literally want to punish success.
---

Uncle Choad posted...

You literally want to punish success.

No, I want the standard of living to be raised for as many people as possible. Raising taxes on wealthy individuals is a way to do that.
Rough example, but the difference in lifestyle between making $30k and $60k is huge. The difference between making $1 million and $2 million is not nearly as big.
---

COVxy posted...

pikachupwnage posted...

Yeah. Some areas just the cost of renting an aparatment let alone owning a house is absolutely brutal.

I'm on a 20k salary living in an area that has one of the highest costs of living in the country lol.

People just don't really have a subjective sense for this shit. Everyone is poor. Everyone else is doing better than you.

I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that you aren't responsible for a family. I'm in San Diego and we can't afford a house making $120k a year.

So we're moving. But don't pretend that anyone making 100+ lives like a mogul

Romes187 posted...

I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that you aren't responsible for a family. I'm in San Diego and we can't afford a house making $120k a year.

I mean, it's almost certainly the case that you can afford a house at that combined household salary, just not the house you want.

The issue is that as people's salaries increase, their expectations and desires increase as well. You don't feel well off because you are constantly trying to strive for a standard of living higher than your actual salary.
---

Hinakuluiau posted...

Uncle Choad posted...

You literally want to punish success.

No, I want the standard of living to be raised for as many people as possible. Raising taxes on wealthy individuals is a way to do that.
Rough example, but the difference in lifestyle between making $30k and $60k is huge. The difference between making $1 million and $2 million is not nearly as big.

So should the government just take the money from the rich people and deposit $10k-30k into people's checking accounts for them? Or just give them less incentive to do better for themselves by giving them the bare minimum to survive?
---

MedeaLysistrata posted...

foreveraIone posted...

MedeaLysistrata posted...

where someone who makes 100k is giving up 40-60% of their income on taxes.

does anyone actually advocate for this

i mean idk what the actual tax rate is for someone who makes 100k

You should look it up then and also learn your tax code.
---

Its funny seeing all the greedy people wanting to take whats not theirs. Lol
---

Kineth posted...

MedeaLysistrata posted...

foreveraIone posted...

MedeaLysistrata posted...

where someone who makes 100k is giving up 40-60% of their income on taxes.

does anyone actually advocate for this

i mean idk what the actual tax rate is for someone who makes 100k

You should look it up then and also learn your tax code.

I wish people would want to create opportunity for people to do well instead of 'take from rich people for government to hand out to make things more fair'.
---

COVxy posted...

MedeaLysistrata posted...

but since people are always complaining about it it's probably really high

Lol.

---

balrog0 posted...

(why would you just be talking about income taxes, anyway?)

why, to make the deeply dishonest claim that poor people don't pay taxes, of course!
---

Uncle Choad posted...

So should the government just take the money from the rich people and deposit $10k-30k into people's checking accounts for them?

Possibly.
First, I would want there to be an increase in social benefits. Things such as healthcare, education, infrastructure, etc. should be funded by the public so everyone has them.
Second, I'd like for there to be a universal basic income of about a grand a month tied to inflation.

Both of these things are possible and have been proven to be effective.

Uncle Choad posted...

Or just give them less incentive to do better for themselves by giving them the bare minimum to survive?

Thing is, you're assuming successful people work harder and smarter than unsuccessful people. That's not true.
People of all sorts work hard, study hard, etc. and many are not rich. Sheer chance is the greatest influence on how successful you are.

So I don't believe there is much evidence for your claim that people would have less incentive to do better.
---

Romulox28 posted...

Parappa09 posted...

foreveraIone posted...

MedeaLysistrata posted...

where someone who makes 100k is giving up 40-60% of their income on taxes.

does anyone actually advocate for this

i feel little sympathy for people who are earning triple the average income

do you really think that a 100k salary is a lot of money?

Lol you can honestly tell who owns property and cars...

Anyone who thinks 100k...obviously doesnt
---

@COVxy posted...

I mean if your salary alone is almost twice the median household income, you have to admit that you are pretty high out there in the distribution.

Subjectively you might not feel rich, but you are really well off in comparison to the rest of the country.

And why should i be punished for that?
COVxy posted...

When you have a 100k salary, cost of living is pretty much negligible. You can live where ever you want comfortably.

No, you cannot buy a gigantic apartment in Manhattan in NYC and have your own wait staff. But that's deliberately missing the point.

Holy shit talk about missing the point. 100k in Manhattan doesnt get you that. Lmfao
---

COVxy posted...

Romes187 posted...

I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that you aren't responsible for a family. I'm in San Diego and we can't afford a house making $120k a year.

I mean, it's almost certainly the case that you can afford a house at that combined household salary, just not the house you want.

The issue is that as people's salaries increase, their expectations and desires increase as well. You don't feel well off because you are constantly trying to strive for a standard of living higher than your actual salary.

How dare people want to live a house they like and want...they should live in the slums!
---

Hinakuluiau posted...

Uncle Choad posted...

So should the government just take the money from the rich people and deposit $10k-30k into people's checking accounts for them?

Possibly.
First, I would want there to be an increase in social benefits. Things such as healthcare, education, infrastructure, etc. should be funded by the public so everyone has them.
Second, I'd like for there to be a universal basic income of about a grand a month tied to inflation.

Both of these things are possible and have been proven to be effective.

Uncle Choad posted...

Or just give them less incentive to do better for themselves by giving them the bare minimum to survive?

Thing is, you're assuming successful people work harder and smarter than unsuccessful people. That's not true.
People of all sorts work hard, study hard, etc. and many are not rich. Sheer chance is the greatest influence on how successful you are.

So I don't believe there is much evidence for your claim that people would have less incentive to do better.

I might be mistaken, but I'm pretty sure a high school education is free for everyone in the USA.

Do I get the free $12,000 a year too? What about rich people? It's a fact that many people are poor because they suck with money. That $1,000/mo will make no difference to many of them.

I went to school with hundreds of normal kids that were very smart and worked very hard, and of the dozen or so I still keep in touch with, they are all doing very well financially and professionally. I think you're "it's all about luck" claim is complete BS. None of those kids got "lucky" to land jobs where they work, especially because we graduated in 2010 in a terrible job market.

And dude, look at any public shaming blog for people with no incentive to do any better in life.
---

KingCrabCake posted...

COVxy posted...

Romes187 posted...

I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that you aren't responsible for a family. I'm in San Diego and we can't afford a house making $120k a year.

I mean, it's almost certainly the case that you can afford a house at that combined household salary, just not the house you want.

The issue is that as people's salaries increase, their expectations and desires increase as well. You don't feel well off because you are constantly trying to strive for a standard of living higher than your actual salary.

How dare people want to live a house they like and want...they should live in the slums!

So I guess that means you want the government to start paying for people's homes now?
---

Tmaster148 posted...

KingCrabCake posted...

COVxy posted...

Romes187 posted...

I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that you aren't responsible for a family. I'm in San Diego and we can't afford a house making $120k a year.

I mean, it's almost certainly the case that you can afford a house at that combined household salary, just not the house you want.

The issue is that as people's salaries increase, their expectations and desires increase as well. You don't feel well off because you are constantly trying to strive for a standard of living higher than your actual salary.

How dare people want to live a house they like and want...they should live in the slums!

So I guess that means you want the government to start paying for people's homes now?

Aren't there huge pushes to create more low income (subsidized) housing in many cities/suburbs around the country?
---

Uncle Choad posted...

I might be mistaken, but I'm pretty sure a high school education is free for everyone in the USA.

I mean higher education.

Uncle Choad posted...

Do I get the free $12,000 a year too? What about rich people? It's a fact that many people are poor because they suck with money. That $1,000/mo will make no difference to many of them.

Everyone would get the UBI, yes.

And no, "sucking" with money isn't really a thing from research:

http://www.africafocus.org/docs10/pov1006.php

In "Just Give Money to the Poor: The Development Revolution from the South," Joseph Hanlon, Armando Barrientos and David Hulme look at the experience of recent cash transfer programs, in countries ranging from Mexico and Brazil to South Africa, Namibia, India, and Mongolia. The verdict: cash transfers work if they are both fair and assured. If poor people have even small amounts of regular ensured income, they are in general well-equipped to decide how to use it most productively. And the results not only alleviate immediate hardship, but also contribute to longer-term economic development and poverty reduction.

http://mondediplo.com/2013/05/04income
Dewalas team studied the effects of a minimum monthly income on 4,000 people in eight villages over 18 months. There were no conditions regarding wages, employment, caste, gender or age, and the recipients could use the money as they saw fit. Besides social security benefits, adults received 200 rupees ($3.65) a month, and mothers were given 100 rupees for each child. Four of the villages had had help from Sewa for some years, with the organisation of support groups, savings cooperatives (2), bank loans, training in financial management and support during visits to local officials. Twelve non-participant villages served as controls for comparative study. The initiative, modelled on an urban Sewa project in a district of Delhi, was Indias first applied research on unconditional income. The hypothesis was that direct financial payments would change behaviour and improve family living conditions, especially childrens nutrition and health.

Studies at the beginning, mid-point and end of the project confirmed that, in villages receiving payments, people spent more on eggs, meat and fish, and on healthcare. Childrens school marks improved in 68% of families, and the time they spent at school nearly tripled. Saving also tripled, and twice as many people were able to start a new business.

Uncle Choad posted...

I think you're "it's all about luck" claim is complete BS. None of those kids got "lucky" to land jobs where they work, especially because we graduated in 2010 in a terrible job market.

It's not that it's all about luck, it's that you can't say that successful people work any harder than unsuccessful people. People of all sorts work hard, many of which get shit pay.
At the same time there are people who are successful who don't work hard. I realize they're a minority, but the idea that working hard correlates to success doesn't really add up for me.
---

@Hinakuluiau its crazy how comfortable you are with taking shit that is not yours
---

Let me get this straight about the UBI. The government is going to collect the amount of money needed to give everyone a monthly check for $1,000.

So in order to collect it, they have to pay someone.
In order to keep track of what's going on with it, they have to pay someone.
In order to dish it out, they have to pay someone.

So they will obviously be collecting a lot more than they need just to pay people $1,000 a month. Which means people will pay even more. Sounds like a gigantic waste of even more money, which is what we're trying to fight.
---

MedeaLysistrata posted...

Garioshi posted...

what's wrong with taxing the wealthy

nothing, i think it just gets absurd when you reach the point where someone who makes 100k is giving up 40-60% of their income on taxes.

but as a leftist i think the solution is nationalizing some industries to bring in profit for the state.

100k isn't wealthy it's like mid-high middle class.
---

JBaLLEN66 posted...

Privileged people make more money, so they should be taxed more. Idk how this is so difficult to grasp?

First off not everyone who makes a lot of money are privileged secondly, do you know how percentages work?

If Im taxed at 15% making 45k and a guy is taxed at 10% making 2 million, he does pay more than me. A whole shit ton more. But wealthy people are taxed even more than that, nearly 50%. Leftys say they need to pay whats fair? If thats the case, knock their rate down to what we all pay. That would be fair. Nancy Pelosi and Michael Moore would secretly cum on each other for that while screaming that its not fair.
---

JBaLLEN66 posted...

Privileged people make more money, so they should be taxed more. Idk how this is so difficult to grasp?

Under a flat tax, they'd be taxed more anyway, by the simple fact that 15% of a million is a hell of a lot more than 15% of 13000.

KingCrabCake posted...

@Hinakuluiau its crazy how comfortable you are with taking shit that is not yours

This is a platform to develop and keep a voter base. It's like the crazy mother who babies her children because she doesn't want them to grow up and become independent.

YOU MUST ALWAYS LOVE ME!
---

KingCrabCake posted...

Its funny seeing all the greedy people wanting to take whats not theirs. Lol

It's legit people with no drive who have never worked a day in their life. Jeff Bezos was born to a 17 year old highschooler whose dad left a year after his birth, and worked through his time studying at the University of New Mexico yet because he wasn't a dumb lazy piece of shit now he's the richest man on Earth.

Imagine if he just sat and whined about unfair his life was and how Warren Buffett should've paid for his school.
---

ITT it's 1985 and 100k means you're rich.
---

Tyranthraxus posted...

MedeaLysistrata posted...

Garioshi posted...

what's wrong with taxing the wealthy

nothing, i think it just gets absurd when you reach the point where someone who makes 100k is giving up 40-60% of their income on taxes.

but as a leftist i think the solution is nationalizing some industries to bring in profit for the state.

100k isn't wealthy it's like mid-high middle class.

the amount of money you make has no bearing on your social class
---

Uncle Choad posted...

Hinakuluiau posted...

Uncle Choad posted...

You literally want to punish success.

No, I want the standard of living to be raised for as many people as possible. Raising taxes on wealthy individuals is a way to do that.
Rough example, but the difference in lifestyle between making $30k and $60k is huge. The difference between making $1 million and $2 million is not nearly as big.

So should the government just take the money from the rich people and deposit $10k-30k into people's checking accounts for them? Or just give them less incentive to do better for themselves by giving them the bare minimum to survive?

:|

You're dumber than I remember you being.
---

proponents of UBI need to read this
https://www.opendemocracy.net/neweconomics/universal-basic-income-is-a-neoliberal-plot-to-make-you-poorer/
---

Fishy posted...

KingCrabCake posted...

Its funny seeing all the greedy people wanting to take whats not theirs. Lol

It's legit people with no drive who have never worked a day in their life. Jeff Bezos was born to a 17 year old highschooler whose dad left a year after his birth, and worked through his time studying at the University of New Mexico yet because he wasn't a dumb lazy piece of shit now he's the richest man on Earth.

Imagine if he just sat and whined about unfair his life was and how Warren Buffett should've paid for his school.

Its basically glorified stealing
---

averagejoel posted...

proponents of UBI need to read this
https://www.opendemocracy.net/neweconomics/universal-basic-income-is-a-neoliberal-plot-to-make-you-poorer/

teal deer:
"UBI isn't redistridibutiony enough, dammit!"

QueenCarly posted...

Uncle Choad posted...

Hinakuluiau posted...

Uncle Choad posted...

You literally want to punish success.

No, I want the standard of living to be raised for as many people as possible. Raising taxes on wealthy individuals is a way to do that.
Rough example, but the difference in lifestyle between making $30k and $60k is huge. The difference between making $1 million and $2 million is not nearly as big.

So should the government just take the money from the rich people and deposit $10k-30k into people's checking accounts for them? Or just give them less incentive to do better for themselves by giving them the bare minimum to survive?

:|

You're dumber than I remember you being.

"I want free stuff so you're dumb."
---

KingCrabCake posted...

@Hinakuluiau its crazy how comfortable you are with taking shit that is not yours

Look, I'm a gay man with a boyfriend with both of us working in STEM fields, I don't need these things. I have healthcare, education, etc. and have plenty of money left over despite living in a major city.
I believe that it's better for society to give out benefits to all instead of individuals getting them. We all benefited from people getting a free education until they're 18, we benefit from roads, we benefit from police, etc. I'm just advocating we go further.
Other countries manage to pull it off and they don't have this mentality like Americans do. It's not even stealing because everyone gets benefits.

Uncle Choad posted...

So they will obviously be collecting a lot more than they need just to pay people $1,000 a month. Which means people will pay even more. Sounds like a gigantic waste of even more money, which is what we're trying to fight.

I imagine most of what you described is already handled. What kind of argument is that anyway? You might as well have no taxes because there's always going to be loss at different levels.

averagejoel posted...

proponents of UBI need to read this
https://www.opendemocracy.net/neweconomics/universal-basic-income-is-a-neoliberal-plot-to-make-you-poorer/

This article is arguing that UBI is used as a cover for gutting the rest of the social safety net. Sure, it will replace some of the net (unemployment, possibly disability), but it could also be a legitimate effort at redistributing the wealth generated by automation.
It can be a step in the right direction, we just need to guide it to fruition. I don't see any of it as mutually exclusive. We can have UBI and democratization of the means of production.

It is indeed originally a right-wing plan, but he says it doesn't have to be. There is a lot of left wing support for a UBI in addition to expanded social services.
There are many possible implementations of basic income.
---

averagejoel posted...

Tyranthraxus posted...

MedeaLysistrata posted...

Garioshi posted...

what's wrong with taxing the wealthy

nothing, i think it just gets absurd when you reach the point where someone who makes 100k is giving up 40-60% of their income on taxes.

but as a leftist i think the solution is nationalizing some industries to bring in profit for the state.

100k isn't wealthy it's like mid-high middle class.

the amount of money you make has no bearing on your social class

TIL I can be homeless bum elite social class
---

Hinakuluiau posted...

KingCrabCake posted...

@Hinakuluiau its crazy how comfortable you are with taking shit that is not yours

Look, I'm a gay man with a boyfriend

Don't give a shit nor is it relevant.

Also other countries dont have the military or population we do.

Its stealing.
---

KingCrabCake posted...

Hinakuluiau posted...

KingCrabCake posted...

@Hinakuluiau its crazy how comfortable you are with taking shit that is not yours

Look, I'm a gay man with a boyfriend

Don't give a shit nor is it relevant.

P sure it's a joke.
---

Tyranthraxus posted...

averagejoel posted...

Tyranthraxus posted...

MedeaLysistrata posted...

Garioshi posted...

what's wrong with taxing the wealthy

nothing, i think it just gets absurd when you reach the point where someone who makes 100k is giving up 40-60% of their income on taxes.

but as a leftist i think the solution is nationalizing some industries to bring in profit for the state.

100k isn't wealthy it's like mid-high middle class.

the amount of money you make has no bearing on your social class

TIL I can be homeless bum elite social class

no you can't. don't be obtuse. the homeless, unemployed, welfare-dependent, and those who subsist on illegal activities are their own social class, distinct from bourgeoisie
---

Of course there is left wing support for UBI (free money) and expanded social services (things you don't have to pay for but the money comes from somewhere).

Literally survival without having to put any effort in, while taking more from the people that make the world work.
---

Hinakuluiau posted...

This article is arguing that UBI is used as a cover for gutting the rest of the social safety net. Sure, it will replace some of the net (unemployment, possibly disability), but it could also be a legitimate effort at redistributing the wealth generated by automation.
It can be a step in the right direction, we just need to guide it to fruition. I don't see any of it as mutually exclusive. We can have UBI and democratization of the means of production.

It is indeed originally a right-wing plan, but he says it doesn't have to be. There is a lot of left wing support for a UBI in addition to expanded social services.
There are many possible implementations of basic income.

I agree that it could potentially do a lot of good if combined with strengthening public services. it won't be though. the main proponents of it don't want that.

and I'm... at the very least, highly doubtful that anyone who wants UBI has actual leftist leanings
---

Uncle Choad posted...

Of course there is left wing support for UBI (free money) and expanded social services (things you don't have to pay for but the money comes from somewhere).

Literally survival without having to put any effort in, while taking more from the people that make the world work.

interesting. your last paragraph literally describes CEOs and shareholders of large corporations
---

KingCrabCake posted...

Don't give a shit nor is it relevant.

If you had spent even the smallest amount of time thinking about it, you'd realize why I included it. I mentioned the gay thing because it's relevant to the conversation because two male earners with no children statistically will make more money than any other couple.
I don't need the benefits, in fact taxes will go up for me.
---

averagejoel posted...

Uncle Choad posted...

Of course there is left wing support for UBI (free money) and expanded social services (things you don't have to pay for but the money comes from somewhere).

Literally survival without having to put any effort in, while taking more from the people that make the world work.

interesting. your last paragraph literally describes CEOs and shareholders of large corporations

And your post shows how much you don't know about the real world.
---

COVxy posted...

Romes187 posted...

I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that you aren't responsible for a family. I'm in San Diego and we can't afford a house making $120k a year.

I mean, it's almost certainly the case that you can afford a house at that combined household salary, just not the house you want.

The issue is that as people's salaries increase, their expectations and desires increase as well. You don't feel well off because you are constantly trying to strive for a standard of living higher than your actual salary.

I'm not sure you're too familiar with the housing market in San Diego.

Hinakuluiau posted...

KingCrabCake posted...

Don't give a shit nor is it relevant.

If you had spent even the smallest amount of time thinking about it, you'd realize why I included it. I mentioned the gay thing because it's relevant to the conversation because two male earners with no children statistically will make more money than any other couple.
I don't need the benefits, in fact taxes will go up for me.

You shouldnt have money stolen from you because you're successful
---

Romes187 posted...

I'm not sure you're too familiar with the housing market in San Diego.

Are you trying to tell me that there is not a single house in the San Diego area that you can afford?
---

Uncle Choad posted...

Of course there is left wing support for UBI (free money) and expanded social services (things you don't have to pay for but the money comes from somewhere).

Literally survival without having to put any effort in, while taking more from the people that make the world work.

Expanded social services paid for by everyone for the betterment of everyone.

UBI is nonsense, but not for the reasons you think. It is an attempt to pacify the working class so they don't rise up and reclaim the fruits of their labor.

Would it help people survive? Sure, but ultimately it is a tool to continue the exploitation of the working class by the capitalist class.

But you're okay with exploiting them as long as your fancy RPI degree (It was you that went there right?) makes you better than those fucking poor lazy fucks and because of that they can't get any help.
---

COVxy posted...

Romes187 posted...

I'm not sure you're too familiar with the housing market in San Diego.

Are you trying to tell me that there is not a single house in the San Diego area that you can afford?

Look what about fifteen seconds of googling found:
https://www.point2homes.com/US/Home-For-Sale/CA/Chula-Vista/Castle-Park/1425-2nd-Avenue/53351986.html
https://www.point2homes.com/US/Home-For-Sale/CA/El-Cajon/400-Greenfield-Dr-30/53314314.html