brb, also increasing taxes on the shrinking middle class turning them into poor laborers to build my new mansion
Capitalism doesn't work when people have this much money in their own personal funds.
[QUOTE=Funcoot;26557095]Finally a smart argument.
[/QUOTE]
that was my original argument that I posted like 3 times but for some reason you kept on missing it
When I saw Zeke saying that the taxes for rich should be 70%, I disagreed at first thought. I thought that was a bit excessive. But then I thought, if there is more money being distributed to everyone, everyone would have an overall better way of life, rich or poor.
Like, these billionaires don't really use their money, it is excessive and pointless. For example, if you take 70% away from $1 billion, you get $700 million dollars for the government to spend, hopefully wisely, and for the well-being of everyone. The billionaire still gets his $300 million, which is more than enough to live an extravagant life, but not having the guilt of hoarding excessive amounts of money.
Hell yes now I can afford all 37 of those new ferraris. Thanks, representative democratic government!
[editline]8th December 2010[/editline]
On a serious note, rich people should not be taxed 70%, what the fuck? That is MORE money than you keep, and as such is fucking retarded. The max should be 40% for rich people and then a cut for poor people, not a raise for rich people.
[editline]8th December 2010[/editline]
[QUOTE=Kab2tract;26560406]
Like, these billionaires don't really use their money, it is excessive and pointless. For example, if you take 70% away from $1 billion, you get $700 million dollars for the government to spend, hopefully wisely, and for the well-being of everyone. The billionaire still gets his $300 million, which is more than enough to live an extravagant life, but not having the guilt of hoarding excessive amounts of money.[/QUOTE]
I like to keep most of what I work for, thanks.
[QUOTE=RayDark;26560443]Hell yes now I can afford all 37 of those new ferraris. Thanks, representative democratic government!
[editline]8th December 2010[/editline]
On a serious note, rich people should not be taxed 70%, what the fuck? That is MORE money than you keep, and as such is fucking retarded. The max should be 40% for rich people and then a cut for poor people, not a raise for rich people.
[editline]8th December 2010[/editline]
I like to keep most of what I work for, thanks.[/QUOTE]
Okay, maybe less, around the %50 mark.
But seriously, the amount of money stored in some of these ultra-rich peoples bank accounts are disgusting, and the money isn't being used.
You guys talk about how the top 1% pays 39% of the taxes. Well, they have something like 80% of the money.
[QUOTE=FHamster;26539613]They outsource because of taxes and regulations here.[/QUOTE]
No, they outsource it because chinese workers want less money
ITT no one understands progressive tax brackets.
[img]http://www.bargaineering.com/images/in_posts/projected-2009-income-tax-brackets.gif[/img]
We're proposing allowing the tax on income above $250,000 a year to go to 39% from 35%.
Ultra-rich my ass.
[quote]the reductions solely at families with taxable incomes of $250,000[/quote]
250,000 based on how much money you currently own, not how much you make per year. Hopefully facepunch can eventually learn their political facts. They make it seem like it's based on how much one makes yearly, however it is really based on how much you really own.
Damn republicans
[QUOTE=Funcoot;26556761]Go buy a mass produced bike for 30 bucks from walmart or kmart. Pedal your ass.
He is doing nothing at all to better his condition. All he is doing is blaming the rich.[/QUOTE]
Remember when I said I was poor? well yea I lived in a homeless shelter so i was kind of very poor
You are all fucking retarded. Most "Ultra-rich" people are Philanthropists anyways, tax cuts is good for humanity.
[QUOTE=Apocalypsox;26574413]You are all fucking retarded. Most "Ultra-rich" people are Philanthropists anyways, tax cuts is good for humanity.[/QUOTE]
do you really think that bankers and gas companies spend there time trying to help humanity?
[QUOTE=redBadger;26570211]Ultra-rich my ass.
250,000 based on how much money you currently own, not how much you make per year. Hopefully facepunch can eventually learn their political facts. They make it seem like it's based on how much one makes yearly, however it is really based on how much you really own.[/QUOTE]
Since when is income tax based on total wealth, not, oh, I don't know, income?
I'm not in favor of granting them tax cuts but 250,000+ isn't ultra rich.
[editline]9th December 2010[/editline]
[QUOTE=Funcoot;26556668]The $250,000 is the top bracket genius. The "rich guys bracket."
Most rich people are business owners, hence why they own a business. The profit incentive.[/QUOTE]
You're wrong fuckhead
[editline]9th December 2010[/editline]
[QUOTE=Kuro.;26539471]Their reasoning is that it will spur them to buy more and contribute to the giant corporate controlled clusterfuck that is our economy.
The real reason is of course they don't have to contribute as much to the country, which for everyone else means less money for services, which means services get cut, which leaves us high and dry and possibly starving and/or homeless while they laugh it up during a lavish party on their 32nd yacht because they're doing just fine.
[b]"Recession? What recession? OHOHOHOHOHO!"[/b] :20bux: :smug:[/QUOTE]
Nice try but no. Republicans are Supply-siders, which means that they believe that the people who get those tax breaks will then turn around and create jobs.
The reason that logic is ever so retarded is because it has been proven time and time again that the wealthy do NOT EVEN go out and buy a yacht (which would be good keynesian stimulus). They just stick it in the bank to do nothing for the economy.
[editline]9th December 2010[/editline]
[QUOTE=Zeke129;26539799]Poor people tend to support the "little guy" more than the rich. Someone in the poor - middle class range will likely shop at the corner store, farmer's market, buy a used car, etc. This helps the economy.
The super rich keep their money with other rich people; ordering crates of caviar, special ordering a diamond-studded Lexus, so forth. This does jack shit for the economy.[/QUOTE]
Nope. The rich actually are more inclined to save their money because they don't know what to spend it on. The poor have to go out and spend every last penny to make ends meet.
In other words, if you give a jobless man $600 in unemployment benefits, he's going to spend all of it on food, clothing, and maybe a one Christmas present for each of his kids.
If you give it to a former Merrill-Lynch Analyst who used to make $1.2 million a year and now makes $500,000 a year at a tech securities trading company, he's only going to spend so much of it before he starts socking away the rest for a rainy day.
Basically, if our rich people lived like Flavor Flav, then tax cuts for the rich would make sense from a keynesian (demand side) perspective. Basically, the supply side perspective makes no fucking sense because interest rates are so low nobody is willing to take any risks investing right now. That's why we're in a liquidity trap.
[editline]9th December 2010[/editline]
[QUOTE=Prismatex;26540071]You are a maroon.
They don't give "half their paycheck" to the government. All your income over $250,000 would be taxed at 39% instead of 35% if the Bush tax cuts are allowed to expire.
[/QUOTE]
Also it's probably worth noting that the rich pay only about 20% when all is said and done, versus the middle class who pay roughly 30%, because they can afford to get an accountant to find them all their possible breaks and exemptions and hide their money in a Caribbean bank account or whatever. That's a well known fact.
[editline]9th December 2010[/editline]
[QUOTE=imasillypiggy;26540103]funny how farmers are very important but yet they get paid so little[/QUOTE]
That's retarded.
If you're talking about small farmers, then you're wrong in that they're not important. If all the small farmers disappeared tonight, the US economy would not miss a fucking beat.
If you're including large farms, you're wrong in that they rake it in like you wouldn't believe.
[editline]9th December 2010[/editline]
[QUOTE=FHamster;26540152]Rich people own the biggest businesses which provide the most jobs.[/QUOTE]
Then lower the corporate tax if you believe that. The individuals who make huge bonuses and salaries from large corporations don't reinvest that money in any conceivable way. The retardation of this thread is truly astounding.
Okay, after having read this thread, you guys really need to read this and just stop and think about it before you hit the "hrurr rich can spare more taxes!!" button that so many of you inevitably do. This little story is a nice analogy about our progressive income tax system, keeping in mind that while you guys are complaining about the cuts granted to just the rich, it would help if you would read the article- especially before naming the thread in a completely misleading manner.
[QUOTE=OP Article]President Obama agreed to extend the Bush-era tax cuts for [B]all income levels[/B] instead of targeting the reductions solely at families with taxable incomes of $250,000 or less[/QUOTE]
Funny how the OP didn't notice that when he named the thread. Oh, and this too.
[QUOTE=OP Article]Congress reached a sweeping agreement Monday extend expiring income tax cuts for two years, [B]extend unemployment benefits[/B] and cut how much [B]millions of workers pay in Social Security payroll taxes.[/B][/QUOTE]
Anyway, here's my story, which many of you will probably be familiar with if you study economics.
10 men had lunch together on business. They always went to the same restaurant and the bill was always $100.00, for all 10 men. If each man was responsible for his share of the bill that would be simply $10.00 each. The men decided to divide the bill based upon their ability to pay (using the progressive structure of the tax code). Using this formula the following payment arrangement was worked out based upon income.
Men 1-4, who made the least amount of money, paid nothing.
Man 5 paid $1.00.
Man 6 paid $3.00.
Man 7 paid $7.00.
Man 8 paid $12.00.
Man 9 paid $18.00.
Man 10 paid $59.00.
After several weeks, the owner of the restaurant told the men that because they were such good customers he was reducing the bill by $20.00. Their dilemma was how to divide up said $20.00. If each person got the same amount then the first 4 men would be getting money back when they never paid anything for the lunches in the first place. After much discussion and no resolve the owner offered the following suggestion which they all agreed to.
Men 1-4 paid $0.00 originally, and they still paid the same-$ 0.00. They saved $0.00. It was a 0% cut.
Man 5 paid $1.00 initially, and he now gets free dinner. So new payment is $0.00. He saved $1.00. He got a 100% bill cut.
Man 6 paid $3.00 originally, and now paid just $2.00. He saved $1.00, which is a 33% cheaper dinner for Man 6.
Man 7 paid $7.00 originally, and still must pay $5.00. He saved $2.00, a 28% reduction in his bill.
Man 8 paid $12.00 at first, and now still pays $9.00. He saved $3.00, a 25% bill reduction.
Man 9 paid $18.00 at first, and he now pays $14.00, saving him $4.00 per dinner, or 22% of his bill.
Man 10 paid $59.00 to begin with, and still must pay more than half of the bill- $50.00. He saves $9.00, which is a 15% reduction to his bill.
Once outside the men began to argue about the settlement. Man 5 said he only got, $1.00, while Man 10 received, $9.00. Men 1-4 were upset because the received nothing. They said that the cut would only help the rich and the poor got nothing. They were upset so they beat up Man 10 and left him. The next week they met for lunch as usual except man 10 did not show up. When the new bill arrived the men discovered that between them they did not have enough money to pay even half of the bill.
While I feel like trying to educate some people here is a waste of time, if even one person can stop and think about things after reading that then my time spent typing this post will not have been a waste of time.
EDIT: Gotta come back here to point out some stuff in the post directly above me.
[QUOTE=Jewsus]The reason that logic is ever so retarded is because it has been proven time and time again that the wealthy do NOT EVEN go out and buy a yacht (which would be good keynesian stimulus). They just stick it in the bank to do nothing for the economy.[/QUOTE]
Sticking it in a bank does nothing for the economy? You think the bank just lets it sit in a vault? Banks [B]invest[/B]. But i'm sure investing isn't too important for the economy or anything so your point is perfectly valid.
[QUOTE=Jewsus]Nope. The rich actually are more inclined to save their money because they don't know what to spend it on. The poor have to go out and spend every last penny to make ends meet.
In other words, if you give a jobless man $600 in unemployment benefits, he's going to spend all of it on food, clothing, and maybe a one Christmas present for each of his kids.
If you give it to a former Merrill-Lynch Analyst who used to make $1.2 million a year and now makes $500,000 a year at a tech securities trading company, he's only going to spend so much of it before he starts socking away the rest for a rainy day. [/QUOTE] Again- the rich have to spend to make ends meet as well- they just don't have as hard a time doing it. In fact, they put a whole lot more money into the economy when they make ends meet than poor people do. A rich guy, even if he doesn't know how to spend a lot of his money, will probably own at least a moderate sized house. Think he's paying the same into the housing market as a poor guy in a little apartment? And the rest of that money he "doesn't know how to spend"- he puts it in the bank. Which, as I said above, probably isn't important for banks to be healthy and be able to invest or anything. So again, [I]perfectly[/I] valid point.
[QUOTE=Jewsus]Also it's probably worth noting that the rich pay only about 20% when all is said and done, versus the middle class who pay roughly 30%, because they can afford to get an accountant to find them all their possible breaks and exemptions and hide their money in a Caribbean bank account or whatever. That's a well known fact.[/QUOTE] No, this is not a "well known fact." Are you seriously implying that the majority of our wealthy ships their money out into other countries to avoid taxes? You want to find some facts to back up the 20% to 30% statistic because that's really just complete BS.
In fact, [URL=http://www.davemanuel.com/2010/11/04/what-percentage-of-federal-income-taxes-do-rich-people-really-pay/]as far as I can find[/URL], this is just horribly inaccurate. That might not be the most reliable-straight-to-the-point source, but if you really feel like that's propaganda in that site there then i'll gladly dig out the original. Interesting quote from the article, which is quoted from the IRS website and published material: [QUOTE=article]Top 10% (Income Split Point $113,799) Paid 69.94% of Federal Individual Income Taxes[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Jewsus]That's retarded.
If you're talking about small farmers, then you're wrong in that they're not important. If all the small farmers disappeared tonight, the US economy would not miss a fucking beat.
If you're including large farms, you're wrong in that they rake it in like you wouldn't believe.[/QUOTE] No large group of any part of the economy can be "wiped out" and have the economy remain perfectly fine. Small farmers are a large portion of our total supply, and unless you have some kind of info to back this up here again, i'm going to have to call BS....again.
did you think after 8 pages that the main point of the thread would still be relevant?
[QUOTE=Prismatex;26540297]First off, the USPS receives no government funding.
Second off, the EPA performs and funds a lot of environmental research. For example, right now I'm interning at a lab that gets a lot of grants from the EPA to do research on the upper Chesapeake Bay watershed.
Third, Amtrak gets a lot of tax money, but because it's been losing money, we should stop funding it?
Talk about losing jobs. How many employees of Amtrak would lose their jobs if they went under because of no funding?[/QUOTE]
Also, he just named 11 billion dollars in funding. That's 1/7 of what cutting off the bush tax cuts above 250,000 would do and THOSE measures likely wouldn't fly politically because you'd be screwing over a lot of people. Keep trying though bud.
[editline]9th December 2010[/editline]
[QUOTE=Canesfan;26576936]Okay, after having read this thread, you guys really need to read this and just stop and think about it before you hit the "hrurr rich can spare more taxes!!" button that so many of you inevitably do. This little story is a nice analogy about our progressive income tax system, keeping in mind that while you guys are complaining about the cuts granted to just the rich, it would help if you would read the article- especially before naming the thread in a completely misleading manner.
Funny how the OP didn't notice that when he named the thread. Oh, and this too.
Anyway, here's my story, which many of you will probably be familiar with if you study economics.
10 men had lunch together on business. They always went to the same restaurant and the bill was always $100.00, for all 10 men. If each man was responsible for his share of the bill that would be simply $10.00 each. The men decided to divide the bill based upon their ability to pay (using the progressive structure of the tax code). Using this formula the following payment arrangement was worked out based upon income.
Men 1-4, who made the least amount of money, paid nothing.
Man 5 paid $1.00.
Man 6 paid $3.00.
Man 7 paid $7.00.
Man 8 paid $12.00.
Man 9 paid $18.00.
Man 10 paid $59.00.
After several weeks, the owner of the restaurant told the men that because they were such good customers he was reducing the bill by $20.00. Their dilemma was how to divide up said $20.00. If each person got the same amount then the first 4 men would be getting money back when they never paid anything for the lunches in the first place. After much discussion and no resolve the owner offered the following suggestion which they all agreed to.
Men 1-4 paid $0.00 originally, and they still paid the same-$ 0.00. They saved $0.00. It was a 0% cut.
Man 5 paid $1.00 initially, and he now gets free dinner. So new payment is $0.00. He saved $1.00. He got a 100% bill cut.
Man 6 paid $3.00 originally, and now paid just $2.00. He saved $1.00, which is a 33% cheaper dinner for Man 6.
Man 7 paid $7.00 originally, and still must pay $5.00. He saved $2.00, a 28% reduction in his bill.
Man 8 paid $12.00 at first, and now still pays $9.00. He saved $3.00, a 25% bill reduction.
Man 9 paid $18.00 at first, and he now pays $14.00, saving him $4.00 per dinner, or 22% of his bill.
Man 10 paid $59.00 to begin with, and still must pay more than half of the bill- $50.00. He saves $9.00, which is a 15% reduction to his bill.
Once outside the men began to argue about the settlement. Man 5 said he only got, $1.00, while Man 10 received, $9.00. Men 1-4 were upset because the received nothing. They said that the cut would only help the rich and the poor got nothing. They were upset so they beat up Man 10 and left him. The next week they met for lunch as usual except man 10 did not show up. When the new bill arrived the men discovered that between them they did not have enough money to pay even half of the bill.
While I feel like trying to educate some people here is a waste of time, if even one person can stop and think about things after reading that then my time spent typing this post will not have been a waste of time.
EDIT: Gotta come back here to point out some stuff in the post directly above me.
Sticking it in a bank does nothing for the economy? You think the bank just lets it sit in a vault? Banks [B]invest[/B]. But i'm sure investing isn't too important for the economy or anything so your point is perfectly valid.
Again- the rich have to spend to make ends meet as well- they just don't have as hard a time doing it. In fact, they put a whole lot more money into the economy when they make ends meet than poor people do. A rich guy, even if he doesn't know how to spend a lot of his money, will probably own at least a moderate sized house. Think he's paying the same into the housing market as a poor guy in a little apartment? And the rest of that money he "doesn't know how to spend"- he puts it in the bank. Which, as I said above, probably isn't important for banks to be healthy and be able to invest or anything. So again, [I]perfectly[/I] valid point.
No, this is not a "well known fact." Are you seriously implying that the majority of our wealthy ships their money out into other countries to avoid taxes? You want to find some facts to back up the 20% to 30% statistic because that's really just complete BS.
In fact, [URL=http://www.davemanuel.com/2010/11/04/what-percentage-of-federal-income-taxes-do-rich-people-really-pay/]as far as I can find[/URL], this is just horribly inaccurate. That might not be the most reliable-straight-to-the-point source, but if you really feel like that's propaganda in that site there then i'll gladly dig out the original. Interesting quote from the article, which is quoted from the IRS website and published material:
No large group of any part of the economy can be "wiped out" and have the economy remain perfectly fine. Small farmers are a large portion of our total supply, and unless you have some kind of info to back this up here again, i'm going to have to call BS....again.[/QUOTE]
Two things. The banks aren't investing right now because interest rates accounting inflation and the normal rate of return are actually NEGATIVE. As I said: Liquidity trap.
Secondly, that stat you posted was how much of the total revenue they covered as a group, not how much they individually paid, which actually goes to my point that our Gini coefficient is out of control and our rich control to much of the total wealth.
Also your restaurant analogy is nice but in reality, macroeconomic policy concerns itself with growth, unemployment, and inflation, not equity towards the wealthy. I'm well aware that what's fair and what's good for the economy aren't always the same thing, if you want to argue that the rich deserve what they have and should be able to keep it.
Your name is canesfan like Keynesfan. You should be able to appreciate this.
[QUOTE=Jewsus]Two things. The banks aren't investing right now because interest rates accounting inflation and the normal rate of return are actually NEGATIVE. As I said: Liquidity trap.
Secondly, that stat you posted was how much of the total revenue they covered as a group, not how much they individually paid, which actually goes to my point that our Gini coefficient is out of control and our rich control to much of the total wealth.
Also your restaurant analogy is nice but in reality, macroeconomic policy concerns itself with growth, unemployment, and inflation, not equity towards the wealthy. I'm well aware that what's fair and what's good for the economy aren't always the same thing, if you want to argue that the rich deserve what they have and should be able to keep it.
Your name is canesfan like Keynesfan. You should be able to appreciate this.[/QUOTE]
Heard that one before. I don't know how to define my own view, I don't go full Reaganomics, but in my opinion what's fair is more important than what's good for the economy. If you say vice versa you can start to get into some dangerous territory with the whole take from the rich for the good of everyone else deal. It just goes downhill from there, in most cases.
[QUOTE=Canesfan;26576936]
Men 1-4, who made the least amount of money, paid nothing.
Man 5 paid $1.00.
Man 6 paid $3.00.
Man 7 paid $7.00.
Man 8 paid $12.00.
Man 9 paid $18.00.
Man 10 paid $59.00.
After several weeks, the owner of the restaurant told the men that because they were such good customers he was reducing the bill by $20.00. Their dilemma was how to divide up said $20.00. If each person got the same amount then the first 4 men would be getting money back when they never paid anything for the lunches in the first place. After much discussion and no resolve the owner offered the following suggestion which they all agreed to.
Men 1-4 paid $0.00 originally, and they still paid the same-$ 0.00. They saved $0.00. It was a 0% cut.
Man 5 paid $1.00 initially, and he now gets free dinner. So new payment is $0.00. He saved $1.00. He got a 100% bill cut.
Man 6 paid $3.00 originally, and now paid just $2.00. He saved $1.00, which is a 33% cheaper dinner for Man 6.
Man 7 paid $7.00 originally, and still must pay $5.00. He saved $2.00, a 28% reduction in his bill.
Man 8 paid $12.00 at first, and now still pays $9.00. He saved $3.00, a 25% bill reduction.
Man 9 paid $18.00 at first, and he now pays $14.00, saving him $4.00 per dinner, or 22% of his bill.
Man 10 paid $59.00 to begin with, and still must pay more than half of the bill- $50.00. He saves $9.00, which is a 15% reduction to his bill.
\\[/QUOTE]
Probably the most misleading analogy ever. I am honestly ashamed that there are people this stupid out there.
For one, the bottom bracket in the USA is [b]10%[/b], so the bottom 4 men would not pay nothing.
Secondly, the top guy would be making at least 25x as much money as the bottom guys, and that just places him in the top bracket, he could be making significantly more.
[QUOTE=sloppy_joes;26578928]Probably the most misleading analogy ever. I am honestly ashamed that there are people this stupid out there.
For one, the bottom bracket in the USA is [b]10%[/b], so the bottom 4 men would not pay nothing.
Secondly, the top guy would be making at least 25x as much money as the bottom guys, and that just places him in the top bracket, he could be making significantly more.[/QUOTE]
Still works with slight altercations to match your criteria. Of course the others in the middle would also have to be adjusted as well.
[QUOTE=Glaber;26581035]Still works with slight altercations to match your criteria.[/QUOTE]
But he is saying it is unfair, I am saying, it's based off of how much the person makes.
If there were 10 people, if the poorest person made 1% of the money in the group, the have to pay for all the things the others pay for, but with significantly less money.
The idea is, since most employees make money for their employers (through exploitation of their labor), the employers should pay greater taxes, as the employees can't afford to pay them all themselves, and the employers are only making money off working their employees.
[editline]9th December 2010[/editline]
Since the richest person makes significantly more than the poorest, the richest pays for the poorest.
[QUOTE=sloppy_joes;26578928]Probably the most misleading analogy ever. I am honestly ashamed that there are people this stupid out there.
For one, the bottom bracket in the USA is [b]10%[/b], so the bottom 4 men would not pay nothing.
Secondly, the top guy would be making at least 25x as much money as the bottom guys, and that just places him in the top bracket, he could be making significantly more.[/QUOTE]
If you factor all the correct percentages into it, no, they do not pay nothing, but it's in the pennies. If pennies make it "the most misleading analogy ever" in your opinion, well i'm so, so, so sorry that it offended your sensibilities.
So basically, pennies make that 99% accurate analogy more misleading than a thread title that claimed tax cuts were granted only to the ultra rich...when in fact they were granted to everyone?
Want to try a real argument this time instead of name calling? Looks rather childish to bring "people this stupid" into an economic argument, to be honest.
if you make millions sitting in a chair all day you should have to pay more taxes then someone that makes pennies breaking there back
[QUOTE=imasillypiggy;26592875]if you make millions sitting in a chair all day you should have to pay more taxes then someone that makes pennies breaking there back[/QUOTE]
Well said.
This is like rich people stereotype heaven.
[quote]President Obama agreed to extend the Bush-era tax cuts for all income levels instead of targeting the reductions solely at families with taxable incomes of $250,000 or less, a position he has held since his campaign.[/quote]
ehem
[QUOTE=imasillypiggy;26592875]if you make millions sitting in a chair all day you should have to pay more taxes then someone that makes pennies breaking there back[/QUOTE]
What if you're a poor computer programmer? WHAT NOW YOU SMART SHIT
[QUOTE=s0beit;26597283]
What if you're a poor computer programmer? WHAT NOW YOU SMART SHIT[/QUOTE]
then they wont own a computer or the internet to run it. besides have you ever tried to program everything? its very annoying
[QUOTE=imasillypiggy;26597325]then they wont own a computer or the internet to run it. besides have you ever tried to program everything? its very annoying[/QUOTE]
Well you just made my day
[QUOTE=Canesfan;26589265]If you factor all the correct percentages into it, no, they do not pay nothing, but it's in the pennies. If pennies make it "the most misleading analogy ever" in your opinion, well i'm so, so, so sorry that it offended your sensibilities.
So basically, pennies make that 99% accurate analogy more misleading than a thread title that claimed tax cuts were granted only to the ultra rich...when in fact they were granted to everyone?
Want to try a real argument this time instead of name calling? Looks rather childish to bring "people this stupid" into an economic argument, to be honest.[/QUOTE]
Strawman argument, I did not mention a single thing you were talking about.
We can have a real argument, you just have to get the right numbers first.
You can't have an argument based off a false premise, and expect everyone to pat you on the back for trying.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
