• U.S. Unveils $53 Billion High-Speed Rail Plan
    150 replies, posted
This'd be awesome if it happened
[QUOTE=Zeke129;27967244]Someone makes 20k/year and can barely pay the bills we tax them 30% Someone makes 1000k/year and lives in a flying yacht the entire surface of which is leather and there is a hooker dispenser we tax them 30% Who is hurt more A good society taxes person A a very low amount and person B a high amount[/QUOTE] Except a flat tax would never be that high...10% is plenty to run the government. BTW, the whole "tax the rich" thing is stupid. Hope you never have to sell your house, because that counts as income, and suddenly BAM, you're rich...
[QUOTE=Ridge;27969245]Except a flat tax would never be that high...10% is plenty to run the government. BTW, the whole "tax the rich" thing is stupid. Hope you never have to sell your house, because that counts as income, and suddenly BAM, you're rich...[/QUOTE] If you sell a house before you paid off a mortgage, you get a lump sum of all that you have put into it so far?
[QUOTE=Ridge;27969245]Except a flat tax would never be that high...10% is plenty to run the government. BTW, the whole "tax the rich" thing is stupid. Hope you never have to sell your house, because that counts as income, and suddenly BAM, you're rich...[/QUOTE] You realize you can count selling your house as a tax writeoff, no?
[QUOTE=Prismatex;27969465]You realize you can count selling your house as a tax writeoff, no?[/QUOTE] It is still listed as income. And the evil rich people are those who make the magical number in gross income, e.g., before taxes.
[QUOTE=Ridge;27979708]It is still listed as income. And the evil rich people are those who make the magical number in gross income, e.g., before taxes.[/QUOTE] It won't bump you into a higher tax bracket, however.
[QUOTE=Prismatex;27979886]It won't bump you into a higher tax bracket, however.[/QUOTE] it could if you were close enough to the higher tax bracket
[QUOTE=Zeke129;27967244]Someone makes 20k/year and can barely pay the bills we tax them 30% Someone makes 1000k/year and lives in a flying yacht the entire surface of which is leather and there is a hooker dispenser we tax them 30% Who is hurt more A good society taxes person A a very low amount and person B a high amount[/QUOTE] Its mostly opposed due to it "Restricting investment". Since you need a greater amount of money to invest. But lets use some real world scenarios for this. Lets look at our single tax brackets for 2011: 10% -- 0 → $8,500 15% -- $8,501 → $34,500 25% -- $34,501 → $83,600 (OUCH to the middle class) 28% -- $83,601 → $174,400 (Hmmm.. additional 3% for assholes who make alot of cash) 33% -- $174,401 → $376,150 (Whoa.. Only 8% more than the median middle class income) 35% -- $379,151 → To Infinity and beyond (Top tier, top service man) For joint, double those rates. Except to the 4th tier (28%) For married, but seperate, Its the same till the 3rd tier (25%). 25% -- $34,501 → $69,675 28% -- $69,676 → $106,150 33% -- $106,151 → $189,575 35% -- $189,576 + This is there because they know there is two incomes by a couple. This way they don't get away with a lower There is also Head of Household which can fit into those tax brackets pretty easily. All figures are FEDERAL. State will vary (if your state has it) But see what facepunch is, lets use the single tax brackets. Lets say, you're only working for $8.50 an hour. Fulltime, you're only going to be making around $17000 before taxes. So you're in tier2, 15%. Roughly $2,550 in taxes you'll owe. Pushing what you get, about $14550 back. (This considers NO holidays. This is 52weeks of 40 hours each) If you're part time, and you only push about $7000 after taxes. Lucky you! You're bottom rack scum to the government. You'll owe $700. What about you, big shot CEO who browses facepunch with a smug face and a cigar while getting a rim job from your slaves? You claim $400,000 a year. Thats $140K in fucking taxes. You lost a good chunk of your cash. Hell, more than a 3rd of it. what about the asshole who makes $1,000,000? Thats $350,000 in taxes. A study proved that most people making atleast $70,000 a year are comfortable. Thats the upper 3rd tier. But still, a quarter of your income. Its only $17,500 in tax. Most of these people are filed jointly/married. So say both couples make 70k a year, thats $140k a year. 4th tier, 28%. Only $39,000 a year. Better than filing as married, but seperately. 70k a year is that same tier. $19,600 in tax. Or an extra $2,100. For each couple too. Thats $39,200. Only $200 more than filing married. lol. Fucking banks. It starts to hurt at higher brackets. Depending on your state, you'll be charged an extra tax. I am in illinois, so if you make $1 or higher, they'll charge you 5% regardless. Benefits the rich more than the poor. I rather have 50k taken away if I was making $1m a year, than a nickel out of my pocket if I made $1 a year. But don't worry, the rich have other taxes they have to pay in order to get their way in congress. [b]Sources[/b] [url=www.google.com]Googled it[/url] [url=http://www.bankrate.com/finance/taxes/2011-tax-bracket-rates.aspx]Bankrate.com, 2011 Tax Brackets[/url]
Personally, I'd like a purely flat tax across the board, as opposed to taking just the wealthy money. It doesn't feel right to just tax one area more than the rest, and this comes from a kid who was raised with single mom, in a shitty condo for 5 years.
[QUOTE=Killy_Mcgee;27982225]Personally, I'd like a purely flat tax across the board, as opposed to taking just the wealthy money. It doesn't feel right to just tax one area more than the rest, and this comes from a kid who was raised with single mom, in a shitty condo for 5 years.[/QUOTE] Are you for fucking real?
[QUOTE=Killy_Mcgee;27982225]Personally, I'd like a purely flat tax across the board, as opposed to taking just the wealthy money. It doesn't feel right to just tax one area more than the rest, and this comes from a kid who was raised with single mom, in a shitty condo for 5 years.[/QUOTE] Well imagine this "flat tax" rate was 10%. Much higher and the very poor would suffer even more than they are now, but without it being much higher, it would just be an even smaller drop in the bucket for the ultra-rich than it is today. It doesn't make sense to view taxing the rich a slightly higher percentage as "just taking money from the wealthy". It's for good reason, as they have profited from society, and must also give back to it.
Doyle tried pulling the same crap in Wisconsin before he was shamed out of office. How much will this rail system cost to maintain once government handouts run out? Look into it, and read between the lines.
I like trains I hope they build one so I can ride on it.
or we could spend that money on fixing the many american bridges that are on the verge of failure
[QUOTE=Megafanx13;27982473]Well imagine this "flat tax" rate was 10%. Much higher and the very poor would suffer even more than they are now, but without it being much higher, it would just be an even smaller drop in the bucket for the ultra-rich than it is today. It doesn't make sense to view taxing the rich a slightly higher percentage as "just taking money from the wealthy". It's for good reason, as they have profited from society, and must also give back to it.[/QUOTE] They already give back to society. They prop up the stock market. They pay wages to their employees. The problem with people like you is that you think the only way someone can make money is to take it away from someone else and make them poor.
[QUOTE=Ridge;27982739]They already give back to society. They prop up the stock market. They pay wages to their employees. The problem with people like you is that you think the only way someone can make money is to take it away from someone else and make them poor.[/QUOTE] Any higher than 35% income tax on the highest tax brackets/adding more tax brackets for even higher incomes=/=making them poor.
It gives them less incentive to do their business, which means they close up, which means lost jobs, which means everybody is poor.
[QUOTE=Ridge;27984140]It gives them less incentive to do their business, which means they close up, which means lost jobs, which means everybody is poor.[/QUOTE] Trickle-down economics does not work.
[media][URL]http://youtube.com/watch?v=jF_yLodI1CQ[/URL][/media] MONORAIL!
sometimes I feel like we are in an RTS played by a 12 year old who doesn't know the meaning of resource management. :smith: [editline]11th February 2011[/editline] Sometimes I feel like we are in an RTS played by a 12 year old who doesn't know the meaning of resource management. :smith:
[QUOTE=Ridge;27982739]They already give back to society. They prop up the stock market. They pay wages to their employees. The problem with people like you is that you think the only way someone can make money is to take it away from someone else and make them poor.[/QUOTE] Don't be silly
[QUOTE=Ridge;27969245]Except a flat tax would never be that high...10% is plenty to run the government. BTW, the whole "tax the rich" thing is stupid. Hope you never have to sell your house, because that counts as income, and suddenly BAM, you're rich...[/QUOTE] Because rich is 250,000 and it should be 1,000,000. Not due to any fault of the idea. Ugh, you and glaber never realize this. [editline]11th February 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=Ridge;27969245]Except a flat tax would never be that high...10% is plenty to run the government. BTW, the whole "tax the rich" thing is stupid. Hope you never have to sell your house, because that counts as income, and suddenly BAM, you're rich...[/QUOTE] Because rich is 250,000 and it should be 1,000,000. Not due to any fault of the idea. Ugh, you and glaber never realize this.
I went on a Mag-Rail in Shanghai, it goes half the speed of an airplane.
Sounds like what FDR did. He came up with bunch of projects to create jobs. Stuff like building roads, bridges, parks, and schools. Good for President Obama doing the same thing.
[QUOTE=nemmises5;27996397]sometimes I feel like we are in an RTS played by a 12 year old who doesn't know the meaning of resource management. :smith: [editline]11th February 2011[/editline] Sometimes I feel like we are in an RTS played by a 12 year old who doesn't know the meaning of resource management. :smith:[/QUOTE] you don't win in an rts by getting far behind in technology
[QUOTE=yawmwen;27949257]i would be behind this if the government wasnt in as much debt as they are we really need to cut spending by a lot and start actually paying back our debts[/QUOTE] The US econonmy is pretty much stagnant. The last thing the Government would want to do is cut back on spending. Actually, if you cut back on spending in the econony's current state, you'd most likely see the national debt increase faster than otherwise, as there is no money [growth being generated] being generated. I'm surprised though that part of the answer to the US's problems is building railroads. I thought railroads in the US are fairly underutilised?
I hope the ones complaining about how expensive this would be and how in debt the US is aren't the same ones complaining about Obama not doing anything.
[QUOTE=>VLN<;27952470]Nobody will use it. These projects have been tried and failed in the US. Other countries, yes it would work. But not in the US. We like to drive.[/QUOTE] [quote]High-Speed Rail[/quote] Americans like to get to places farther and faster. This will cut a driving in 2/4ths or more. It took me 24 straight hours to get into New York and 2 hours into my hotel. Im sure with this new plan people who would of used a plane or vehicle will turn to this as an alternative to get around the United States. If you actually to the time to read up on the United States background around trains you would know trains were very popular. Most in part because you arrived at you destination quicker. This will certainly do the same thing. Our current rail system is very useful and cleaner CSX is a prime example of 1 gallon of fuel per 500 miles. CSX delivers quicker than any semi truck would across Eastern America. These rail tracks will be dedicated only to passengers allowing quicker arrival as sad above.
You can't get stuck in traffic with trains.
[QUOTE=Lambeth;28002301]You can't get stuck in traffic with trains.[/QUOTE] Well, that's not [b]entirely[/b] true... [img]http://assets.nydailynews.com/img/2008/04/29/alg_china_train_collision.jpg[/img]
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.