Things we'd be talking about if the forum wasn't deadFollow

Spoiler

Gbaji wrote:

I'm talking about the bottom line(s) on your tax form you file, not some estimation of how much is taken out of your paycheck each month. Just checked last night. Rounded to the nearest thousand, I paid $39k in federal income tax, $10k in federal payroll taxes (social security and medicare, which is the max amount), and since I live in the lala state, $15k in state taxes. Oh. And I also live in a state with an 8% sales tax. Add in another $3k or so for property taxes too, while we're at it. Of course, we could also dig into things like gas/fuel taxes, vehicle registration fees, etc, but now we're just getting silly.

Given that I just started, I can't provide a "bottom line", so I guess that I must withdraw from your D measuring contest. In any case it's irrelevant if I'm still being taxed monthly, it's not like it changes the amount of taxes. Furthermore, I didn't include my house taxes/insurance which is over $600 a month.

Spoiler

Gbaji wrote:

My point is that there doesn't seem to be a limit point in most liberals minds where there's "enough" unbalanced taxation to satisfy them. They just add more and more spending, and then when it comes time to pay, well, of course those who are receiving the most benefits can't pay cause that's why they're receiving benefits, right? So it gets lumped into "the rich". But the problem is that while maybe "the rich" can afford to pay as much money as you want to levy on them, the middle class folks really can't. I don't drive around in a super expensive car. I don't live in a freaking mansion. I don't wear a different thousand dollar outfit every day. I don't go on vacation cruises around the world every month with all the extra cash I have lying about. I don't eat out at expensive restaurants. And while I do have a comfortable amount of cash in my bank account, the amount isn't growing that fast either.

If the GOP didn't jump on the "income inequality" boat, you would have a point. Since they did, they are even worse than the DEMs, because the GOP is trying to have it both ways. They talk about the "rich getting richer" as if it's a bad thing, but support measures that allow them to maintain their rate of wealth.

Spoiler

Gbaji wrote:

Why is that? Because I set aside a good sized chunk of my income into investments. I'm trying to do what people should be doing, and saving/investing for their future rather than consuming more for themselves today. I choose to live a more modest lifestyle that I could otherwise, because I want to be able to support myself when I retire. I don't want to be a burden on others. And for that, I'm called "greedy". WTF? How dare I want to set aside my own earnings to support my own future. Nosirree! I should blow my paycheck every week, live on the edge of bankruptcy, and if I lose my job or something happens, or I get sick or something, well I can just count on a big government safety net to save me. Cause that's what it's for, right? And it's even better when those other rich greedy people pay for it!

If you're making that much money, it's not either or. On top of my taxes, I've been religiously giving my tithes and offerings, while giving money to support my family and still country hop on vacations. The trade off? I'm often ridiculed for being parsimonious throughout the year. Before I bought my house, I put away at least 1.5k away a month in savings. I didn't pay as much taxes, but I didn't earn as much either. Bottom line is that this is your decision and there are other ways to obtain the same result.

Spoiler

Gbaji wrote:

That's the mentality that I find offensive. That I'm just not paying my "fair share" somehow. I ask you: What exactly is a "fair share"?

That is a legitimate concern and complaint. The problem is that simply determining how much to tax each person isn't independent. As a society, we have to agree on other financial decisions before we can fairly tax the rich.

Only if you equate taxation with theft or slavery.....oh, wait.


They would be sitting on a smaller enormous pile of money. Where's the "harm"?

I'm talking about the bottom line(s) on your tax form you file, not some estimation of how much is taken out of your paycheck each month. Just checked last night. Rounded to the nearest thousand, I paid $39k in federal income tax

I like to refer to that as "a bad month".

Add in another $3k or so for property taxes too, while we're at it

Do you live in a bucket or something? That seems like an astonishing low amount of property taxes for that region.

I'll answer that by asking you a question: Why do you think the French Revolution occurred?

Terrible example. The French riot over everything.

Only Gbaji gets to determine the sweet spot for when you get to have a valid opinion.

He not only can define the middle class, he IS the middle class.

Um... You get that the word "alternative" works in both directions, right? If X is an alternative to the status quo, then the status quo is an alternative to X. What you just said makes zero sense.



What about them? Give me a specific piece of legislation and lets talk.

I'll also note that you are once again conflating federal and state level legislation. Part of my point was the Dem "top down" federal approach to legislating changes. So countering that with state efforts by the GOP does not in any way counter what I was saying.



The Democrats have not at all been open to changes. The GOP asked to have just two amendments included in the bill, one involving religious exemptions and one simply stating that federal health care dollars can't be used to fund abortions, and they were shot down. I'm not sure what changes you think the Dems were willing to make (or are willing to make today), but I haven't seen even small changes accepted by them at all.

When one side's position is "take the whole thing as is with no changes allowed", you kinda can't blame the other side for having no choice but to oppose the whole thing. The Dems created the "all or nothing" scenario here, not the GOP.



I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. So "the GOP" is unwilling to accept or propose anything less than a total repeal of Obamacare, but then you acknowledge that "some are and some aren't (willing to pursue small change less than total repeal). Which is it? Again, you can't both blame the GOP for not having yet formed behind a single proposal *and* insist that they are all together in doing just one thing. The reality is that there is disagreement among the GOP as to how to proceed. Which is perfectly natural and normal.



The ACA has had a few upticks now and then, but it's consistently polled poorly, and still polls poorly today.

And yes, I fully believe that the media will happily downplay the problems with the ACA until forced to cover them. Right now, most state exchanges are failing. Badly. The federal exchange is doing "OK" (surprise!), because it's backed with medicare money. Of course, that's a land mine waiting to happen because of the poor way the funding was worded in the law (which may actually make the federal exchange illegal to fund with tax payer money, which would be a real irony).

The ACA has a ton of problems. That you aren't aware of them only reflects your own ignorance of the issue, not a real lack of problems.



It's not fear mongering when exactly that which you warn will happen actually does happen. Most people's premiums went up as a direct result of the ACA. Many people lost their health care plans and had to pick new ones. Many people found that their old plans were now completely unaffordable and had to select a much crappier coverage just to stay covered. But yes, a few people who didn't previously have health insurance were able to get it under the ACA, and for them, it was a good thing. The other 90% of the US? Not so much.

My salary is definitely temporary. As a contractor, my job is not steady. I got hired as an overpaid teleworker with not much work. I can tell that the contract was going south, so I picked up a second job. Unfortunately, my second is 25% less than my first. So, long story short, I'll be back to my previous salary sooner than later :(

All of which takes us back to you claiming that taxes are harmful. What a surprise.

Which kinda proves my point. Totally insane. The rich person's dollar buys the same amount as the poor persons.

And you are lying to yourself if you really believe that a person making minimum wage at a part time job losing 100 dollars, and Obama losing 100 dollars, is the same amount of harm. That a 100 dollar fine has the same weight, the same "harm" to those two different people.

You may say you believe that, but you really don't. You can't. It'd be impossible. As stupid as the **** you say sometimes is, I can't believe you really believe that. You may say it as part of your conservative shtick, but it's not true.

Buying power is only part of the value, and subsequent harm, of that money to a person.

No...were talking taxes. Are you retarded?



Nope. Just you.

Totally rational, not insane. If the point of the fine is to be punitive and a deterrent to future actions leading to fines then it needs to hold equal value to each individual. If I make $1000/month, a $100 fine is 10% of my income. If you make $10,000 a month, $100 is 1% of your income and you could wipe your *** with that $100 and not blink whereas I may not eat for part of this month.

I don't know why I bothered explaining that. You know what the scenario is and just choose to willful be ignorant of the reality and everyone else reading this was already aware of that.