Erollisi Marr - The Nameless

Go Back   Erollisi Marr - The Nameless > NON EQ Stuff (Real life, other games, etc.) > Steam Vent


Reply
 
Add/Share Add/Share Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 04-14-2004, 02:47 AM   #1
pukagok
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 18
Default Wow no matter who you are you get shafted

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/....ap/index.html

He made a ton of money, but he also paid out an assload in taxes, tell me that tax cuts aren't needed. 28% of your overall income is taken away in taxes, to him that might not be much but think of the guy making 30k a year, the 9 grand he pays will sure as hell hurt him in the nuts and probably push him to the poverty level.
pukagok is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-14-2004, 02:52 AM   #2
Chiteng
Supporter
 
Chiteng's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Earth
Posts: 10,240
In the end, taxxes will be paid by the people with money. Because taxxing the poor is futile.
__________________
It is clear that the individual who persecutes a man, his brother, because he is not of the same opinion, is a monster.

Voltaire

'For those with faith, no proof is needed. For those without faith, no proof is enough'

French Priest
Chiteng is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-14-2004, 06:03 AM   #3
Martigan
Supporter
 
Martigan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: San Juan Bautista, CA
Posts: 4,459
Send a message via AIM to Martigan
I paid between 20 and 25 percent. 28 percent is not bad for the kind of money he makes. I hope that when I work hard to make more money, my taxes will be about 28%. If Kerry gets elected and raises taxes on the "rich", I will have less incentive to work harder.
Martigan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-14-2004, 06:55 AM   #4
Hormadrune
Sociopathic bully?
 
Hormadrune's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: PA
Posts: 11,895
Funny noone noticed that Cheney paid only 20 percent
__________________
WoW-Ghostlands-US: Prae | sp | Prolonix | Horm | Ulfhednar | l
EQ: Hormadrune <Retired> <OFS> <CoI> <Affy> <CE>
Hormadrune is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-14-2004, 06:58 AM   #5
Flub Man
Here's to you liberals!!!
 
Flub Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Geaux Tigers
Posts: 3,327
Funny noone talked about how much money they gave to charities either.
__________________
Dirty Ol' Flub <retired>
My Sports Blog

"Starkville is the Indian word for Trailer Park."
~ Skip Bertman

'I was just wrong. Flub you are correct.'
~bumble
Flub Man is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-14-2004, 07:30 AM   #6
Veo
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 1,926
That's because money given to charities is tax deductable.
Veo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-14-2004, 07:43 AM   #7
Maximus Faticus
Registered User
 
Maximus Faticus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Raleigh, NC
Posts: 1,291
Funny noone noticed that Cheney paid only 20 percent
I bet as soon as he leaves office he'll be paying less then that. It's actually not very hard to not have to pay a lot of taxes, people just choose to make it hard on themselves and end up paying through the nose.
Maximus Faticus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-14-2004, 08:44 AM   #8
chukzombi
The Undead Shaman
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: The Bowels of Hell, A.K.A. New Jersey
Posts: 9,564
Funny how people get upset and start insinuating shady tactics just becuase they pay less taxes than what you feel they should pay.
__________________
Chukzombi Astrocreep
Magister (re-united)
chukzombi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-14-2004, 08:53 AM   #9
Valleycrest
Defrocked Irish priest
 
Valleycrest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 659
In the end, taxxes will be paid by the people with money. Because taxxing the poor is futile.
This sounds suspiciously like:

"From each according to his abilities, To each according to his needs."
Valleycrest is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-14-2004, 09:07 AM   #10
Veo
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 1,926
Who are you going to get more tax money from, the rich or the poor? Not that I'm advocating giving the poor any more than they need to get by.
Veo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-14-2004, 11:24 AM   #11
AresProphet
Priest of Hiroshima
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Colorado
Posts: 2,932
Send a message via MSN to AresProphet
Nobody finds it strange that a $900k salary pays 28% while a $1.3 million salaray pay's about 3/4 of that?

Deductions this, deductions that, if you really think Cheney just got more deductions then you admit Bush was an idiot and didn't get all he could. And that's an admirable trait, to hoard your money from the government that you work for...

Taxes are too goddamn complicated. At every level, more income should = a slightly higher % of taxes, but not on a bracket scale. It makes no sense to do otherwise, because cost of living (in % of income) only decreases as you earn more money.

Whether or not you think they are too high, too low, is irrelevant, because they are just done wrong.

And Chiteng is right, for once: you won't fund a government by taxing the people who use less of the services it provides.

This sounds suspiciously like:

"From each according to his abilities, To each according to his needs."
The concept behind income taxation is that people who earn more money are utilizing more of the services the government provides. Generally this holds true, with some exceptions that are rare enough and trivial enough to discount. Thus, "from each according his needs, to each according his needs".

But you just thought the government was stealing from you, because "taxes are teh debil!!11"
__________________
One of the wonders of the world is going down
It's going down I know
It's one of the blunders of the world that no-one cares
No-one cares enough


Attachment 181
AresProphet is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-14-2004, 11:34 AM   #12
Valleycrest
Defrocked Irish priest
 
Valleycrest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 659
The concept behind income taxation is that people who earn more money are utilizing more of the services the government provides.
Just so that I'm understanding you correctly, you're suggesting that the more money you earn the more you use government services? How do you figure that?
Valleycrest is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-14-2004, 11:38 AM   #13
chukzombi
The Undead Shaman
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: The Bowels of Hell, A.K.A. New Jersey
Posts: 9,564
No Valleycrest, you're not using your liberal decoder wheel. Ares means the richer you are the more you deserve to be punished for it.
__________________
Chukzombi Astrocreep
Magister (re-united)
chukzombi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-14-2004, 11:40 AM   #14
Flub Man
Here's to you liberals!!!
 
Flub Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Geaux Tigers
Posts: 3,327
Hold on, how does a person who earns more money utulize more of the services the government provides?

If I am rich, that usually means I own my car. So no public transportation for me. I own my house. No public housing for me. I either run a business or own a business. That means no welfare/foodstamps/unemployment check.

As a matter of opinion a rich person would pay more into the government then they recieve. I buy more gas for my SUV than others. I buy more goods than others. I buy more expensive items then others. I have more disposable income than others.
__________________
Dirty Ol' Flub <retired>
My Sports Blog

"Starkville is the Indian word for Trailer Park."
~ Skip Bertman

'I was just wrong. Flub you are correct.'
~bumble
Flub Man is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-14-2004, 11:49 AM   #15
AresProphet
Priest of Hiroshima
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Colorado
Posts: 2,932
Send a message via MSN to AresProphet
Roads. People who drive their own cars put more wear and tear on them (per capita) than people who ride public transportation.

Education. High-school dropouts are nearly guaranteed to earn less money.

Police services. Generally, wealthy families live in low-crime areas, due to the adequate protection found there and not in inner-city areas.

Get it?
__________________
One of the wonders of the world is going down
It's going down I know
It's one of the blunders of the world that no-one cares
No-one cares enough


Attachment 181
AresProphet is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-14-2004, 11:56 AM   #16
chukzombi
The Undead Shaman
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: The Bowels of Hell, A.K.A. New Jersey
Posts: 9,564
Roads. People who drive their own cars put more wear and tear on them (per capita) than people who ride public transportation
Lol, only the rich drive? those busses and trains dont cost large amounts of energy and resources compared to a single vehicle?

Education. High-school dropouts are nearly guaranteed to earn less money.
Why is this the fault of the rich?

Police services. Generally, wealthy families live in low-crime areas, due to the adequate protection found there and not in inner-city areas.
Low crime areas usually have nothing to do with the police department. police officers enforce the law, environment and population density have more to do with crime rates than a shiny new police car or 3 minute response times.

Please come off it, you're like every phony liberal out there, you think the rich are rich therefore they must be evil and suffer. Well at least the rich people who arent liberals should suffer, right?
__________________
Chukzombi Astrocreep
Magister (re-united)
chukzombi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-14-2004, 12:10 PM   #17
AresProphet
Priest of Hiroshima
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Colorado
Posts: 2,932
Send a message via MSN to AresProphet
Chuk, just for a moment, I want you to pull your head out of your ass. You can stick in back in but you need to start reading and not assuming.

I did not say only the rich should be taxed, but rather that taxes should scale upwards with income. Yes, even minimum wage earners should be taxed, but not as heavily as, say, lawyers and doctors.

No, the rich are not the only ones who drive cars, but generally people who own cars earn more money than those who don't. Agreed?

The rich are not being asked to pay for anyone elses education, but people who earn more money, likely having completed their public education, are being asked to pay for the system that helped them to get where they are. Consider public education a debt, not a handout, that you are expected to repay when you become a productive worker.

Adequately funded police departments, which cost taxpayers more money than underfunded police departments, do have an effect on crime. I'm not talking about overfunded departments where every officer earns the salary of a lawyer and has a brand new $40,000 cruiser.

Go ahead and re-insert your cranium up your anus, but in the future, quit telling me what I think. I know that better than you do.
__________________
One of the wonders of the world is going down
It's going down I know
It's one of the blunders of the world that no-one cares
No-one cares enough


Attachment 181
AresProphet is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-14-2004, 12:23 PM   #18
chukzombi
The Undead Shaman
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: The Bowels of Hell, A.K.A. New Jersey
Posts: 9,564
Chuk, just for a moment, I want you to pull your head out of your ass. You can stick in back in but you need to start reading and not assuming.
liberal rule #29374 when losing an argument respond with a hackeyed quip to disguise the weakness of your position.

No, the rich are not the only ones who drive cars, but generally people who own cars earn more money than those who don't. Agreed?
Nope, if you live in a rural area a vehicle is a must whether you are poor or not. If you live and work in the big city you tend to need a car less so you are more likely regardless of income to use public transportation.



The rich are not being asked to pay for anyone elses education, but people who earn more money, likely having completed their public education, are being asked to pay for the system that helped them to get where they are. Consider public education a debt, not a handout, that you are expected to repay when you become a productive worker.
The wealthy tend to use private education, so that theory goes out the window too.

Adequately funded police departments, which cost taxpayers more money than underfunded police departments, do have an effect on crime. I'm not talking about overfunded departments where every officer earns the salary of a lawyer and has a brand new $40,000 cruiser.
Any major city has a superior police force in tech, numbers and in training than smalltown USA which in turn becuase of its environment and small population density has a LOW crime rate.
__________________
Chukzombi Astrocreep
Magister (re-united)
chukzombi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-14-2004, 12:37 PM   #19
Flub Man
Here's to you liberals!!!
 
Flub Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Geaux Tigers
Posts: 3,327
Originally Posted by AresProphet
Roads. People who drive their own cars put more wear and tear on them (per capita) than people who ride public transportation.
Not true. Since public transportation is usually a bus and buses are usually heavier, use more gas and travel farther. That doesn't hold water. Also, one can travel farther, cheaper on a bus than one who drives their own car can.

Originally Posted by AresProphet
Education. High-school dropouts are nearly guaranteed to earn less money.
Who's fault is that? I took advantage of a free education and because of that I should pay more in taxes than someone who dropped out. Shouldn't that be backwards? Shouldn't the one who wasted their free education be forced to pay for it? After all if I contribute more than that person does, shouldn't I be rewarded?

Originally Posted by AresProphet
Police services. Generally, wealthy families live in low-crime areas, due to the adequate protection found there and not in inner-city areas.
The reason they live in low crime areas is because the people that live in the same neighborhood do not need to steal or commit crimes to survive. As a matter of fact most affluent neighborhoods higher private security to patrol. So not only does someone who is rich pay for the private security. They also pay for police to patrol other neighborhoods.

Come on Ares, even you can do better than that.
__________________
Dirty Ol' Flub <retired>
My Sports Blog

"Starkville is the Indian word for Trailer Park."
~ Skip Bertman

'I was just wrong. Flub you are correct.'
~bumble
Flub Man is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-14-2004, 01:01 PM   #20
Everclear
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Houston, Tx
Posts: 6,910
Bush isn't an idiot, I think he purposely paid more in taxes than he had to. This could be either to make himself look good... the tax rate look high, or maybe just to keep average people from saying "Hey he got outta taxes!".

Cheney did not "Hord his money from the country" he paid what he was required to, not any less.. and it is quite possible he could have paid less.

when dealing with taxes, I don't think it's fair to say that people who earn more pay more because they actually use governament facilities. In fact, it seems to me that most high end tax measures focus more on a sense of duty on the part of the wealthy. That is to say, wealthy people pay more, because the country has "treated them better". This is reflected in the fact that "charitable" contributions are deductable, as well as many other costs. This reflects that "giving back to society" or in some cases "unfortunate events" can offset tax liability. I would think it is logical then to assume, that taxes are a mandatory form of "giving back", that can be alleviated by voluntarily doing so. Hope that makes sense.
Everclear is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-14-2004, 01:15 PM   #21
ShardmoonVer.1
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Jacksonville
Posts: 7,457
Math is where the tax the rich argument falls apart and loses credibility (in my opinion).

10,000.00 Income x 20% tax rate = 2000.00 in taxes
100,000.00 Income x 20% tax rate = 20,000.00 in taxes.

The person making more is already paying more in taxes. At what point did this country decide that not only should they pay more, they should pay extra?

If you think loopholes are the problem, fix them. Penalizing hard working and successful members of society is not the answer.
__________________
If you don't have something good to say about some one, say it loud.
ShardmoonVer.1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-14-2004, 01:19 PM   #22
Alauradana
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 1,460
So tired of reading this ignorant banter that if you earn more you should have to pay more. So I bust my butt, PAID my way through college through loans I took AND paid, work hard, spend little and make my way up on the pay scale and now I have to pay more to cover those who don't?

I believe each and every one of you on this board who consistently throw this up are nothing but a group of moochers. You probably feel your families OWE you and take money off them regularly don't you??? I mean you expect richer people to pay for poorer people, so what would be the difference? I am proud of where I am, had bad times and behaved logically and got through them so why should I pay for someone else?

It doesn't matter if you make 10,000 a year or 100,000, I think the same percent should be taken out. I see no comparison in government benefits. The people on welfare take a lot more out compared to the ones who don't. It is nauseating to listen to a group of people who think they should get something for nothing.

I believe in welfare for those who TRULY need it. I also believe the only fair way to tax is on an equal percentage. I believe each and every person should be responsible for their welfare and their decisions and quit whining that so-and-so makes more so they should pay more.......total crap.
Alauradana is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-14-2004, 01:21 PM   #23
Everclear
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Houston, Tx
Posts: 6,910
Shard, actually in that scenario.. it is the lower income individual paying more. The lower income person has less disposable income than the wealthy one.
Everclear is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-14-2004, 01:24 PM   #24
Everclear
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Houston, Tx
Posts: 6,910
Seriousely, I consider myself somewhat of a moderate, but surely you can see how a flat rate would be terrible on lower incomes? I have worked my way through school as well, and will continue to be in school for several more years, jacking up my tax bracket and rate. But even still it is obvious that the burden must fall harder on me than a single working mother earning some hourly rate.
Everclear is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-14-2004, 01:45 PM   #25
ShardmoonVer.1
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Jacksonville
Posts: 7,457
Actually Evercler, in that scenerio they are both paying the same percentage of their income in taxes. These figures are obviously adjustable by Child tax credits and such, but at their most basic level, its a fairer system for ALL involved.

I dont agree that the burden should automaticly fall on those able to bear it. Charity is a choice, not an obligation.
__________________
If you don't have something good to say about some one, say it loud.
ShardmoonVer.1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 11:55 PM.


Powered by: vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.