By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General - Great info in healthcare bill (really). And an apology.

TheRealMafoo on 22 March 2010
psrock said:
TheRealMafoo said:
tombi123 said:
Oh well, the rich and middle classes can afford it anyway :P

Well, that's where the long term problems come in. Taxing the rich to give to the poor, hurts the poor more then it helps.

The rich don't pay as much taxes as you think, they have so much tax breaks, its crazy. I don't feel bad for them.

yea, I know you don't care about the rich. We used to have laws to protect all Americans from people who don't like them. Seems the rich have lost those rights.

Anyway, the top 1% pay over 40% of all taxes collected, and they pay the most as a percentage of income.

http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/250.html

 



Around the Network
TheRealMafoo on 22 March 2010
psrock said:
Kasz216 said:
psrock said:
TheRealMafoo said:
tombi123 said:
Oh well, the rich and middle classes can afford it anyway :P

Well, that's where the long term problems come in. Taxing the rich to give to the poor, hurts the poor more then it helps.

The rich don't pay as much taxes as you think, they have so much tax breaks, its crazy. I don't feel bad for them.

You don't get it.

Taxes on the rich hurt the poor more then it helps because of the nature of money and the rich.

 

Rich people don't throw their money in big vaults and swim around in it like scrooge McDuck.  They invest it.  Which results in GDP growth, which resutls in everyone in the country getting richer because everyones wages rise faster and more jobs are created.

That must be why so many poor got wealthy during the Bush year, and none during the Clinton.

lol, you do realize the poor did better under Bush then Clinton right?



tombi123 on 22 March 2010
TheRealMafoo said:
tombi123 said:
So you will get taxed an extra .9% if you make more than $200,000 a year? I can't imagine you would even notice that tax increase if you were earning that much.

These tax amounts are only if the bill costs exactly what Washington says it will cost. It never has before, even in times when they thought they were telling the truth (and they knew they were lying this time).

Let's just assume for the sake of argument, it cost only 940 billion (and it will cost twice that much at least). Half of that is taxes, but the 500 billion comes from cuts. The way they get those cuts, is 200 billion in improved efficiencies that they made up. The other 300 billion comes in compensation cuts to doctors, that they roll back every year. They will roll them back again this year.

This means we will have to pay for a shit load more then they say we need to pay. They will do it two ways. One is to lower the cap below $200,000, and the other is they will increase the tax.

Also, the "hidden tax", is they are offloading all the costs to the insurance companies, and telling them they can't charge individuals more, so they have to raise all the premiums to absorbe the cost. Every American who pays for insurance now, will most likely pay more for it in the future (aside from the poor).

This is a tax as well.

Sucks to be rich :/



psrock on 22 March 2010
TheRealMafoo said:
psrock said:
TheRealMafoo said:
tombi123 said:
Oh well, the rich and middle classes can afford it anyway :P

Well, that's where the long term problems come in. Taxing the rich to give to the poor, hurts the poor more then it helps.

The rich don't pay as much taxes as you think, they have so much tax breaks, its crazy. I don't feel bad for them.

yea, I know you don't care about the rich. We used to have laws to protect all Americans from people who don't like them. Seems the rich have lost those rights.

Anyway, the top 1% pay over 40% of all taxes collected, and they pay the most as a percentage of income.

http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/250.html

 

I never said I don't like the rich, I love Paris Hilton, I just don't care if they pay a little more taxes which they will get back anyway. There is a reason people want to be rich. I feel bad for poor people, those Obama wants to help.



 Next Gen 

11/20/09 04:25 makingmusic476 Warning Other (Your avatar is borderline NSFW. Please keep it for as long as possible.)
psrock on 22 March 2010
TheRealMafoo said:
psrock said:
Kasz216 said:
psrock said:
TheRealMafoo said:
tombi123 said:
Oh well, the rich and middle classes can afford it anyway :P

Well, that's where the long term problems come in. Taxing the rich to give to the poor, hurts the poor more then it helps.

The rich don't pay as much taxes as you think, they have so much tax breaks, its crazy. I don't feel bad for them.

You don't get it.

Taxes on the rich hurt the poor more then it helps because of the nature of money and the rich.

 

Rich people don't throw their money in big vaults and swim around in it like scrooge McDuck.  They invest it.  Which results in GDP growth, which resutls in everyone in the country getting richer because everyones wages rise faster and more jobs are created.

That must be why so many poor got wealthy during the Bush year, and none during the Clinton.

lol, you do realize the poor did better under Bush then Clinton right?

I was alive, I remember.



 Next Gen 

11/20/09 04:25 makingmusic476 Warning Other (Your avatar is borderline NSFW. Please keep it for as long as possible.)
Around the Network
Kasz216 on 22 March 2010
psrock said:
Kasz216 said:
psrock said:
TheRealMafoo said:
tombi123 said:
Oh well, the rich and middle classes can afford it anyway :P

Well, that's where the long term problems come in. Taxing the rich to give to the poor, hurts the poor more then it helps.

The rich don't pay as much taxes as you think, they have so much tax breaks, its crazy. I don't feel bad for them.

You don't get it.

Taxes on the rich hurt the poor more then it helps because of the nature of money and the rich.

 

Rich people don't throw their money in big vaults and swim around in it like scrooge McDuck.  They invest it.  Which results in GDP growth, which resutls in everyone in the country getting richer because everyones wages rise faster and more jobs are created.

That must be why so many poor got wealthy during the Bush year, and none during the Clinton.

Actually the Gini coefficent GREATLY rised during the Clinton years.

and shrank during the Bush years.

The rich got poorer then the poor did in the Bush years.

The rich got richer then the poor in the Clinton years.


Though trying to make that comparison when we were in a giant market recession that had it's makings well before bush came into market is realy disengenious.  Which to be fair, i've come to expect from you.   You tend to do nothing but troll these topics and make no effort to actually learn anything or make any well reasoned arguements.

It's rather grating.



TheRealMafoo on 22 March 2010

@tombi123
No, it's great to be rich. Funny thing is, this helps the rich.

Here is a fun exercise to think about. Let's say we had 10 people in a country, and 2 made 100,000 a year, and 8 made 10,000 a year. let's say that country then made a law that said "no one should make less then 15,000 a year!", and took 20k each from the rich, and gave 5K each to the poor".

Now you have two people with 80K a year, and 8 people with 15K a year, with 1/3 of there income just given to them.

Now, who do you think that hurts the most? Think about that for a bit. Who losses, and who wins?



psrock on 22 March 2010
Kasz216 said:
psrock said:
Kasz216 said:
psrock said:
TheRealMafoo said:
tombi123 said:
Oh well, the rich and middle classes can afford it anyway :P

Well, that's where the long term problems come in. Taxing the rich to give to the poor, hurts the poor more then it helps.

The rich don't pay as much taxes as you think, they have so much tax breaks, its crazy. I don't feel bad for them.

You don't get it.

Taxes on the rich hurt the poor more then it helps because of the nature of money and the rich.

 

Rich people don't throw their money in big vaults and swim around in it like scrooge McDuck.  They invest it.  Which results in GDP growth, which resutls in everyone in the country getting richer because everyones wages rise faster and more jobs are created.

That must be why so many poor got wealthy during the Bush year, and none during the Clinton.

Actually the Gini coefficent GREATLY rised during the Clinton years.

and shrank during the Bush years.

The rich got poorer then the poor did in the Bush years.

The rich got richer then the poor in the Clinton years.


Though trying to make that comparison when we were in a giant market recession that had it's makings well before bush came into market is realy disengenious.  Which to be fair, i've come to expect from you.   You tend to do nothing but troll these topics and make no effort to actually learn anything or make any well reasoned arguements.

It's rather grating.

No, I am one of the few who comes here and really disagree which the crap being said on a daily basis in these threads. Unlike you guys who goes to website to look for meaningless numbers to prove a point, I actually know what it is like to be poor, middle class and well off. I have actually been part of politics and lived with the poor. But, coming from people who'd rather protect rich people than care for the poor, I am not surprised.

And calling people trolls for their opinions is against the rules in this site.



 Next Gen 

11/20/09 04:25 makingmusic476 Warning Other (Your avatar is borderline NSFW. Please keep it for as long as possible.)
tombi123 on 22 March 2010
TheRealMafoo said:
@tombi123
No, it's great to be rich. Funny thing is, this helps the rich.

Here is a fun exercise to think about. Let's say we had 10 people in a country, and 2 made 100,000 a year, and 8 made 10,000 a year. let's say that country then made a law that said "no one should make less then 15,000 a year!", and took 20k each from the rich, and gave 5K each to the poor".

Now you have two people with 80K a year, and 8 people with 15K a year, with 1/3 of there income just given to them.

Now, who do you think that hurts the most? Think about that for a bit. Who losses, and who wins?

The poor guys did pretty well there and the two rich guys got pwned! 

You're going to have to explain why the two rich guys won...



Kasz216 on 22 March 2010
psrock said:
Kasz216 said:
psrock said:
Kasz216 said:
psrock said:
TheRealMafoo said:
tombi123 said:
Oh well, the rich and middle classes can afford it anyway :P

Well, that's where the long term problems come in. Taxing the rich to give to the poor, hurts the poor more then it helps.

The rich don't pay as much taxes as you think, they have so much tax breaks, its crazy. I don't feel bad for them.

You don't get it.

Taxes on the rich hurt the poor more then it helps because of the nature of money and the rich.

 

Rich people don't throw their money in big vaults and swim around in it like scrooge McDuck.  They invest it.  Which results in GDP growth, which resutls in everyone in the country getting richer because everyones wages rise faster and more jobs are created.

That must be why so many poor got wealthy during the Bush year, and none during the Clinton.

Actually the Gini coefficent GREATLY rised during the Clinton years.

and shrank during the Bush years.

The rich got poorer then the poor did in the Bush years.

The rich got richer then the poor in the Clinton years.


Though trying to make that comparison when we were in a giant market recession that had it's makings well before bush came into market is realy disengenious.  Which to be fair, i've come to expect from you.   You tend to do nothing but troll these topics and make no effort to actually learn anything or make any well reasoned arguements.

It's rather grating.

No, I am one of the few who comes her and reall disagree which the crap being said on a daily basis in these threads. Unlike you guys who goes to website to look for meaningless numbers to prove a point, I actually know what it is like to be poor, middle class and well off. I have actually been part of politics and lived with the poor. But, coming from people who'd rather protect rich people than care for the poor, I am not surprised.

And calling people trolls for their opinions is against the rules in this site.

I'm not calling you a troll for your opinion.  I'm calling you a troll because you never actually bother to offer any sort of argument outside of "I know i'm right!"

In otherwords.  You offer nothing constructive.  You may as well be saying "PS3 will sell 300 million because i say so!"