Idiots who support taxing the wealthy

At 1/18/2011 1:11:25 PM, Caramel wrote:
If you took the median income of a McDonald's employee/working class citizen you wouldn't get a $40k answer.

And the 120 hours/week is pretty ridiculous; that may be what some people do but these are extreme outliers on the whole. There are only 168 hours in a week so it would be physically impossible to work 120 hours and have time for basic tasks like eating, cleaning, driving, and sleeping.

Secondly I am irritated because I used to have a manager at Olive Garden (The General Manager) who liked to brag that he made less per hour than the servers when you took into consideration the extra hours he put in (similar to your analysis). Both you and my former manager seem pompous in your analogies; he for example didn't have to deal with customer after customer ordering him around for drinks and being rude and demeaning. He's not scrubbing table-tops and running around like a chicken with his head cut off. There is a quality and liberation that certain tasks entail that others don't. People always complain about the long hours and work doctors have to put in, but look at the prestige and admiration they enjoy... look at the sense of accomplishment and the position of intellectual authority they have earned.

Even if Doctors made straight out less per hour than a burger flipper, it makes no sense that the doctor should complain about his remuneration (provided he is not being choked of his basic needs). I detest this one-dimensional approach to social utility that right-wingers take in which money is absolutely all that matters; as if economic gains are this religious calling that is not questionable and we have an intrinsic moral duty to grow the economy no matter how drastic the costs.

At 1/18/2011 1:17:15 PM, Caramel wrote:
1. We should be fiscally irresponsible and just be happy with socialism.
2. This will make us happier
3. Capitalism is bad.

At 1/18/2011 4:23:43 AM, Zetsubou wrote:

92,003.96 / 6394.5 = $14.38 per hour.

With the following taxes being taken off,

Federal Withholding $6,084.50

Social Security $1,761.40

Medicar $608.10

Pennsylvania $1,287.50

PA SUI $33.55

His Net Salary is: $32,162.95

What?

At 1/17/2011 9:58:02 PM, askbob wrote:

At 1/17/2011 9:55:57 PM, TheAtheistAllegiance wrote:

At 1/17/2011 9:54:02 PM, askbob wrote:

At 1/17/2011 9:51:33 PM, TheAtheistAllegiance wrote:

At 1/17/2011 9:44:48 PM, askbob wrote:

At 1/17/2011 9:37:02 PM, TheAtheistAllegiance wrote:

Yes I have how does that have anything to do with what a banker gets paid and taxed?

At 1/18/2011 3:08:14 PM, TheAtheistAllegiance wrote:

At 1/17/2011 9:58:02 PM, askbob wrote:

At 1/17/2011 9:55:57 PM, TheAtheistAllegiance wrote:

At 1/17/2011 9:54:02 PM, askbob wrote:

At 1/17/2011 9:51:33 PM, TheAtheistAllegiance wrote:

At 1/17/2011 9:44:48 PM, askbob wrote:

At 1/17/2011 9:37:02 PM, TheAtheistAllegiance wrote:

Yes I have how does that have anything to do with what a banker gets paid and taxed?

It has to do with your ridiculous average that's supposedly 130.5 hours a week, not including the other life activities I listed. I'm stating that it's literally impossible for a human being to perform all of this on 3-4 hours of sleep.

At 1/18/2011 1:15:31 PM, askbob wrote:
That adds absolutely nothing to the discussion of taxation for which the entire subject illustrates.

At 1/18/2011 1:24:34 PM, askbob wrote:

At 1/18/2011 1:11:25 PM, Caramel wrote:
If you took the median income of a McDonald's employee/working class citizen you wouldn't get a $40k answer.

If you took the median age of a McDonald's employee it would be a highschool student working part time. The ones who work full time are typically only the managers.

And the 120 hours/week is pretty ridiculous; that may be what some people do but these are extreme outliers on the whole. There are only 168 hours in a week so it would be physically impossible to work 120 hours and have time for basic tasks like eating, cleaning, driving, and sleeping.

They eat in the office, hire people to clean, hire people to drive them, and sleep in the car and get about 6-7 hours per night of sleep.

It's an outlier that exists and is used purposefully because it is extreme. It's to show how ridiculous it is that more work = higher tax %. Essentially our tax system is punishing those who work harder not making things equal.

Secondly I am irritated because I used to have a manager at Olive Garden (The General Manager) who liked to brag that he made less per hour than the servers when you took into consideration the extra hours he put in (similar to your analysis). Both you and my former manager seem pompous in your analogies; he for example didn't have to deal with customer after customer ordering him around for drinks and being rude and demeaning. He's not scrubbing table-tops and running around like a chicken with his head cut off. There is a quality and liberation that certain tasks entail that others don't. People always complain about the long hours and work doctors have to put in, but look at the prestige and admiration they enjoy... look at the sense of accomplishment and the position of intellectual authority they have earned.

Here's something that might help you in life Caramel: Most people don't give a shitt about the prestige and could care less what they actually do. Most people work for the money, and it's ridiculous that as a government we are cheating out the hardest working and brightest individuals to subsidize the habits of the lazy and uneducated.

Even if Doctors made straight out less per hour than a burger flipper, it makes no sense that the doctor should complain about his remuneration (provided he is not being choked of his basic needs). I detest this one-dimensional approach to social utility that right-wingers take in which money is absolutely all that matters; as if economic gains are this religious calling that is not questionable and we have an intrinsic moral duty to grow the economy no matter how drastic the costs.

We do, and it is despite your belief that we should all just rejoice in being handed measly salaries because the career is intellectually stimulating. That's complete crap. No one gets thousands upon thousands of dollars of utility from working. The quality of the workplace isn't a sufficient argument to make up for the large amount of taxes being sucked out of some of the most brilliant and hard working individuals.

At 1/18/2011 1:26:47 PM, askbob wrote:

At 1/18/2011 1:17:15 PM, Caramel wrote:
1. We should be fiscally irresponsible and just be happy with socialism.
2. This will make us happier
3. Capitalism is bad.

Good point dude.

Askbob wrote:
1. If you want to be successful give your money to the rich.
2. The rich are shepherds to the poor and create jobs to do like being able to drive them around and cook meals for them. If you work hard and play by the rules, you may capture the chance to become a pig yourself.
3. Pay no attention to the rich capitalist in the BMW and the business suit; it's THOSE DAMNED MCDONALD'S EMPLOYEES WHO ARE SUCKING IN ALL THE CASH. Hate them for being lazy and not working so hard. Hate the bleeding heart liberals who are trying to meddle in a financial system they know nothing about and who are actually causing more strife than there needs to be.

At 1/19/2011 10:05:41 AM, Caramel wrote:

Askbob wrote:
1. If you want to be successful give your money to the rich.
2. The rich are shepherds to the poor and create jobs to do like being able to drive them around and cook meals for them. If you work hard and play by the rules, you may capture the chance to become a pig yourself.
3. Pay no attention to the rich capitalist in the BMW and the business suit; it's THOSE DAMNED MCDONALD'S EMPLOYEES WHO ARE SUCKING IN ALL THE CASH. Hate them for being lazy and not working so hard. Hate the bleeding heart liberals who are trying to meddle in a financial system they know nothing about and who are actually causing more strife than there needs to be.

At 1/19/2011 10:05:41 AM, Caramel wrote:

Askbob wrote:
1. If you want to be successful work hard.
2. Don't be an idiot and steal others hard earned work
3. Pay attention to the rich capitalist in the BMW and the business suit; he's rich because he's more intelligent and more hard working than you.

At 1/19/2011 7:09:46 PM, Veridas wrote:
Look at me I am retarded

At 1/17/2011 5:49:22 PM, askbob wrote:
Now as we've stated John works 120 hours a week. However he lives in the city and has an 45 minute commute which equals 1 1/2 hours per day to and from. This increases his weekly hours (he works sat and sunday) to 10.5 hours commute + 120 hour work = 130.5 hours

At 1/20/2011 2:29:41 AM, rogue wrote:
Did you know that for most of the twentieth century the tax on the rich was 93%? AND THEY WERE STILL RICH. too little have too much while too many have too little. Also, Bush the first and Reagan cut taxes on the rich and the economy suffered. Clinton upped taxes on them and the economy went into surplus. Bush the second cut taxes on the rich. Hmmm...where are we now economically?

At 1/20/2011 2:46:06 AM, FREEDO wrote:

At 1/20/2011 2:29:41 AM, rogue wrote:
Did you know that for most of the twentieth century the tax on the rich was 93%? AND THEY WERE STILL RICH. too little have too much while too many have too little. Also, Bush the first and Reagan cut taxes on the rich and the economy suffered. Clinton upped taxes on them and the economy went into surplus. Bush the second cut taxes on the rich. Hmmm...where are we now economically?

40s-60s isn't most and that's only income tax. Income tax was and still is relatively low compared to sales tax, which is regressive.

At 1/20/2011 3:04:43 AM, rogue wrote:

At 1/20/2011 2:46:06 AM, FREEDO wrote:

At 1/20/2011 2:29:41 AM, rogue wrote:
Did you know that for most of the twentieth century the tax on the rich was 93%? AND THEY WERE STILL RICH. too little have too much while too many have too little. Also, Bush the first and Reagan cut taxes on the rich and the economy suffered. Clinton upped taxes on them and the economy went into surplus. Bush the second cut taxes on the rich. Hmmm...where are we now economically?

40s-60s isn't most and that's only income tax. Income tax was and still is relatively low compared to sales tax, which is regressive.

My American History textbook said until the late 70's. The point was that the income tax was three times as high then and those people were still rich. Maybe if we went back to that our economy would be better.

At 1/17/2011 6:44:20 PM, OreEle wrote:
You are not going to get a manager position right out of high school, even with 4 years of PT experience.

How many managers at mickey dees (or any fast food industry) are 18 years olds right out of high school? That's on par?

At 1/20/2011 3:14:32 AM, FREEDO wrote:

At 1/20/2011 3:04:43 AM, rogue wrote:

At 1/20/2011 2:46:06 AM, FREEDO wrote:

At 1/20/2011 2:29:41 AM, rogue wrote:
Did you know that for most of the twentieth century the tax on the rich was 93%? AND THEY WERE STILL RICH. too little have too much while too many have too little. Also, Bush the first and Reagan cut taxes on the rich and the economy suffered. Clinton upped taxes on them and the economy went into surplus. Bush the second cut taxes on the rich. Hmmm...where are we now economically?

40s-60s isn't most and that's only income tax. Income tax was and still is relatively low compared to sales tax, which is regressive.

My American History textbook said until the late 70's. The point was that the income tax was three times as high then and those people were still rich. Maybe if we went back to that our economy would be better.

Progressives and I have very similar outlooks but two very different remedies.
The Progressives think to themselves "How can I make the system more bearable?"
The Anarchist thinks to themselves "How can I make a new system?"

Indeed, it is my opinion that, besides the Capitalist system itself, there has been no greater enemy to Socialism than that of Progressivism. It was born during a time of great uprising for the sole purpose of making people more comfortable with the system that leeches their humanity.

So you are also pro socialism?

At 1/20/2011 2:17:16 AM, juvanya wrote:

At 1/17/2011 5:49:22 PM, askbob wrote:
Now as we've stated John works 120 hours a week. However he lives in the city and has an 45 minute commute which equals 1 1/2 hours per day to and from. This increases his weekly hours (he works sat and sunday) to 10.5 hours commute + 120 hour work = 130.5 hours

When the f/ck does he sleep??

At 1/20/2011 2:29:41 AM, rogue wrote:
Income Tax Policy = the entirety of economics

At 1/20/2011 9:15:48 AM, Caramel wrote:

So you are also pro socialism?

Freedo and I are anarchists who don't believe capitalism is overly helpful to society.

At 1/20/2011 3:32:47 AM, Korashk wrote:

At 1/17/2011 6:44:20 PM, OreEle wrote:
You are not going to get a manager position right out of high school, even with 4 years of PT experience.

This might have been addressed, but yes you can.

How many managers at mickey dees (or any fast food industry) are 18 years olds right out of high school? That's on par?

According to zGodMode (he works at T-Bell) two of his current managers are in or right out of HS, his brother was a manager right out of HS, and his sister was a manager BEFORE graduating HS.

At 1/20/2011 3:04:43 AM, rogue wrote:

At 1/20/2011 2:46:06 AM, FREEDO wrote:

At 1/20/2011 2:29:41 AM, rogue wrote:

My American History textbook said until the late 70's. The point was that the income tax was three times as high then and those people were still rich. Maybe if we went back to that our economy would be better.

At 1/20/2011 3:30:01 PM, TheAtheistAllegiance wrote:

At 1/20/2011 3:04:43 AM, rogue wrote:

Tax policy = entirety of economics

Woah rogue that like totally makes sense. Probably a direct correlation with high taxes on the rich.

At 1/20/2011 2:29:41 AM, rogue wrote:
Did you know that for most of the twentieth century the tax on the rich was 93%? AND THEY WERE STILL RICH. too little have too much while too many have too little. Also, Bush the first and Reagan cut taxes on the rich and the economy suffered. Clinton upped taxes on them and the economy went into surplus. Bush the second cut taxes on the rich. Hmmm...where are we now economically?

At 1/20/2011 1:52:21 PM, theLwerd wrote:

At 1/20/2011 9:15:48 AM, Caramel wrote:

So you are also pro socialism?

Freedo and I are anarchists who don't believe capitalism is overly helpful to society.

So is Vi.

At 1/20/2011 3:52:52 PM, gavin.ogden wrote:

At 1/20/2011 2:29:41 AM, rogue wrote:

Rogue, it seems to me that you are fairly uneducated in regards to economics. Am I right? If so, I recommend that you study an actual economics text book, instead of a history book. Do you know when our economy started to become what it is today? When we came off the gold standard. Are you familiar with the concept of the gold standard and the federal reserve? If not, you should, because it may give you a stronger foundation of this subject. Cutting taxes for the rich has nothing to do with the state of our economy. The problem is that our money is worthless, and we are spending out of control on wars, and social programs. Seriously, do a little research on your own, instead of just throwing around unsubstantiated opinions. Notice the title of the thread, you know what I mean?

The situation was ridiculous, which is why the Fed was created in the first place.

At 1/22/2011 6:45:03 PM, timbeech wrote:

The situation was ridiculous, which is why the Fed was created in the first place.

I'd like to come out of nowhere here and say that below is why the Fed was created:

"It was created by Congress to provide the nation with a safer, more flexible, and more stable monetary and financial system." [1]

While you are mostly correct in what you asserting it is by no means the ONLY reason that the Fed was created.

Depending on your level cynicism about government websites I believe this to be a good source.

Source:
1. http://www.federalreserve.gov...