Fifth: This may be the Internet, but this is a motherfucking ivory tower of the Internet, and we won't take you seriously if you make a mistake and then refuse to admit to it.
If this where a rap battle, this is the quote in which Linkigi would drop the mic and walk away afterwards.
Oh don't you worry I'll admit to a mistake if I make one. I just don't like your pejorative tone, but you can read into that any way you want.
You want to work with averages that's your prerogative, but I think its better to compare on more a individual basis.
Here is an example of salary package of someone in the top 1%. And lets assume for arguments sake that bonus comes in the form of stock options. Now tax can be deferred until they cash out said options, the person can also at the same leverage those options. Effective using it as a credit card, so its still money that can be spent.
Firm: JP Morgan Area: Investment Banking Level: Group Head Base: $200,000 Bonus: $2,300,000 Total income: $2,500,000
Tax Paid: $51,116.75
Tax as percentage of income: 2%
Ivory tower that!
Is that enough of an example to state my previous FACT?
Oh don't you worry I'll admit to a mistake if I make one. I just don't like your pejorative tone, but you can read into that any way you want.
You want to work with averages that's your prerogative, but I think its better to compare on more a individual basis.
Here is an example of salary package of someone in the top 1%. And lets assume for arguments sake that bonus comes in the form of stock options. Now tax can be deferred until they cash out said options, the person can also at the same leverage those options. Effective using it as a credit card, so its still money that can be spent.
Firm: JP Morgan Area: Investment Banking Level: Group Head Base: $200,000 Bonus: $2,300,000 Total income: $2,500,000
Tax Paid: $51,116.75
Tax as percentage of income: 2%
Ivory tower that!
Is that enough of an example to state my previous FACT?
Nuff said... GOODNIGHT!!!
So this person paid more in tax than the average person makes a year. Where does this equate to them purposefully targeting me to make sure I don't make anymore money? What I'm seeing in your posts is either you make a claim that is unfounded or you cite random information and assume it proves the previous statement. You haven't made a single point that indicates the rich are trying to fuck anyone.
Where did you get this number? A quick glance at the site left me unable to find information on what taxes he paid. Moreover, arguing your point on the basis of an individual person in the top 1% is bullshit, because it allows you to make an argument based on selecting for special cases which prove your point, even though all of the other cases in the bracket contradict it. Your initial statement can be interpreted as either the top 1% has a lower tax rate on average than the lower 50%, or that everybody in the top 1% has a lower effective tax rate. The IRS data I posted should be sufficient to conclude that neither case is, in fact, true.
Also, pejorative tone? I have tried my best to be polite, and I've sworn maybe four times so far. On the other hand, you've called me an idiot on multiple occasions.
I don't even disagree with you - I just want you to not discredit the argument by stating "facts" that are unsubstantiated by even the most basic investigations, the kind of things we generally like to call out conservative pundits on.
Fifth: This may be the Internet, but this is a motherfucking ivory tower of the Internet, and we won't take you seriously if you make a mistake and then refuse to admit to it.
Oh? Since when? Lotsa idiots on here still take Apreche, Rym, et co seriously.
So this person paid more in tax than the average person makes a year.
If only a country could run on a handful of average wage year salaries...
Also, pejorative tone? I have tried my best to be polite, and I've sworn maybe four times so far. On the other hand, you've called me an idiot on multiple occasions.
I'd actually have to agree with this. In the big long post, the tone was pretty diplomatic. The followup post someone else made referencing dropping the mic was a bit more pejorative, but Linkigi wasn't responsible for that.
I personally have a hard time considering myself poor, even if there are much richer people around. My own colloquial use of poor is generally in reference to barely having enough resources to put food in one's mouth. I live pretty darn comfortably in comparison, even if I am "poor" by the working definition of this thread. Although, if I had a family, there are more mouths to feed, thus it would be easier to become "poor" by my colloquial definition.
Also, pejorative tone? I have tried my best to be polite, and I've sworn maybe four times so far. On the other hand, you've called me an idiot on multiple occasions.
I'd actually have to agree with this. In the big long post, the tone was pretty diplomatic. The followup post someone else made referencing dropping the mic was a bit more pejorative, but Linkigi wasn't responsible for that.
Stop this fucking bullshit about pejorative tones before I start breaking skulls with the floodgates holding said shit back. This is the fucking internet, don't come here if you feel so inclined to point out every single 'fuck' in a post and make useless comments about it. Just make your fucking argument.
Also, pejorative tone? I have tried my best to be polite, and I've sworn maybe four times so far. On the other hand, you've called me an idiot on multiple occasions.
I'd actually have to agree with this. In the big long post, the tone was pretty diplomatic. The followup post someone else made referencing dropping the mic was a bit more pejorative, but Linkigi wasn't responsible for that.
Stop this fucking bullshit about pejorative tones before I start breaking skulls with the floodgates holding said shit back.
Also, pejorative tone? I have tried my best to be polite, and I've sworn maybe four times so far. On the other hand, you've called me an idiot on multiple occasions.
I'd actually have to agree with this. In the big long post, the tone was pretty diplomatic. The followup post someone else made referencing dropping the mic was a bit more pejorative, but Linkigi wasn't responsible for that.
Stop this fucking bullshit about pejorative tones before I start breaking skulls with the floodgates holding said shit back. This is the fucking internet, don't come here if you feel so inclined to point out every single 'fuck' in a post and make useless comments about it. Just make your fucking argument.
I personally have a hard time considering myself poor, even if there are much richer people around. My own colloquial use of poor is generally in reference to barely having enough resources to put food in one's mouth. I live pretty darn comfortably in comparison, even if I am "poor" by the working definition of this thread. Although, if I had a family, there are more mouths to feed, thus it would be easier to become "poor" by my colloquial definition.
the original argument was that the super rich are are forcibly making us "poor" and I'm yet to see a shred of evidence to back up this clearly false and outlandish claim. Maybe the higher tiers of income pay less of a percent in taxes, they still pay more in total.
@Linkigi(Link-ee-jee): I offer you an olive branch, I apologise for any discomfort I've caused. But I still politely disagree with you.
@highdefinition: Please refer to Jason's graph title "Uneven distribution of gains contrasts with earlier era, when growth was widely shared". Otherwise believe what you want.
This kind of thinking is retarding the system. Sure, they pay a thousand dollars more than other people, but in the mean time make a MILLION DOLLARS MORE. You'd be happy with a fixed tax, wouldn't you? Everyone pays 90 bucks. Even if you only make 100.
Taking 10 dollars away from someone who makes 100 a month is a lot more detrimental than taking 100 dollars from someone who makes 1000 a month. Just getting that out if the way if we're heading down that path.
Taking 10 dollars away from someone who makes 100 a month is a lot more detrimental than taking 100 dollars from someone who makes 1000 a month. Just getting that out if the way if we're heading down that path.
We've been saying exactly that for a long while now.
@highdefinition: Please refer to Jason's graph title "Uneven distribution of gains contrasts with earlier era, when growth was widely shared". Otherwise believe what you want.
I think that if you look at the graphs, you'll see that while the rich are getting richer very quickly, the poor are not really getting poorer. They are gradually earning more and living more comfortably at a very slow rate, one that exceeds overall costs.
They are gradually earning more and living more comfortably at a very slow rate, one that exceeds overall costs.
Doesn't cost of living rise as well? The bottom 90% are earning less than they did in 1979. Its flat-lining pretty much for over 3 decades, sometimes better, sometimes worse. Due to no notes being appended about adjusted for inflation, etc, I'm thinking it's fair to say people are off worse now than they were 30 years ago.
They're not getting poorer in income, but not richer either. And with everything becoming more expensive...
you'll see that while the rich are getting richer very quickly, the poor are not really getting poorer.
Except unemployment is way up. Also, even if unemployment weren't up, and poor people weren't getting poorer, the government is getting poorer. My wages and taxes stay the same, but if the government spending decreases, I'm getting less for my tax dollars. I can make the same money, and pay the same taxes, but if my post office closes, that might as well be lost wages because life just got shittier.
Real median household income takes into account inflation, which is why it is called "real." Overall, the median household income rose from $33,338 in 1967 to an all-time high of $44,922 in 1999, and has since decreased slightly to $43,318.
you see how you said "believe what you want" these are words people use when they are trying to defend a sinking ship. All I've ever brought to this thread is pointing out that you have made claims and not brought anything to back them up. You said that the rich are making people poor, not that the rich are trying to stay rich. The fact that this thread got past the second post makes me angry, because someone posted literally a pile of made up crap and demanded people take it as fact
Why do you insist in turning this into a pissing contest?
This isn't a "sinking ship", YOU just choose to dispute the findings of a Nobel laureate. Doesn't make what he writes any less true.
So yeah, when the pharmaceutical lobbyist (controlled by the 1%) get congress to pass legislation to forbid government from bargainning for the price of drugs. Costing MORE taxpayer dollars to be spent, where that money "could have" been spent on other things i.e. reduce taxes. Not to mention costing you more to buy drugs. I would say that's taking money away from YOU, making you POORer!
Why do you insist in turning this into a pissing contest?
This isn't a "sinking ship", YOU just choose to dispute the findings of a Nobel laureate. Doesn't make what he writes any less true.
So yeah, when the pharmaceutical lobbyist (controlled by the 1%) get congress to pass legislation to forbid government from bargainning for the price of drugs. Costing MORE taxpayer dollars to be spent, where that money "could have" been spent on other things i.e. reduce taxes. Not to mention costing you more to buy drugs. I would say that's taking money away from YOU, making you POORer!
you are the one making this a personal attack, you don't have facts so you amend everything you say with an attempt to discredit people who are pointing out your flaws.
"when the pharmaceutical lobbyist (controlled by the 1%) get congress to pass legislation to forbid government from bargaining for the price of drugs. Costing MORE taxpayer dollars to be spent"
how about explaining this statement because it doesn't make sense.
as for the rest translating what you said "a company makes a product and wants to get the most money it can for said product" while I know this isn't the best long term utility strategy I know its short term logical for companies and it isn't maliciously targeting people.
when you make an argument you need to come to the table with facts, not conspiracy hearsay.
By and large, the key executive-branch policymakers on trade and economic policy also come from the top 1 percent. When pharmaceutical companies receive a trillion-dollar gift—through legislation prohibiting the government, the largest buyer of drugs, from bargaining over price.
By and large, the key executive-branch policymakers on trade and economic policy also come from the top 1 percent. When pharmaceutical companies receive a trillion-dollar gift—through legislation prohibiting the government, the largest buyer of drugs, from bargaining over price.
and he does it again. You're argument was flawed from the beginning, you have never brought any evidence to support it, and now you cite the same article that wasn't good enough when the thread stated and isn't good enough now. If you want to try to make an argument you need to bring facts from articles that aren't a hodgepodge or weasel words and bullshit. So know that I've merely pointed out why once again you are still wrong please think of another way to call me an asshole so you feel better about being wrong.
What you need is actual proof that shows that Alan Greenspan has every intention of picking my pocket anytime I get paid. Since there is no proof of that, because it isn't true, you should realize what you are doing and stop. You are spreading misinformation in the guise of facts.
Also I'd point out a second time, that A) I've never attacked you merely the lack of an argument you have and never put in an opinion on the subject either.
Comments
GIFSoup
You want to work with averages that's your prerogative, but I think its better to compare on more a individual basis.
Here is an example of salary package of someone in the top 1%. And lets assume for arguments sake that bonus comes in the form of stock options. Now tax can be deferred until they cash out said options, the person can also at the same leverage those options. Effective using it as a credit card, so its still money that can be spent.
Firm: JP Morgan
Area: Investment Banking
Level: Group Head
Base: $200,000
Bonus: $2,300,000
Total income: $2,500,000
Tax Paid: $51,116.75
Tax as percentage of income: 2%
Ivory tower that!
Is that enough of an example to state my previous FACT?
Nuff said... GOODNIGHT!!!
Also, pejorative tone? I have tried my best to be polite, and I've sworn maybe four times so far. On the other hand, you've called me an idiot on multiple occasions.
I don't even disagree with you - I just want you to not discredit the argument by stating "facts" that are unsubstantiated by even the most basic investigations, the kind of things we generally like to call out conservative pundits on.
I personally have a hard time considering myself poor, even if there are much richer people around. My own colloquial use of poor is generally in reference to barely having enough resources to put food in one's mouth. I live pretty darn comfortably in comparison, even if I am "poor" by the working definition of this thread. Although, if I had a family, there are more mouths to feed, thus it would be easier to become "poor" by my colloquial definition.
Poor != Not Rich
@highdefinition: Please refer to Jason's graph title "Uneven distribution of gains contrasts with earlier era, when growth was widely shared". Otherwise believe what you want. I'm still poor (-_-;)
They're not getting poorer in income, but not richer either. And with everything becoming more expensive...
Real median household income takes into account inflation, which is why it is called "real."
Overall, the median household income rose from $33,338 in 1967 to an all-time high of $44,922 in 1999, and has since decreased slightly to $43,318.
if you notice I never put in a judgement on what side I was on I merely stated a fact, Ive purposely avoided putting in any opinion on this.
@codger
you see how you said "believe what you want" these are words people use when they are trying to defend a sinking ship. All I've ever brought to this thread is pointing out that you have made claims and not brought anything to back them up. You said that the rich are making people poor, not that the rich are trying to stay rich. The fact that this thread got past the second post makes me angry, because someone posted literally a pile of made up crap and demanded people take it as fact
This isn't a "sinking ship", YOU just choose to dispute the findings of a Nobel laureate. Doesn't make what he writes any less true.
So yeah, when the pharmaceutical lobbyist (controlled by the 1%) get congress to pass legislation to forbid government from bargainning for the price of drugs. Costing MORE taxpayer dollars to be spent, where that money "could have" been spent on other things i.e. reduce taxes. Not to mention costing you more to buy drugs. I would say that's taking money away from YOU, making you POORer!
"when the pharmaceutical lobbyist (controlled by the 1%) get congress to pass legislation to forbid government from bargaining for the price of drugs. Costing MORE taxpayer dollars to be spent"
how about explaining this statement because it doesn't make sense.
as for the rest translating what you said "a company makes a product and wants to get the most money it can for said product" while I know this isn't the best long term utility strategy I know its short term logical for companies and it isn't maliciously targeting people.
when you make an argument you need to come to the table with facts, not conspiracy hearsay.
Edit: Here I'll make it "easier" for you.
What you need is actual proof that shows that Alan Greenspan has every intention of picking my pocket anytime I get paid. Since there is no proof of that, because it isn't true, you should realize what you are doing and stop. You are spreading misinformation in the guise of facts.
Also I'd point out a second time, that A) I've never attacked you merely the lack of an argument you have and
Anyway, this thread isn't going anywhere anymore, really. Codger's just sad that the dollars he bought are going to be worth less.