Elizabeth Warren Sez!

[Red Arrow]

And as always, reiterated here even by Red, 15% is always less intrusive into the life of the person involved than 28%.  Come on - I know you don't like the idea that you have been deceived by the Murdochians for all these years, but deep down inside you know it's true!  I know it has been pissing me off for a LONG time!!

Actually, I'm not on your side here.  You want so much to believe what you do that you missed me being a smart a$$.  I will spell it out for you.

15% of $1,000,000 is $150,000
28% of $100,000 is $28,000

In my book, $150,000 is always more than $28,000.

Whether or not the guy making $1,000,000 will miss $150,000 as much as a guy making $100,000 will miss $28,000 is a different issue.


Edit: wrong number of Zeros.

[Breadburner]

The harder you work the luckier you get......

[Gaspar]

The harder you work the luckier you get......

I worked really hard today and I got super lucky.

It's an amazing phenomena that I intend to patent.

My new secret to wealth.  Send me $5 and I'll tell you the secret.  People will literally write you checks.  Imagine that!

[Conan71]

I worked really hard today and I got super lucky.

Nooner?

[heironymouspasparagus]

Actually, I'm not on your side here.  You want so much to believe what you do that you missed me being a smart a$$.  I will spell it out for you.

15% of $1,000,000 is $150,000
28% of $100,000 is $28,000

In my book, $150,000 is always more than $28,000.

Whether or not the guy making $1,000,000 will miss $150,000 as much as a guy making $100,000 will miss $28,000 is a different issue.


Edit: wrong number of Zeros.

I know you aren't.  You are into absolutes when reality and fairness go to percentages.  A fair and realistic comparison is to use the relative percentages.  $28,000 would be a much heavier burden on me - and you for that matter, than $150,000 would be to the 1%er.  What is a grotesque mockery in the tax system in this country is that the richer you are, the less of the relative load you have to carry.  As an engineer, how can you possibly not get that??  (As real numbers, that means I get to keep $72k, while the 1%er gets to keep $1.35 million.  Yeah, he is gonna be burdened having to pay 28%, too - only about $1.22 million left!!  Que lastima!!)

But that's the way it has always gone back to feudal Europe and way before.  It has always been the poorest who carry the load, while the richest get their tribute from them for what is always a smaller relative contribution.

[Red Arrow]

I know you aren't.  You are into absolutes when reality and fairness go to percentages.  A fair and realistic comparison is to use the relative percentages.  $28,000 would be a much heavier burden on me - and you for that matter, than $150,000 would be to the 1%er.  What is a grotesque mockery in the tax system in this country is that the richer you are, the less of the relative load you have to carry.  As an engineer, how can you possibly not get that??  (As real numbers, that means I get to keep $72k, while the 1%er gets to keep $1.35 million.  Yeah, he is gonna be burdened having to pay 28%, too - only about $1.22 million left!!  Que lastima!!)

You also claim to have an engineering background.  How can you possibly not understand that $150,000 is more than $28,000?  My objection is to the common argument that you and others claim that the guy paying $28,000 is paying more than the guy paying $150,000.  NOT TRUE!  You are playing with semantics.  You must be a closet Liberal Arts person.  Flunk out of engineering the first time around?  Flunk elementary school math when they introduced the number line?

Fairness:  I agree the rich guys should be paying a percentage of their income in Federal Income Tax on the same order as the little guy.  I'm a flat tax guy with few or no deductions except one for the basic cost of living which the rich guy would also get.  Pick a number, $10,000?  The first $10,000 of anyone's income would not be taxed.  Above that, everyone pays the same percentage.  No deductions for life choices like having kids, a house in the Hamptons, a yacht, a bass boat, an account at the corner bar .....   One of my co-workers has a tax bill about 1/3 of mine because he has a stay-at-home wife, 2 kids and a big mortgage on his home.  Given comparable salaries, where is the fairness in that?  

Payroll tax (Social Security):  The fact that SS will be a larger portion of your and my retirement income than a rich guy makes it fair to me that it be a larger portion of my tax burden than to the rich guy.

That's where I stand.  You are free to disagree and not like it.

[heironymouspasparagus]

You also claim to have an engineering background.  How can you possibly not understand that $150,000 is more than $28,000?  My objection is to the common argument that you and others claim that the guy paying $28,000 is paying more than the guy paying $150,000.  NOT TRUE!  You are playing with semantics.  You must be a closet Liberal Arts person.  Flunk out of engineering the first time around?  Flunk elementary school math when they introduced the number line?

Fairness:  I agree the rich guys should be paying a percentage of their income in Federal Income Tax on the same order as the little guy.  I'm a flat tax guy with few or no deductions except one for the basic cost of living which the rich guy would also get.  Pick a number, $10,000?  The first $10,000 of anyone's income would not be taxed.  Above that, everyone pays the same percentage.  No deductions for life choices like having kids, a house in the Hamptons, a yacht, a bass boat, an account at the corner bar .....   One of my co-workers has a tax bill about 1/3 of mine because he has a stay-at-home wife, 2 kids and a big mortgage on his home.  Given comparable salaries, where is the fairness in that?  

Payroll tax (Social Security):  The fact that SS will be a larger portion of your and my retirement income than a rich guy makes it fair to me that it be a larger portion of my tax burden than to the rich guy.

That's where I stand.  You are free to disagree and not like it.

That's what I said - in absolute numbers, yeah, 150,000 is fairly close to 5.3571428 times as much as 28k.  And yet, the income being paid on is exactly 15.0 times as much.  And as for claiming the guy paying 28 is paying more - I never said he was paying more dollars (but you know that) - I said he is paying a disproportionate, unfairly larger percentage - and you know that is true also from your comment above that I highlighted in red.  What is most puzzling to me is how you cannot see this huge disconnect in reality that you have stated, but refuse to believe.  Amazing!

You pulling a "guido" on me here, personal aspersions??  Flunk out of school?  No.  But I was only able to manage about a 3.6 gpa through TU engineering grad school (EE, which everyone knows is harder than any of the other engineering curricula - well, anyone that knows anything about engineering anyway) - but my excuse for only that GPA is that I was working full time supporting a family (4 kids - teens - between two of us) while juggling all the kid related items, plus trying to keep some small semblance of a life.  Oh, well...life' a grumble sometimes.

And interestingly enough, at that time I was working for a local company, designed three patented pieces of equipment, ONE of which still adds revenues in the $3 to 5 million per year - depending on year (25 years at 3 million per year is about 75 million in revenue with 10% profit = 7.5 million).  And MY reward for that was getting fired (the euphemism is reduction in force).  They get over 10% profit per year (after taxes - NOT EBIT) on this and related products.  The other products went for a few years each, at the same good margins and then were replaced by new/updated. 


Actually haven't talked that much about SS yet.  Shall we?? 

Congress made a "fix" back in the eighties that was a quick fix to patch it for a while.  Which it did.  But at the time, and anytime since, they have the chance to fix it permanently.  One specific number I heard about maybe 10 or 12 years ago would be to raise the income cap from where it was (if memory serves, around 90k ??) to $128,000.  That would have completely and totally and permanently solved ALL the Social Security issues that have gotten worse every year.  The reason it would have fixed it is because it would have covered all the boomers - that's you and me - and then later, when we are all dead, the kids would likely to have gotten a tax reduction since there would be so many fewer left comparatively.

It was this year that started taking money out of the "trust fund"  (LOL!!) and by 2037, incoming will only cover 75% of outgoing.

Here is a list of a dozen, any ONE of which would fix the problems.  One of them is raising the income cap.  And yet, Congress is so hell bent on tearing this country apart, not even one is being done, or even realistically considerd!

http://money.usnews.com/money/blogs/planning-to-retire/2010/05/18/12-ways-to-fix-social-security

[Red Arrow]

You pulling a "guido" on me here, personal aspersions?? 

Recognize any of the statements below?

September 29, 12:22 PM
"Because he doesn't pay more than the rest of us.  He pays LESS than the rest of us."

No mention or rates or fairness.  Just an absolute statement about paying less.  Please be more precise in the future.


October 2, 6:37 PM
"As an engineer, how can you possibly not get that?"

Sounds to me like you questioning my intelligence and qualifications as an engineer.  I'm not going to get into a credentials battle with you but I am confident in mine. 

I always thought Chemical Engineering was the most difficult.

[Conan71]

Easy guys, let's not veer off into a "who has the bigger slide rule" contest. 

[heironymouspasparagus]

Recognize any of the statements below?

September 29, 12:22 PM
"Because he doesn't pay more than the rest of us.  He pays LESS than the rest of us."

No mention or rates or fairness.  Just an absolute statement about paying less.  Please be more precise in the future.


October 2, 6:37 PM
"As an engineer, how can you possibly not get that?"

Sounds to me like you questioning my intelligence and qualifications as an engineer.  I'm not going to get into a credentials battle with you but I am confident in mine. 

I always thought Chemical Engineering was the most difficult.

Chemical is the toughest.

Well, I guess I kind of thought - just for a second though - that since I have been saying the same thing for what?  about a couple of years now, that everyone would understand the thought.  Ok, let me amend it so everyone can get it no matter how much of the Murdochian Kool-Aid they have taken.  It is, as I have stated innumerable times, it is a grotesque mockery of any standard of fairness or decency, and puts the lie to most of the virtues we have been taught our entire lives in this country, that someone who is among the richest in the country can get away with paying less that 16% of their income on average in taxes when the VAST majority of taxpayers (in number, not by income) are required to pay from 17 to 18 to 22 to 25 to 28% of their income in taxes.

Not questioning your intelligence at all.  It is your sanity that is apparently in doubt.  You said that the rich guys should pay "on the same order" as the little guy.  THAT is EXACTLY the point I have been trying to get across to you for all this time.  You obviously agree deep down inside, but The Script is so heavily embedded in the neurons that it just keeps coming out all wrong.  Kind of like someone who has been hypnotized and when hearing the key word, they do something that has been programmed in.  "Cluck like a chicken" is the political equivalent of all things Murdochian.

Precise enough?  Just like so many previous posts?

[Red Arrow]

Well, I guess I kind of thought - just for a second though - that since I have been saying the same thing for what?  about a couple of years now, that everyone would understand the thought.

That'll teach you to think.  Say what you actually intend to and you won't have these problems.

Not questioning your intelligence at all.  It is your sanity that is apparently in doubt.  

My sanity is fine, thank you.  I sometimes wonder about yours.

Precise enough?  Just like so many previous posts?

We obviously disagree about the clarity of many of your previous posts.

[heironymouspasparagus]

That'll teach you to think.  Say what you actually intend to and you won't have these problems.

My sanity is fine, thank you.  I sometimes wonder about yours.

We obviously disagree about the clarity of many of your previous posts.

You are pulling a Gaspar here - I do say what I intend.  You do understand what I am saying.  And trying to redirect and divert the direction - listen to some NPR sometime...get out of that Fox merry go round.

My sanity has ALWAYS been questionable!  Wouldn't have it any other way!

Everyone else on the planet understands.  Well, maybe not Gaspar (ok, I'll quit picking on him); but everyone else.  Let's take a survey; did anyone else out there NOT get what I was saying about the 1%ers??

[Red Arrow]

I do say what I intend.  My sanity has ALWAYS been questionable! 

Sorry, had to do it.

In my detail oriented mind, you are not always saying what you intend to say.  I could point to a Citabria and declare it to be a Piper Cub.  Most people say oh yeah, an airplane. 

I've occasionally tried listening to NPR.  Can't do it.  I do like the TU Classical music station.

Bill O'Reilly is usually OK.  Hannity is a bit too much.

[Conan71]

You are pulling a Gaspar here - I do say what I intend.  You do understand what I am saying.  And trying to redirect and divert the direction - listen to some NPR sometime...get out of that Fox merry go round.

My sanity has ALWAYS been questionable!  Wouldn't have it any other way!

Everyone else on the planet understands.  Well, maybe not Gaspar (ok, I'll quit picking on him); but everyone else.  Let's take a survey; did anyone else out there NOT get what I was saying about the 1%ers??

Either I heard the same thing Red did or I apply it through the same filter.  Hate to say it but your predictable drivel about "Murdochian Kool-Aid" and incessant rambling on the "RWRE" marginalizes most of your posts for me.  It makes it sound like you are really dredging the MSNBC area of your brain.  Eliminate the cartoonish rants in your posts and I might tend to actually read more than a few words of your posts.  Honestly, if I see "Murdoch", "Rove", "Cheney", "Baby Bush", or "RWRE" in the first paragraph, I scroll on.

Can the wealthy afford to pay a few more points in taxes?  Sure.  Should they?  Maybe.  Should it be framed in such a way that the wealthy are always painted as the enemy?  Absolutely not.  Certainly there are wealthy people who have made millions and billions on the backs of others and who have benefitted from every single tax loophole imaginable to attain their wealth.  I'd argue there are far more wealthy individuals who have "given back" by providing great jobs and opportunities at wealth for others, and who have given generous portions of their wealth to worthwhile projects in their communities which reduce the need for tax-payer dollars for the arts, common spaces, and the overall cityscape.  

So go on about your rant on how the wealthiest aren't paying their "fair share".  What should be someone's "fair share" be?  Hell, even God knows a flat tax is the fairest way to do it.  At least according to Biblical principles dating to the Old Testament, 10 percent on everyone's productivity was considered equitable.  

[heironymouspasparagus]

Either I heard the same thing Red did or I apply it through the same filter.  Hate to say it but your predictable drivel about "Murdochian Kool-Aid" and incessant rambling on the "RWRE" marginalizes most of your posts for me.  It makes it sound like you are really dredging the MSNBC area of your brain.  Eliminate the cartoonish rants in your posts and I might tend to actually read more than a few words of your posts.  Honestly, if I see "Murdoch", "Rove", "Cheney", "Baby Bush", or "RWRE" in the first paragraph, I scroll on.

Can the wealthy afford to pay a few more points in taxes?  Sure.  Should they?  Maybe.  Should it be framed in such a way that the wealthy are always painted as the enemy?  Absolutely not.  Certainly there are wealthy people who have made millions and billions on the backs of others and who have benefitted from every single tax loophole imaginable to attain their wealth.  I'd argue there are far more wealthy individuals who have "given back" by providing great jobs and opportunities at wealth for others, and who have given generous portions of their wealth to worthwhile projects in their communities which reduce the need for tax-payer dollars for the arts, common spaces, and the overall cityscape.  

So go on about your rant on how the wealthiest aren't paying their "fair share".  What should be someone's "fair share" be?  Hell, even God knows a flat tax is the fairest way to do it.  At least according to Biblical principles dating to the Old Testament, 10 percent on everyone's productivity was considered equitable.  

Sad.  Well, it can't be helped - if there was more fairness and balance in the political discourse, could dial it back a notch.  During the 70's, it was biased the other way quite a bit, so I went after the area where the problem was - at that time with Dummycrat efforts to compromise the Constitution.  Turns out, they were ineffective and amateurish compared to the most recent decades.  How about that - none of your favorite catch phrases!!

And your filter is the problem, as is his.  IF you have read those previous posts, you would know exactly what I put in "shorthand" in that one post - would have made the connection.  (Are you admitting that you don't read before responding?)  Also points to the societal tendency we have to go for the "sound bite" - if you had read the whole things....


Should they pay more??   Maybe??    Really??   Are you serious??  You actually think it is ok for us to pay a much larger percentage than the richest amongst us??  Wow.   OK, if they should get away with heavily discounted rates, why shouldn't we get them too??  Because we are not rich??


You say there are wealthy people that have made the money on the back of others - close...you almost got it!  ALL wealthy people have made the money on the back of others.  NONE of them have done it as "rugged individualists", toiling away all by themselves.  You show you have the knowledge deep down inside there, but then it gets weird when it comes out in type.  "Maybe" they should pay at least the same???

I think 10% is a good number - it should never cost more than that to society to survive, endure and even thrive.  But then we wouldn't able to indulge in these little episodes of imperialistic voyeurism we are so fond of!!  And if we don't pay the 20% +/-, then rich ones could not be enjoying their breaks.

Still waiting to hear from anyone who may have read one of my posts... did my "shorthand" in that one post confuse everyone or anyone??