|
 |
|
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
Political Threads This section is for Political Threads - Enter at your own risk. If you say you don't want to see what someone posts - don't read it :hihi: |
11-05-2010, 02:00 PM
|
#1
|
Registered User
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Mansfield, MA
Posts: 5,238
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim in CT
Johnny, I never said I'd rather be the guy making $20,000 than the guy making $250,000. I said the guy making $20,000 got a bigger tax decrease than the guy making $250k.
If I said the guy making $20,000 is better off than the guy making $250,000, that would indeed be "nonsense". If I say the guy making $20,000 got a bigger tax decrease, I am stating mathematical fact. Again, that fact may not serve you lefty agenda, but it's a fact nonetheless.
Put down the Kool-Aid and think clearly for two seconds...
|
Like I said, statistics are useless without context.
The whole subject is about who made out better. Dollars speak a whole lot louder and mean a whole lot more than percentages do.
$11,500 > $1000
The guy making $250k benefited more.
|
|
|
|
11-05-2010, 02:02 PM
|
#2
|
sick of bluefish
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: TEXAS
Posts: 8,672
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnnyD
Like I said, statistics are useless without context.
The whole subject is about who made out better. Dollars speak a whole lot louder and mean a whole lot more than percentages do.
$11,500 > $1000
The guy making $250k benefited more.
|
ahh, benefited! Its a benefit! I thought he EARNED more and thus gets to keep the percentage of what he EARNED!
See EARNED is controlled by the INDIVIDUAL . The tax percentage is controlled by the governement.
|
making s-b.com a kinder, gentler place for all
|
|
|
11-05-2010, 02:09 PM
|
#3
|
Registered User
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Mansfield, MA
Posts: 5,238
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by RIJIMMY
ahh, benefited! Its a benefit! I thought he EARNED more and thus gets to keep the percentage of what he EARNED!
See EARNED is controlled by the INDIVIDUAL . The tax percentage is controlled by the governement.
|
Yup, benefited. He benefited by being able to keep more of his hard-earned money.
Listen, I'm all about lower taxes on the people. I completely agree with your suggestions on how to cut costs, but forgot to include social services as an area where a lot can be saved. I'd also support closing that large number of easily exploited tax loopholes, along with removing a lot of deductions and then instituting a flat tax.
It'll never happen though. Regardless of what party is in office, the overall tax burden on the people will decrease at a rate slower than what's being paid out until eventually we have a drawback period like the UK is feeling now.
|
|
|
|
11-05-2010, 02:15 PM
|
#4
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 20,441
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnnyD
It'll never happen though. Regardless of what party is in office, the overall tax burden on the people will decrease at a rate slower than what's being paid out until eventually we have a drawback period like the UK is feeling now.
|
People forget that Bill Clinton pulled it off, and the left still worships him. He was extremely conservative with fiscal policy, no reason why we can't go back to that.
|
|
|
|
11-05-2010, 02:08 PM
|
#5
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 20,441
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnnyD
Like I said, statistics are useless without context.
The whole subject is about who made out better. Dollars speak a whole lot louder and mean a whole lot more than percentages do.
$11,500 > $1000
The guy making $250k benefited more.
|
Johnny, my undergraduate degree (from UCONN) is in statistics. This is NOT statistics, it is elementary school mathematics. A 33 percent tax decrease is larger than an 11.6 percent tax decrease. Sorry if that ruffles your political feathers.
I'd also argue that giving an extra $1,000 to a guy making $20k a year, means more to him than giving $11,500 back to a guy making $250K. Why? Something called "diminishing marginal returns". Simply puit, a $100 raise means more to someone earning minimum wage than a $1 million raise to Bill Gates.
Every time someone proves you wrong, you just keep telling yourself that they are "taking it out of context". The other kook here keeps accusing me of "spin" for making the outrageous claim that 33 is, in fact, greater than 11.6.
|
|
|
|
11-05-2010, 02:23 PM
|
#6
|
Registered User
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Mansfield, MA
Posts: 5,238
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim in CT
Johnny, my undergraduate degree (from UCONN) is in statistics. This is NOT statistics, it is elementary school mathematics. A 33 percent tax decrease is larger than an 11.6 percent tax decrease. Sorry if that ruffles your political feathers.
I'd also argue that giving an extra $1,000 to a guy making $20k a year, means more to him than giving $11,500 back to a guy making $250K. Why? Something called "diminishing marginal returns". Simply puit, a $100 raise means more to someone earning minimum wage than a $1 million raise to Bill Gates.
Every time someone proves you wrong, you just keep telling yourself that they are "taking it out of context". The other kook here keeps accusing me of "spin" for making the outrageous claim that 33 is, in fact, greater than 11.6.
|
Ah, a fellow Husky, I was a senior when the men's and women's teams won the championships in the same year.
You're right. I keep typing statistics and that's the completely incorrect term. I'm a jackass in that aspect. You aren't ruffling my political feathers at all... mostly because, like usual from very partisan people, you think I'm a liberal because I disagree with you.
And every time someone proves you wrong, you change the context of your original statement. First, who benefited more from the change in policy, then it's who appreciates it more, now it's whoever pays more overall is screwed? Benefits can be quantified, appreciation cannot.
If I give a bum on the street a $100 bill, he'll certainly appreciate it more than someone on Wall Street that cashed in a $1M deal. But the bum certainly didn't benefit more.
|
|
|
|
11-05-2010, 02:31 PM
|
#7
|
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 12,632
|
[QUOTE=JohnnyD;808316]If I give a bum on the street a $100 bill
QUOTE]
if you are truly a liberal you will take a hundred dollar bill from your neighbor and give it to the bum...  and then congratulate yourself....see, you both benefit
now to debate who benefits more...the bum or the liberal
|
|
|
|
11-05-2010, 05:52 PM
|
#8
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 20,441
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnnyD
Ah, a fellow Husky, I was a senior when the men's and women's teams won the championships in the same year.
You're right. I keep typing statistics and that's the completely incorrect term. I'm a jackass in that aspect. You aren't ruffling my political feathers at all... mostly because, like usual from very partisan people, you think I'm a liberal because I disagree with you.
And every time someone proves you wrong, you change the context of your original statement. First, who benefited more from the change in policy, then it's who appreciates it more, now it's whoever pays more overall is screwed? Benefits can be quantified, appreciation cannot.
If I give a bum on the street a $100 bill, he'll certainly appreciate it more than someone on Wall Street that cashed in a $1M deal. But the bum certainly didn't benefit more.
|
You're all over the place. You even sort of proved my point.
Consider the bum getting $100 or Warren Buffet getting $1 million. The $1 million is meaningless to Buffet, it doesn't change his life at all. $100 to a homeless person can have a very meaningful impact (that's the 'diminishing marginal returns' I was referring to).
A bum "makes out better" getting $100 than Buffet does getting $1 million. You practically said that yourself. Because the $100 adds more incrementalutility to the bum's life than $1 million does to Buffet.
Same logic with the tax decrease, it's the same thing.
|
|
|
|
11-05-2010, 07:01 PM
|
#9
|
Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Warwick
Posts: 541
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim in CT
Johnny, my undergraduate degree (from UCONN) is in statistics. This is NOT statistics, it is elementary school mathematics. A 33 percent tax decrease is larger than an 11.6 percent tax decrease. Sorry if that ruffles your political feathers.
I'd also argue that giving an extra $1,000 to a guy making $20k a year, means more to him than giving $11,500 back to a guy making $250K. Why? Something called "diminishing marginal returns". Simply puit, a $100 raise means more to someone earning minimum wage than a $1 million raise to Bill Gates.
Every time someone proves you wrong, you just keep telling yourself that they are "taking it out of context". The other kook here keeps accusing me of "spin" for making the outrageous claim that 33 is, in fact, greater than 11.6.
|
i've been a cpa 25 years. Stick to economics where everything is theory - butter and guns. I deal with people and their money and taxes that is real life.
No tax accountant could make a client feel better with your % crap. They want real world results.
|
|
|
|
11-05-2010, 09:09 PM
|
#10
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 20,441
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by stcroixman
i've been a cpa 25 years. Stick to economics where everything is theory - butter and guns. I deal with people and their money and taxes that is real life.
No tax accountant could make a client feel better with your % crap. They want real world results.
|
Wow. I'm an actuary, which is one of the few professions that demands greater quantitative skills than an accountant.
In my first post, I said that if your tax rate decreases from 15 percent to 10 percent, that's a 33% decrease in your tax obligation.
You disagreed.
I was right. You were wrong. You see, "10" is a number that is exactly 33.33 percent less than "15".
I'm glad you are not my accountant.
You need a refresher course. I'm sure you can find some continuing ed seminar somewhere...when you get your next issue of Pravda or "The Daily Worker", check the classifieds...
Last edited by Jim in CT; 11-06-2010 at 07:51 AM..
|
|
|
|
11-06-2010, 06:10 AM
|
#11
|
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 12,632
|
|
|
|
|
11-06-2010, 09:51 AM
|
#12
|
Also known as OAK
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Westlery, RI
Posts: 10,413
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim in CT
Wow. I'm an actuary, which is one of the few professions that demands greater quantitative skills than an accountant.I'm glad you are not my accountant.You need a refresher course. I'm sure you can find some continuing ed seminar somewhere...when you get your next issue of Pravda or "The Daily Worker", check the classifieds...
|
Wow. you just played the I'm smarter than you card. I think that's the first blatant use of it here in the PF. Usually it is just veiled a bit more than that...
|
Bryan
Originally Posted by #^^^^^^^^^^^&
"For once I agree with Spence. UGH. I just hope I don't get the urge to go start buying armani suits to wear in my shop"
|
|
|
11-06-2010, 10:49 AM
|
#13
|
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 12,632
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND
Wow. you just played the I'm smarter than you card....
|
yeah, that's Spence's forte...this could mean war 
|
|
|
|
11-08-2010, 03:50 PM
|
#14
|
Registered User
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Mansfield, MA
Posts: 5,238
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim in CT
Wow. I'm an actuary, which is one of the few professions that demands greater quantitative skills than an accountant.
|
Ahh... there it is. That self-defining pretentious attitude I encountered during my years living in CT from Connecticut residents who graduated from UConn.
Hunted trout all weekend... gotta catch up on the nonsense in here.
|
|
|
|
11-08-2010, 04:04 PM
|
#15
|
Registered User
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Easton, MA
Posts: 5,737
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnnyD
Ahh... there it is. That self-defining pretentious attitude I encountered during my years living in CT from Connecticut residents who graduated from UConn.
Hunted trout all weekend... gotta catch up on the nonsense in here.
|
Seems to me that he's pointing out what he does for a living to explain his point. I'd consider an actuary a subject matter expert when it comes to tax discussions.
Do you think RIRockhound is being pretentious when he's explaining things having to do with science? To me, he's an SME because of what he does for a living.
|
Conservatism is not about leaving people behind. Conservatism is about empowering people to catch up, to give them tools at their disposal that make it possible for them to access all the hope, all the promise, all the opportunity that America offers. - Marco Rubio
|
|
|
11-08-2010, 04:15 PM
|
#16
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 10,306
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by fishbones
Seems to me that he's pointing out what he does for a living to explain his point. I'd consider an actuary a subject matter expert when it comes to tax discussions.
|
But don't you think he lost all credibilty when he started out with
"Over the last few years, I have heard every single Democrat, and everyone in the Media....."
As soon as I hear "every single" anything and I know its not true, I tend to tune that person out.
Sorry, but I hate "SME".
|
|
|
|
11-08-2010, 07:45 PM
|
#17
|
Registered User
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Mansfield, MA
Posts: 5,238
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by fishbones
Seems to me that he's pointing out what he does for a living to explain his point. I'd consider an actuary a subject matter expert when it comes to tax discussions.
Do you think RIRockhound is being pretentious when he's explaining things having to do with science? To me, he's an SME because of what he does for a living.
|
There's a whole lot of ribbing that goes on around here as we bust each other's chops. However, RIRockhound doesn't try to lift himself up by demeaning another person's career throwing out comments like "You need a refresher course. I'm sure you can find some continuing ed seminar somewhere...when you get your next issue of Pravda or "The Daily Worker", check the classifieds... ", and if so, I've missed them.
Last edited by JohnnyD; 11-08-2010 at 07:57 PM..
|
|
|
|
11-09-2010, 12:47 PM
|
#18
|
Registered User
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Mansfield
Posts: 4,834
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by fishbones
.
Do you think RIRockhound is being pretentious when he's explaining things having to do with science?
|
Yes 
|
|
|
|
11-08-2010, 08:08 PM
|
#19
|
Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Warwick
Posts: 541
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim in CT
Wow. I'm an actuary, which is one of the few professions that demands greater quantitative skills than an accountant.
In my first post, I said that if your tax rate decreases from 15 percent to 10 percent, that's a 33% decrease in your tax obligation.
You disagreed.
I was right. You were wrong. You see, "10" is a number that is exactly 33.33 percent less than "15".
I'm glad you are not my accountant.
You need a refresher course. I'm sure you can find some continuing ed seminar somewhere...when you get your next issue of Pravda or "The Daily Worker", check the classifieds...
|
my final comment:
Jim if you are such a tax expert why do you need an accountant? Obviously you are an internet tax expert.
I I want an opinion on a DB plan's unfunded obligation or whatever you call it - then you'll get a call.
|
|
|
|
11-05-2010, 02:11 PM
|
#20
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 20,441
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnnyD
Like I said, statistics are useless without context.
The whole subject is about who made out better. Dollars speak a whole lot louder and mean a whole lot more than percentages do.
$11,500 > $1000
The guy making $250k benefited more.
|
Johnny, you want context? How's this...who gets screwed by the government more, the guy who pays $2,000 a year in taxes, or the guy who pays $87,500 a year in taxes?
You want to switch from percentages (which is all that matters) to absolute dollars? That's where you REALLY get blown out of the water. We have a progressive tax system. The rich should pay more, and they do.
|
|
|
|
11-05-2010, 02:21 PM
|
#21
|
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 12,632
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim in CT
Johnny, you want context? How's this...who gets screwed by the government more, the guy who pays $2,000 a year in taxes, or the guy who pays $87,500 a year in taxes?
.
|
Hey Jim, do you feel like you are getting your money's worth?
|
|
|
|
11-05-2010, 05:58 PM
|
#22
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 20,441
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by scottw
Hey Jim, do you feel like you are getting your money's worth?
|
In civilian life? No. Way too much waste drains my taxes.
When I was a Marine, I felt like I was part of a system that worked the way it was supposed to, I really felt like we had all the support we needed. And because I was wounded, I received some pretty nice healthcare benefits. I feel like that system worked the way it's supposed to...probably because politicians don't run the military, the military runs the military.
|
|
|
|
11-05-2010, 02:19 PM
|
#23
|
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 12,632
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnnyD
Like I said, statistics are useless without context.
The whole subject is about who made out better. Dollars speak a whole lot louder and mean a whole lot more than percentages do.
$11,500 > $1000
The guy making $250k benefited more.
|
I'm sorry...where's Spence...off on another revisionist history conference?...these arguments are moronic, sorry JohnnyLesbaru( it's OK, he never sees my posts because I'm on his ignore list too  ) but that is some pathetic rationalization
benefited more? no, both are keeping more of the income that they earn...the difference between the two is the level of compensation based on the value or the amount of the work being performed, you can't set the numbers side by side and say that one is benefiting more than the other...unless you are fostering class envy
"look...he got to keep more than you....KILL HIM!"
Last edited by scottw; 11-05-2010 at 02:59 PM..
|
|
|
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:50 AM.
|
| |