Look Who's Lying NOW - Page 3

But we already have another jackass like Bush (or worse) in there!

Gore didn't even come close to losing in California.

Please hook me up with your dealer. I've never seen such good stuff alter one's consciousness so thoroughly. Who from the Clinton era has carried on this media meme legacy of his? Gore lost and so did Clinton's wife.


Yes but what if he didn't have that wonderful voter majority with electoral college loss? How would you justify all the wonderful conspiracy theories about voting machines run by Democratic canvassing boards helping Republicans? How would you mentally justify the terribly kept voter rolls that include the dead, the illegal and dogs?

Far fewer civil liberties. Far more regressive tax policy. No change in foreign policy. More corporate bailouts and tax loopholes. Larger budget deficit. Magic underwear.

If your dreams come true, there will be further tax cuts across the board. But I absolutely guarantee the cuts for the richest individuals and the largest corporations will be greater in percentage than the cuts for the middle class and small businesses, not to mention the poor would likely see an effective tax increase, as cuts and benefits are removed.

I get that. That doesn't fit the definition of a regressive (let alone "more regressive") tax.


All that would potentially happen in a Romney administration is that income tax rates would not rise (progress) as much as they currently do. That's not anywhere near a "regressive tax."

P.S. A flat tax is not a regressive tax either even though some, incorrectly, claim it to be.

By economic hardship and impact, flat taxes are regressive.

I'll wait for you to measure "economic hardship and impact" in some objective manner.



There is regressive, flat (not regressive or progressive) and progressive. These are three different things.

This is Regressive tax:
Income: $100,000; tax rate: 30%
Income: $500,000; tax rate: 20%
Income: $1,000,000; tax rate: 10%

This is Progressive tax:
Income: $100,000; tax rate: 10%
Income: $500,000; tax rate: 20%
Income: $1,000,000; tax rate: 30%

This is MORE regressive tax (than previous example):
Income: $100,000; tax rate: 35%
Income: $500,000; tax rate: 25%
Income: $1,000,000; tax rate: 10%

This is LESS progressive tax (than previous example):
Income: $100,000; tax rate: 10%
Income: $500,000; tax rate: 15%
Income: $1,000,000; tax rate: 25%

The last one is closest to what Romney would be trying to do.

These words mean things. Use them correctly.

Sorrry, MJ, you're unclear on the concept. Take out basic living expenses after taxes are paid and see what's left over, and it's clear that flat tax is unfair on the poor. That's regressive. In simple language,

The poor pay a higher percentage of their maximum disposable income under a flat tax system.

Fact.

Indeed. This is an objective measure of the regressive nature of flat taxes. For MJ to declare no objective measure can exist for impact or effect demonstrates he is innumerate, an uncompromising ideologue, or both.

Yeah, but the rich guy can hire an army of accountants and lawyers to avoid every tax scheme your beautiful liberal mind can dream up. And we have millennia of data to back that up.

The poor guy has just his wits and whatever money he can scrape up to buy that Subway franchise he's wanted all his life. The simpler and more transparent the tax system, the better chance he has of being a success and escaping a life of poverty and building wealth.

That's where the flat tax shines. Liberals have been shouting at tax loopholes since I've been alive, and then they go add new ones every time they win election. North America has far too many people working as lawyers and accountants instead of doing things that are more productive for our countries.

Haha. Did you know a Subway franchise requires one million up front security and one million CA$H in the bank?

Maybe the poor guy can buy a 1986 F150, a rake, a manual mower and some hedge clippers.

And the corporate loopholes and billionaire loopholes were definitely not dreamed up by the Liberals. You honestly think they were?

Actually, that makes my point even better.

Seriously though, your point on living expenses can easily be overcome by setting an appropriate personal amount or a rebate to low income families.

Personal amounts are set in the current tax code, and rebates are common for countries (like Canada) that have a value added tax. This isn't rocket science, and I'm not sure why liberals think it's beneficial to have a tax code that hands out incentives, exemptions and loopholes like they're candy.

And just to finish this off, a lot of people will buy a franchise with a number of partners. That way, you don't need that two million by yourself and can learn the ropes before buying one on your own.

I agree. We should have a flat tax with a very large standard deductible, and few if any loopholes. Contrary to your apparent belief, however, most tax deductions are not benefiting the lower income taxpayer. And those that allow millionaires to pay 10% or less were certainly not ideas from the Liberal side of the fence. Those are the loopholes we need to close.

I'm aware of that, but how many partners do you need before the guy earning $20,000 a year can afford to buy in?

I believe the millionaire thing is primarily due to people who make their income solely from investments.

The government decided that instead of sitting on a pile of money (like Apple and a boatload of other companies are currently doing) it would be more productive if that money were invested into the economy. So they dangled a tax cut in front of business people to persuade them to do something with it.

Then they used the initiative as a bullet point in their "Jobs plan" brochure for the year. That's how politicians roll.

He doesn't. He goes to work for the Subway in his neighbourhood and buys a franchise of his own 20 years later.

Here's another innumeracy problem...($20,000 - living expenses) * 20 = ?

(let's assume he doesn't get seriously sick and lose all his money to the fucking shitty ass healthcare industry, filing medical bankruptcy)

Be realistic. He could work at Subway for 200 years, and he still wouldn't have saved enough.

The lie of upward mobility for the masses coated in patriotism and draped in the "American Work Ethic" is what has enabled the continuous top-down class warfare to run rampant, unimpeded.

Why do people (mainly but not exclusively left-wingers) assume that poverty is a constant that doesn't change? This is the kind of thinking that makes me cringe, understanding that you guys don't really know any poor people.

BR, yes, if he sits at 20k for 20 years he's doomed. He's stupid too, but that's a harder issue to fix.

This is why people take second jobs, go to school part-time, get a mentor, intern somewhere for free, etc. I'm assuming that anybody who goes into a Subway and decides they want to make it a career will work hard and rise to store manager within a few years. Then you partner on a franchise, then you buy one yourself. It takes time and effort, patience and diligence. I know whereof I speak (but no, I own no franchises of my own yet.)

Millions of people do this everyday, in every town, in all kinds of occupations. Jobs' graduation speech to Stanford wasn't just directed at rich people (location not-withstanding).

Bad things can happen to good people, but you don't base a tax system on the assumption that your citizens are lazy, colossal failures, doomed to dwell for eternity on the wrong side of the poverty line.

Here in Canada, our Conservative Prime Minister decided not to actually bailout banks, but to create a Tax Free Savings Account that anyone can open. You put in $5,000 a year and whatever you get back in interest or investment income is tax free for life. Ten years from now, you're going to see an explosion in people starting businesses, since a lot of people will have $50-80,000 in savings to invest. That's how you start.

And yes, the guy at $20k can't muster $5k a year in savings, but the assumption is that he will get there eventually.

That's what a good tax system offers: Enforces good habits, encourages personal responsibility and offers hope, the best tax incentive there is.

This idea that it's somehow noble or honorable to get a second job is absurd. The whole "American Work Ethic" nonsense is just propaganda from the orchestrators of the top-down class warfare. Promoting skipping vacations, expecting loyalty to corporations that isn't reciprocated, and making workers feel unable to seek out better employment out of fear of losing one's health insurance are atrocities committed every day in this country.

If upward mobility requires working two or three jobs and never getting a chance to enjoy the one life you get, to quote Frothy Mixture, I want to throw up. Fuck that system. Fuck that system that has seen wages as percent of the economy plummet and corporate profits skyrocket simultaneously.





And of course, who benefits?



Not the common man. Not the common man at all. I want to throw up.

Actually I didn't argue that no measures could exist, merely that I was waiting for you to show them. You haven't. Neither has tonton. If anyone is being "an uncompromising ideologue" (or an innumerate) at this point it is clearly you (and tonton).

Look, you are free to dislike flat taxes. You are free to show and argue their faults. But words have meanings and you don't get to just redefine them in order to further your Marxist ideology.

Is that the best you can do?

That's a laugh.

That didn't help us in 2000 and it won't help us in 2012. And yes due to the things these guys stand for I think they would be worse than Obama by a long shot. Just imagine if they'd been running things from 08' on. Talk about scary. Fortunately all they have to do is keep talking and we won't have to worry about it.

And if he'd been running things from 08' on? As much as Obama has underperformed just imagine how much worse this little dip would have been.

Exactly so see what I mean?

Sure I do. Just listen to the stupid things they say and remember what a Republican did to us last time.

Define addressing.

Every government should be addressing a wealth gap as long as that wealth gap is expanding. An expanding wealth gap is a problem.

I'm not talking about absolute expansion, either. I'm talking about relative expansion. When CEO pay goes up 600% while worker pay goes up 2-3%, that is NOT helping the workers, and it's a problem. It's a serious problem that needs to be addressed, yes.

I don't mind if CEO pay goes up 50% and worker pay goes up 50%. That's economic progress. Expansion of the wealth gap is economic regression.

if Romney gets in for the 2012 election his running mate should be Jamie Dimon they both love money and could not care about people in general especially the less fortunate ones like the 99%.

Why is that the government's job? What amount of gap is okay and what amount is bad?

Why is it even a problem to begin with? Because some people are full of envy?