are you/have u been a student, do you support higher taxes?

Usdk · **Posted:** Tue Apr 26, 2011 12:54 pm

The rich get rich because they know how to hold on to their money, and for the most part(minus aig and that other shit) they know where to put their money so that it turns into more money.

It's not hard to do. I took about a hundred thou out of my mom's life insurance and invested it in some convoluted(convoluted to me, as i'm a mathtard) account thing where the account buys life insurance that later i can borrow off of tax free, and if i die the money my beneficiary(ies) get will also be tax free.

And i'm no tax law genius. You can always get around taxes if you know where to look and are patient.

Remember, the RICH write the tax laws.

Joklem · **Posted:** Tue Apr 26, 2011 1:16 pm

It's not easy being white.

Laelia · **Posted:** Tue Apr 26, 2011 1:19 pm

Jubbergun wrote:

I think the analogy is fairly valid. Grades and incomes are both "reap what you sow" outcomes. Once you start balancing out the grades so that everyone gets the same thing, the only motivation the high achievers have to keep achieving at a high level is to keep the low end of the curve from dragging their average down. It has been historically shown that when you "equalize outcomes" that eventually those who gained their income with higher levels of production stop producing at higher levels. There is no incentive do any more than anyone else because you're not getting any more than anyone else. The mean comes to be defined by the lowest common denominator.

If you think that in a system of education like the one we have, where your choice of colleges and/or graduate programs are limited at least in part by your grades, that having your average pulled down because you had to "share" it with some mouth-breather won't make a difference, the only person you're fooling is yourself.

Taxes don't come close to "equalizing outcomes". Coupled with social programs, they give people at the bottom a leg up, leave the middle about the same, and slightly reduce the number of yachts the absolute top earners can buy. The top 20% of households in the US still earn 50% of the annual income. The same thing would apply to taxing grades -- the people at the top would still be at the top. If a grad school wanted to recruit the top 5% of undergrads, they would still be able to; even if the grade threshold for the top fell in absolute terms, there would still be a relative difference which is what these schools would look for.

Joklem · **Posted:** Tue Apr 26, 2011 2:28 pm

You can take my jaguars and cocaine from my cold, dead hands.

Yuratuhl · **Posted:** Tue Apr 26, 2011 3:12 pm

But with higher taxes, how will I maintain my eight mansions?

Oh right, all those tax loopholes I'm already taking advantage of.

quadtard · **Posted:** Thu Apr 28, 2011 9:08 am

Its empty bullshit designed to make you go "oh", but if you go "oh" again you realize how bullshit it is.

Its like when my roomate complained how that gas prices have gone up, because of the libya stuff, but we are paying more for gas that wasnt bought/shipped when prices were raised. For a second i was like, yea that is bullshit, wtf stupid evil gas companies

Then i thought a second later, that what my roomate said makes absolutely 0 real world sense, while in some philosphical ethical world it might, but it has no real application and it truly is just a crock load of BS

quadtard · **Posted:** Thu Apr 28, 2011 9:16 am

Jubbergun wrote:

Yeah, I'm sure Lenin said something similar, only in Russian so it sounded cooler, and look how that turned out.

Big difference between increased taxes and full out communism. Raising taxes a bit doesnt make everyone equal, which is not the aim of increased taxes but rather to give a boost to those who need it most. The dudes raking in 10m a year shouldnt be complaining about communism if they have to drop another 1m to taxes. Because if it was communism, it would drop down to what, 40 or 50k?

SO please, lets get through one political thread without accusing people of being nazis/communists. Needless hyberpole just sends it off topic.

Eturnalshift · **Posted:** Thu Apr 28, 2011 9:30 am

Taxes should be used to provide essential public services that all people can use: parks, roads, law enforcement, fire departments, education, etc. It shouldn't be used to provide welfare or to 'give a boost'... that's what charity is for.

Jubbergun · **Posted:** Thu Apr 28, 2011 9:37 am

Or we could just use our tax code strictly for its intended purpose, which is funding the government, instead of using it as a crude bludgeon to "equalize outcomes" or whatever silly phrase you have for bringing the 'have nots' closer to the 'haves,' or to make people behave the way some lobby or another wants them to behave. I still think it's ridiculous to use the phrase "fair share" when you're talking about people who make 50% of the income paying 95% of the taxes. The only reason we even have this ridiculous income tax system is because of this "soak the rich" mentality, because it only passed because those backing it said the new tax would only be on the wealthy.

Your Pal,
Jubber

Usdk · **Posted:** Thu Apr 28, 2011 11:09 am

There's always going to be tax loopholes. if you want to tax the rich, close the loopholes.

Mns · **Posted:** Thu Apr 28, 2011 11:11 am

I hope the ultra-rich give you guys the courtesy of a reacharound.

Usdk · **Posted:** Thu Apr 28, 2011 11:22 am

Your contribution is both insightful and enlightening mayo.

Jubbergun · **Posted:** Thu Apr 28, 2011 11:51 am

I don't know, the wisdom of someone who can afford to extend his adolescence for 2-6 years because his parents can afford to send him to college far exceeds anything people like myself would know about poverty.

Your Pal,
Jubber

Laelia · **Posted:** Thu Apr 28, 2011 12:55 pm

Jubbergun wrote:

Or we could just use our tax code strictly for its intended purpose, which is funding the government, instead of using it as a crude bludgeon to "equalize outcomes" or whatever silly phrase you have for bringing the 'have nots' closer to the 'haves,' or to make people behave the way some lobby or another wants them to behave. I still think it's ridiculous to use the phrase "fair share" when you're talking about people who make 50% of the income paying 95% of the taxes. The only reason we even have this ridiculous income tax system is because of this "soak the rich" mentality, because it only passed because those backing it said the new tax would only be on the wealthy.

Governments have to charge taxes in order to provide the services that citizens expect. Given that, why not charge them in a manner that increases rather than decreases equality? Most people think that relative equality is a good thing, and that the existence of poor people in rich countries is a bad thing. Having the people making 50% of the income pay 95% of the taxes would probably be unfair, but that's not what happens in the US. Once you account for all taxes people pay (not just the federal income tax), the tax distribution is still slightly progressive, but not dramatically so.

Bucket Guild | FUBU BH Forums

are you/have u been a student, do you support higher taxes?

Who is online