Shh…don’t let Mufasa hear you talking like this you’ll ruin his Christmas.
You’re right that they want to avoid a physical confrontation. But the adrenaline is going to be sky high regardless, so one wrong “twitch” in the wrong context, and… I’ve only seen one incident up close personally where the force seemed a little excessive, but the light switch clicked on for me, because I realized “shit, those cops are scared to death of that guy!”
Plus let’s face it, lots of tough people on the interwebz, but most “anyone” will back down because it’s just not worth it. Cops don’t have that option all the time. They have a partner to be accountable to, and they can’t afford to back down because it’s their job to not “back down”.
1 Like
That statement lacks an important piece of context:
What percentage of income does that “top 20% of earners” account for?
FWIW, I happen to agree with the broad concept that a much simpler tax code and fewer deductions/loopholes would be beneficial, and understand that the progressive income tax is objectionable to high-earners. I’m merely pointing out that the “top 20% of earners” probably earns something like 50% of the total “income” (it might even be more; maybe this is covered in the WSJ article; it’s behind a paywall), so that “top 20% of earners pay 84% of income taxes!” quote makes it sound far more disproportionate than it actually is.
2 Likes
Lord KNOWS what has Trump been if Obama is “inflammatory”?
And his potential to create further divides seems almost limitless.
(The “He isn’t President” stuff will be for viable for only a few days…)
We’ll see.
Merry Christmas.
1 Like
I agree with this for the most part. I think there could be an ‘extreme hardship’ exemption to apply for if a person got multiple jobs and lost them for some reason other than their own but other than that…Yeah…that’s kind of the Democrats go to. “Them Republicans gonna cut programs and send you back to slavery, better vote for me.” Drives me up a wall. You can’t just cut programs – will drive up crime and homelessness instantly…but they should be temporary.
One issue I have with a flat tax is that $2,000 hurts the $20,000 income family a lot more than $20,000 hurts the $200,000 family. I’m not sure how one reconciles that. I suppose a 20,000 family would probably be on some sort of government assistance vs a 200,000 family, so that could justify it.
I don’t have any numbers on this, but it may benefit the government some by, like you said, having many more people pay tax (40% of working Americans don’t pay any) and keeping more money in the higher earners pockets to create more opportunities – more payroll tax. But keeping more money in earners pockets only benefits us if it’s spent. If you sock your money offshore, or sit it in the stock market and you already have a tremendous amount of wealth, it doesn’t benefit the rest of us in the traditional “trickle down manner.”
I’m not sure if you’re gonna tax people’s bank accounts, or hopefully create an environment that encourages business cooperation, but those are my two issues with it.
You also run into trouble trying to fund our current government with that structure. I’m familiar with the conservative thought process of getting rid of certain federal departments but not well read enough to comment on it…seems like they are litmus tests more than anything.
This is funny. My first job in grad school I was a trainer at a local gym. One day, one of the owners and I were chatting about business as we did often, and he told me “after you break 60K a year you’re just paying the man more.”
I’m like wtf is he talking about…but it’s pretty accurate. It does seem unfair, and after payroll tax is figured in, it’s still 67%. But…you could look at it as, “you profited off this country, now you give back.” But at the same time the high earners could say “The government profited from all the jobs I created, so you guys should help me out.”
I have a tendency to think the latter. Like you said, otherwise no one will try to create jobs. Make lower income folks pay something outside of payroll tax and eliminate federal sales tax? That sounds kinda fair.
1 Like
This was hilarious.
kind of like the “fake news” stuff. It’s the mob mentality. I agree wholeheartedly. You’re either for us or against us. If you chose a dissenting opinion against your ‘tribe’ you’re a tribeless outcast.
2 Likes
That kind of thing makes me crazy. In 2008, I was thoroughly against Obama for POTUS during campaign season. When he was elected, I ended up defending aspects of his campaign and appeal against unfair attacks by exasperated conservative friends on facebook.
I was accused of being a closet liberal, despite repeatedly “campaigning” against his election.
In 2016 I’ve been extremely vocal in my disapproval of Trump as a candidate for POTUS and refusal to vote for him. Now that he has been elected I have defended his election against unfair and hysterical attacks by my liberal friends on facebook.
I have been called “human garbage” among other things, like insinuating I’m sexist, etc. What the fuck man.
Really, I’m just principled. equal opportunity critic of things that violate my principles lol.
9 Likes
True, and I think any man who has a modicum of intelligence will comply. That Cop that you are scared of wants to just do his job and go home safely to his family, work 20 years and retire. The myth that they are out looking for people of any race to abuse is simply a fairy tale.
I don’t doubt that but still punishing the highest income earners decade after decade is bad economic policy and has absolutely no fairness whatsoever attached to it.
In a way you remind me of the folks who repeatedly go back to the Bush administration to defend Obama. “Well Bush shouldn’t have invaded Iraq.” Yes I got that. But look at the problems caused by Obama pulling out of Iraq too early. Back to the point- You cannot defend Obama’s inflammatory remarks by saying that Trump also makes inflammatory remarks. Obama has been President for 8 years and he has made things worse with his inflammatory remarks (among other poor decisions).
That is an interesting phrase that was abused by the mainstream liberal media when Ronald Reagan was President.
My only comment on it is that I have never seen a poor person offer a job to anyone. And by that I mean we must encourage those who have the resources to invest in building businesses and expanding their current business if they have one. When business grows people are employed. When people are employed they spend money at various retail establishments, car dealers etc. Then more people are employed and that is successful “trickle down”.
In other words it never trickles up…I take that back only the government is allowed to steal money from those who have earned it and give it to those who have not earned it and don’t deserve it. That is trickle up and that is the type of economy that Obama has been trying to create.
I’ll take trickle down because everyone wins.
But one more point, I agree that someone who has large sums of money should not be hiding it under his mattress that helps no one, not even him as he is losing to inflation. But even when a wealthy person invests in the stock market he is helping drive the economy by buy shares in various companies that will hopefully expand in part because of this and then employ more people.
I never want us to turn our backs on the truly needy or the disabled. Nor do I want to cut any programs immediately. Some should be phased out gradually.
Between Federal, State, and various County and City taxes I am paying over 50%!
Obama (and his ilk) have shoved government up my ass (forgive the crude analogy) and I will tell you from the bottom of my heart–IT HURTS!
(And on top of that he insulted my by saying "You didn’t build that…Oh yeah I have had enough of him)
You are truly wise beyond your years.
This remains my biggest problem with a flat tax. I am in agreement with you and zeb concerning welfare and taxation. But precisely because I don’t believe there is any perfect solution to the income inequality in income while preserving freedom (not to mention a strong economy) this is a problem needs to be considered, and remains 1 reason I am not opposed to a progressive tax structure in principle.
1 Like
It’s like you’re not allowed to be fair in 2016 lol. That’s the real problem.
3 Likes
This is true and I thought about it when writing that post. Only fair you brought it up.
Fact. Didn’t think about it like that.
I appreciate it man. I’m passionate about this just as you are.
The problem with trickle-down economics is that there is little evidence to suggest it works, and much to indicate it doesn’t. Even David Stockman (Reagan’s OMB director) doesn’t buy it anymore (if he ever really did). The main legacies of Reaganomics have been budget deficits, wealth inequality, and the fetishization of tax cuts by the Republican party.
Obama’s implementation of demand-side (Keynesian) economic principles is the reason the US economy recovered so much faster and more robustly after the global financial crisis than did those of countries that employed (or were forced to employ) austerity measures.
1 Like
I’m glad MoreMuscle and EyeDentist came long, Zeb.
They have much more patience for your dribble and will give much more reasoned arguments than I have the patience for.
Got it.
The worst POTUS ever who created prejudice and racial divide…and made it open season on Police Officers. Before Obama there was Shangri-La, as we all held hands and sang “We Are the World” during the day and “Kumbayah” by the Fire at night…
And yes…before you say it, this is what people write when they don’t have anything else to say and have quite frankly had it with all the hypocrisy, disrespect, vitriol and half-truths directed at the President.
In a little more than 3 weeks IT’S TIME TO MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!
I can’t wait!
2 Likes
Are you sure about that?
When was the last time we had GDP growth over 1%?
1 Like