Married. Over 400k<quoted text>
Your numbers are off, but to show you how off they are, I need a little more information.
Married or Single
Rough estimate of income
Gun Laws Debate - Chambersburg, PA
Discuss the national Gun Laws debate in Chambersburg, PA.
Does the US need to reform its gun laws?
|Not at all||
#1979 Mar 10, 2013
#1980 Mar 10, 2013
You do realize that your dictator argument about one guy being bad is the exact opposite of your armed person at a school argument don't you?
Since: Sep 07
#1981 Mar 10, 2013
So, your income tax is ~ 35%
But your social security is only 1.55%(You pay social security on only ~$140,000 of your income.)
Your NC tax is 6.7% for the first 100k, then 7.5% for the money above that. Your effective rate at 400k is 7.3%
And then 1.5% for medicare
Your total tax therefore is:~ 45% not 49%
That may not seem like a big difference, but when we're talking about raising taxes by 1%, we'd be raising your tax to 3% LOWER than you think you are paying.
What you ACTUALLY pay vs what you THINK you pay is important.
As is what you THINK the economy looks like vs what it ACTUALLY looks like.
So, back to my original question:
Scale of 1 to 10. One being everyone has the exact same amount of money regardless of what they do, 10 being an elite minority has 100% of the money and everyone else is a slave, where do you think we fall as a society and where should we be ideally?
Since: Sep 07
#1982 Mar 10, 2013
No, his claim is that despite the fact that there are something like 40 nations with nationalized healthcare, because ONE of them 60 years ago was led by Adolf Hitler, then Obama is a Nazi.
Meanwhile there have been NUMEROUS dictators which have NOT nationalized the healthcare systems.
So, there is no correlation between nationalized healthcare and dictatorship, meaning his argument is invalid.
My gun argument is this:
There has NEVER been a case in which an armed guard in a school has successfully fought off a gunman despite the fact that there have been a number of times when armed guards have been present during these attacks.
There is no correlation between armed guards and preventing attacks on schools.
However, there have been a NUMBER of times in which guns put in schools to protect the children have gone off accidentally.
There is an EXTREMELY strong and CAUSAL correlation between guns being present and gun accidents occurring.(No gun accidents occur where no guns are present - Obvious on it's face).
Therefore, increasing the number of armed guards has no predictable outcome for preventing gunmen, but has a VERY predictable outcome for accidental shootings.
#1983 Mar 10, 2013
A great quantity of my income is bonus based.
We are probably in the 9.5 range. We are a free market economy(at least originally).
The interesting thing about this argument from the liberal left is that it's always about taking someone else's money. Usually based on it's the right thing to do for the "people".
Rarely does anyone make a proposal to give more money by their own free will. Warren Buffettcomes to mind. He talks about higher taxes but the shelters his money.
He specifically limits his donations in order to protect them from taxes. He gives to the Gates foundation but makes specific requirements to shield it from taxes.
#1984 Mar 10, 2013
Yeah, he is saying since one is bad, they're all bad. Just what you're saying about armed individuals in schools. You argue because two guys were less than effective, nobody will be.
It's the same argument. A logical fallacy
Since: Sep 07
#1985 Mar 10, 2013
So, you think we're at 9.5, meaning that 1% of the population controls 95% of the money and that the remaining 99% of the people have to make due with the remaining 5%.
And you're okay with that? That's ideal?
It's not "someone else's money". No one is talking about going to Mexico and taking the money from the billionaire who was just named richest man.
If you live in America, then your money has come in a very real way, from the work of other Americans who have made your success possible.
Michael Jordan was great at basketball. However, he didn't personally build the basketball infrastruction that allowed him to be a success. He didn't create the tariffs which allow Nike to produce their shoes which he endorses. He didn't create the department of agriculture who helped train and protect cotton farmers in times of drought so that they would still be around to produce cotton to be made into Haines t-shirts which Jordan also endorses.
His success in basketball is due to his talent and hard work. He deserves to be well compensated for that. His success in marketing has built off that success in basketball and his personality. Good for him.
However, no one can claim that MJ is 100% a self made man. He has benefited from the system in which he grew up.
That system is paid for BY THE PEOPLE through taxes.
And yes, those who benefit the most from the system pay the most in taxes.
Had that system of taxation not been in place, then Jordan never would have had a chance to be successful as a person who plays a game for a living.
If you live in the US and benefit from the work of other people in the US, then you are going to pay taxes.
How is that unfair?
Because when you ask the rich to give their money freely, they simply don't.
Romney went a decade without paying any taxes. You honestly think that's a man who was going to donate money to some charity?
Further, billionaires do donate money, but they do it to things which sound good. Bill Gates is dealing with diseases. Great.
Who is going to donate money to ensure that the post office is able to deliver mail to some town in Kansas? Who is going to donate money to pay the inspectors who check sewer lines? Who is going to donate money to pay the salaries of the guys who check to see if a cargo of fish arriving on the docks contains a parasite?
Since: Sep 07
#1986 Mar 10, 2013
No, he's describing a set of forty countries, thirty nine of which have social medicine and no Hitler. One of which has social medicine and Hitler.
His conclusion is: "All 40 have Hitler".
That's not a logical fallacy, it's just wrong.
I'm describing two things:
- The number of times armed guards have successfully stopped a shooter at a school. Zero.
- The odds of there being an accident in a school involving a gun if you bring a gun to the school. Increasing. The more guns in the more school, the more accidents will occur.
Your proposal is:
"Despite the fact that it has never happened successfully in the past, I propose putting two or more armed guards in every school to stop shooters. I acknowledge that the inevitable outcome of this plan is the unnecessary death of children through the numerous gun accidents which will occur as a result of putting so many guns in schools. However, I speculate that MAYBE an armed guard MIGHT stop a shooter. And I'm hoping that the armed guard doesn't just become a shooter."
That's a BAD proposal.
- It lacks any evidence that it will succeed in stopping what you want to stop
- It will inevitably lead to CAUSING what you are trying to stop.
It's hard to come up with a plan which is WORSE than putting guns in every school.
#1987 Mar 10, 2013
This is a liberal socialist argument.
No one could possibly deserve to be wealthy. Therefore, we have to vilify them and find away to get some of their money back.
Trying to get money from the rich is nearly impossible. They don't usually have jobs. Therefore, they don't have a great deal of income that can't be sheltered. You're proposing taxes that are not gong to encompass the dollars you're targeting and you know it.
Billionaires do donate money. That doesn't pay the post office as you said.(by the way, the post offics can't fund itself because of pensions).
I see that you support socialized medicine. I work in medicine. Socialized medicine is great if you're acutely I'll but it doesn't work well in total. No one runs off to Canada to get a delicate procedure. They come here. The only thin patients have done outside of the us is procedures not yet approved here. That won't change regardless of socialized medicine. We are not losing the FDA.
The people paid for the NBA? I was under the impression that the NBA built a product that the market bought. Michael Jordan honed his skills himself. The "people" didn't work on his skills for him. He was a nobody. He built his product and then took it to UNC. They gave him a scholarship based on that skill (product). He parlayed it into the nba and so on and so forth. The "people" didn't give him squat.
That's an entitlement mentality you have. You think anyone who has more should pay more. Here's a news flash, they already do. They make the most money and they pay the most taxes.
#1988 Mar 10, 2013
Here's the bottom line and believe me, it's really this simple
Liberals want a cut of the pie that they DID NOT help to prepare or bake.
#1989 Mar 10, 2013
Run for office and fix the problem or quit your Damn whining.
#1990 Mar 10, 2013
you make the above stupid statement and have the nerve to call yourself a wizard
#1991 Mar 10, 2013
I noticed that Dan the man is back and so is the impersonator of Wolfgang and Winston.
Rather obvious Danny little warrior boy
Since: Sep 07
#1992 Mar 10, 2013
You need to go back and re-read what I wrote. Your assessment is the _OPPOSITE_ of what I said.
Jordan, who I use as an example, absolutely does deserve his wealth and success. He is talented and he works hard.
However, he does not exist in a vacuum. He is a part of our society and has benefited from it. His success would not be possible for him or anyone else without the things our society provides.
Take Jordan and drop him as a boy in the rainforest. See how many championship rings he gets.
Part of how our society works is that everyone is expected to pay their taxes. Those who are more successful pay more in taxes than those who are less successful.
That's the Conservative argument that George Bush trotted out:
"The rich cheat, so why bother taxing them."
That's like saying women shouldn't wear pants because it just slows the rapists down.
I'll deal with this in a different post.
You just contradicted yourself.
If socialized medicine is such a failure, then people would be coming here for the most basic procedures, not the most advanced.
Really, Jordan didn't attend any public schools or visit any public parks where he could play bball?
He went to UNC, but didn't play bball there? That's not a private institution.
The NBA doesn't hold its games in stadiums paid for by the tax payers?
They don't broadcast those games on airwaves that the government licenses?
The people don't pay for tickets with money the government prints and backs?
They don't arrive at the game via cars the government safety tested? Driving on roads the government built? Using gas the government subsidized?
Your argument is called the "Myth of the self made man".
You think that Jordan could start off naked in the rain forest and rise to the point where he is today without the public providing everything it provided for him to succeed.
Newsflash: He's still be in the jungle looking for one other person who wanted to play ball because everyone else would be trying to gather food to eat.
Since: Sep 07
#1993 Mar 10, 2013
This statement is misleading.
Because of the 2006 PAEA law, the Post Office is forced to pay into a fund enough to fund retirees for the next 75 years.
Not, pay into the fund for the next 75 years, mind you.
They are supposed to pay NOW into a fund to cover the retirement of people who have yet to start working at the post office.
No other government agency has to do that.
No private company has to do that.
In fact, very few private companies are successful enough to be ABLE to do that.
It was a bad law designed, in part, to kill the post office.
At the same time the Post Office has been forbidden to branch out its services into areas which could have helped secure future income.
It's a one-two punch
Since: Sep 07
#1994 Mar 10, 2013
By the way, if you've read your Karl Marx you would know that the system you are endorsing is the one that leads to Communism.
The rich become richer, more entitled and more demanding. The workers have less and less.
Then the workers rise up, kill the rich and abandon capitalism all together.
It's in the interest of the rich to keep that from happening.
#1995 Mar 10, 2013
No doubt about it. It's a union thing. Not so great. They, like many others are being strangled by unions. Today's union is a far cry from what it set out to be.
#1996 Mar 10, 2013
I mentioned Jordan's high school days. In the south, there are no middle school sports. It's all city or church where it is funded by participants. After that, he paid his own way with scholarship.
Also, Jordan's father paid the taxes for him to go to public schools. And the roads, etc...
Jordan pays his taxes for all of those things as well. He actually pays more because of his larger income. That's not the point.
The point is, when does is obligation end for basic services? If you looked at someone like Jordan, he probably has paid millions in taxes over the years. Whereas you and I will never pay millions. Probably not hundreds of thousands.
When should his obligation be considered high enough? He funds probably thousands of indigents in a given year and yet we are saying it ain't enough.
To address the cities involved in the stadiums, they are recouping that money with tourism taxes, restaurant & retail space etc. Not to mention, they entered into those agreements willingly(free market again). If they can't support it, they can always pass.
#1997 Mar 10, 2013
The rich don't cheat.
They manage the system. The system is flawed terribly. This is not a Bush tax break flaw either. It's a flaw of age.
The system has been well learned and is manipulated to easily.
Rich people don't have common income. I'm sure you're aware that many of them live off of investment income which can easily be manipulated (see Mitt Romney and Warren Buffett here). Because of that, there income doesn't quite match their net worth so they can defer income etc.. and live off of their existing money that is post tax dollars.
I'm not trying to give you a tax lesson. I just think that if Romney can pay 17% and the IRS says that's ok, we have a bigger issue than Bush cuts.
We need a flat tax and a better sales tax that is federal. That way, when the rich buy big ticket items, they pay more and it's unavoidable. Meanwhile, lower income families that don't buy such bug ticket items still pay less.
We need to make taxes level and unavoidable. You live here, you pay them, period.
Since: Sep 07
#1998 Mar 10, 2013
Wow, you are really struggling with reading comprehension.
It's not a union thing. It's a federal law that was passed which puts onerous demands on the postal service which no other organization publicly traded, private owned or government run is forced to endure and which would cripple or kill 99% of businesses.
If AT&T had to completely fund employee pensions today to cover the next 75 years, the would be bankrupt.
Hell, if YOU had to fund your next 75 years of living with a check today, you would be bankrupt.
That is the primary problem the post office is facing. It's Congress, not unions.
Add your comments below
|PA Who do you support for U.S. Senate in Pennsylva... (Oct '10)||26 min||Obama Helps Repub...||3,997|
|The American flag in the circle off McKinley st...||21 hr||Trauma-King||1|
|vince martz||Sep 15||vincent e martz p...||11|
|PA Who do you support for Lieutenant Governor in P... (Oct '10)||Sep 15||Jeremy||183|
|Debate: Ferguson - Chambersburg, PA||Sep 6||Can you understand||53|
|Franklin County towns schedule trick-or-treatin... (Oct '10)||Sep 2||ancient history||29|
|Mega Multi Family Yard Sale Aug 28-Aug 30 8am N...||Aug 27||Shelly Frey||1|
Find what you want!
Search Chambersburg Forum Now
Copyright © 2014 Topix LLC