ImageImageImageImageImage

Political Roundtable Part XXVI

Moderators: montestewart, nate33, LyricalRico

daoneandonly
General Manager
Posts: 8,177
And1: 1,255
Joined: May 27, 2004
Location: Masalaland
 

Re: Political Roundtable Part XXVI 

Post#1201 » by daoneandonly » Mon Sep 9, 2019 5:04 pm

payitforward wrote:
daoneandonly wrote:Breakfast, that was done 3 hours ago dweeb. I'm already 2 1/2 hours into work, and I don't b and moan about the salary i make at it, like Queen AOC and her progressive following.

You know... I have found over time that when impeccable logic & the overwhelming force of empirical fact fail to sway someone, the best thing to do is insult him. Don't you agree, you stupid twerp?


Ha yet im sure all the name calling by tgw, querdo, zonk, pancake, jwiz gets a thumbs up form you, thats 2 face. In case you miss logic, my "name calling" was done in a sarcastic response to his, actually pretty obvious if you bother to read the full exchange.
daoneandonly
General Manager
Posts: 8,177
And1: 1,255
Joined: May 27, 2004
Location: Masalaland
 

Re: Political Roundtable Part XXVI 

Post#1202 » by daoneandonly » Mon Sep 9, 2019 5:07 pm

payitforward wrote:
payitforward wrote:
daoneandonly wrote:Breakfast, that was done 3 hours ago dweeb. I'm already 2 1/2 hours into work, and I don't b and moan about the salary i make at it, like Queen AOC and her progressive following.

You know... I have found over time that when impeccable logic & the overwhelming force of empirical fact fail to sway someone, the best thing to do is insult him. Don't you agree, you stupid twerp?

OTOH, it occurs to me that one might simply begin by calling names & then, if they don't produce the desired result, move on to employ logic & facts. Does that seem a better strategy, you dumbandlonely cretinous drooler?


You have to stop making fun of me, it really hurts, did you happen to catch the sarcasm there?

The funny thing is, i remember you calling me a jackass, yet you dont look at yourself in the mirror.
daoneandonly
General Manager
Posts: 8,177
And1: 1,255
Joined: May 27, 2004
Location: Masalaland
 

Re: Political Roundtable Part XXVI 

Post#1203 » by daoneandonly » Mon Sep 9, 2019 5:10 pm

dckingsfan wrote:
daoneandonly wrote:Again, I've constantly only brought up abortion in the case of an accidental pregnancy, not rape, or the life is in danger.

So, if a women states they have been raped, don't want to be in the position of prosecuting the rapist (the messy part of the trial) then they should be able to get an abortion - no questions asked other than that one?

Of course you aren't (as stated previously). You will say, nope - she has to prove it. Yep, that will take more than a trimester.

And Zonk brings up a good point (as poorly as he could). What is the remedy for those getting an abortion? Jail? We already have had the failed prohibition, war on drugs, stupid on crime. You want to lock up a million or two women?

The problem with your argument is that there is no remedy. There is no intelligent way to enforce your "belief".


If they falsely accuse someone of rape, isn't that a crime? So if you have an abortion and it was proven without a shadow of a doubt you were not in fact raped, then hard time is indeed the answer. That's 2 crimes. if she was raped, lock that guy up for life and treat him like the animal he is.
User avatar
doclinkin
General Manager
Posts: 9,396
And1: 1,554
Joined: Jul 26, 2004
Location: .wizuds.

Re: Political Roundtable Part XXVI 

Post#1204 » by doclinkin » Mon Sep 9, 2019 5:49 pm

daoneandonly wrote: It's a matter of what should be "free" in question. Obviously nothing in life is free, but what should fall in the umbrella of rights and just handouts is where I'm driving at. Health insurance sure, but I have yet to hear any Democratic candidate come up with a fair and sustainable solution of how we achieve that. College is not a right, hence the onace should not be on the tax payer. Community college, sure, there's an argument for that, but is community college really that expensive where its breaking people's backs?


'Onus' by the way. Like bonus.

Well the point of the Warren plan on college was that publicly funded universities should be free. State colleges, community colleges etc. Why should the public dollars be funding a for-profit education mill that is not accessible to all who qualify? If we want hard working poor people to bootstrap their way into the middle class, this seems like a smart way to do it.

(Leaving aside where the money goes to. If we bitch about welfare for a struggling mother who can't pay to feed their kid, why should we pay billions in welfare handouts for state universities to have bloated athletic departments? Where the NCAA makes billions in profit from uncompensated athletes but the public dollar funds the departments in the first place. Why not at least pay for her kid to have child care and her to get a scholarship to attend that public university for free. You've seen the eight figure salaries that coaches command on the public dollar. Why should we pay that instead of a stipend or scholarship for continuing education for the striving class?)

The fix is easy, have a flat tax, or at the very least, a 2 maybe 3 tier tax system where the deltas between the tiers are maybe 3%. is it really fair that a difference in income of $1000, hell even 5K, can put someone in the 22% threshold while the other still sits at 12? No, there shouldnt be these ridiculously imbalanced tiers that favor certain income brackets


But at least you agree that health insurance should be free, and so should possibly community colleges, and someone would need to pay for that.

The Warren plan pays for it by a 2% tax on billionaires and a 1% bump on people whose wealth is $50 million or higher. What you are proposing is the opposite, a reduction in taxes for the very very wealthy, and shifting the tax burden to poor people and the middle class. reasonable people can disagree on who and how. Seems to me smart to think that the upper tier can bear that burden a little better.

Would you cede that there are probably people who know how best to balance the ridiculously unbalanced tiers? Like what if it were a steadily graduated slope, so you wouldn't have a sudden jump from one tier to the next. I have been on that dividing line. Sure that sucks. OR WHAT IF economists looked at the tax scale and compared with with how money is spent and came to conclusions on what is a reasonable and fair way to make it work?

Because some very smart people have made it clear that in some cases the tax burden is proportionately heavier on those who can least afford it. And that your plan increases that burden significantly and makes the people who most need help instead have to pay the most in real life terms, That at the highest levels people are not choosing between buying food for their kid and paying a light bill. Or eating and going to college.

Rich people tend to stay rich, poor people tend to stay poor. That's in the numbers. But this country built itself as an economic powerhouse when we had a growing middle class. Middle class people spend money instead of hoarding it, and that makes for more jobs in general. Start-up businesses, homes bought and sold, etc. Seems to me we want programs that encourage people to make it to the middle class and stay there.

Education is a right for little kids, and high schoolers, but what is education for?

To prepare people for adult life. Right?

We do need educated adults, and in this economy things get more and more difficult and require higher levels of smarts to do whatever jobs the robots can't (yet) do. That's the only way to remain relevant on a global economy.

So as a civilization why would we want to fall behind other countries in educating our people? Schools that accept public money should be free for anyone who has the ability to do the work. Nobody is saying Harvard and Yale should be free. But why am I paying for the University of Maryland to have a team full of lacrosse douchebags? What are these entitled bros going to do with those killer LAX chops once they graduate and move on? I'm not watching a pro LAX league. They do nothing for me and their mummy and popop already have jobs lined up for them in investment firms when they graduate anyway. F them. I'd rather my money go to make sure a girl who has a biochemistry talent can afford her $700 text books so she can learn to grow new retinas in a nutrient rich fluid so I can have 20/20 vision and not have to lose reading glasses all the time. Right?

And AOC is the queen of self interest. She had a job that paid minimum wage because thats what it warrants with all due respect, yet she feels that job is entitled to more, and make no mistake she still has many friends in that field that she wants to hand these things out to.


It's not self interest to say: I've been there, I feel the pain. You yourself had a revelation that health insurance is critical, and it changed your opinion. AOC was blessed with smarts and good looks and passion and an opportunity that lifted her out of the minimum wage into the six figure career of public politics. And in looking around she sees how few people from the working class make it into power. So she says: these people are not being served by the political class the way corporate interests are. If Democracy means anything it is that We the People should have a say in how our lives are run. But right now politics serves Big Money first, since in general unless you get exceedingly lucky like her, you cannot get elected without making the giant corporate donors and lobbyist happy. They pay your election campaign and expect to have influence on policy. The average three-job working schmoe has no input or say. He just votes for a candidate who someone else selected and said he gets to pick between.

I would suspect the policies that AOC would write or vote for would better benefit you the working guy compared to the politics-as-usual sort that the big-money donors would give you to pick between. Like Hillary, say. Eff her. And Trump as well, may he feel the full weight of his actions when his karma comes around.

If I were you I'd look a little deeper into the actual policies proposed by these people instead of listening solely to conservative media. Or any media. Big corporations have a vested interest in you picking the wrong fight. You have good instincts to say someone is trying to screw me, but its not the people that they hold up as enemies of America.
dckingsfan
RealGM
Posts: 15,148
And1: 3,268
Joined: May 28, 2010

Re: Political Roundtable Part XXVI 

Post#1205 » by dckingsfan » Mon Sep 9, 2019 5:57 pm

daoneandonly wrote:
dckingsfan wrote:
daoneandonly wrote:Again, I've constantly only brought up abortion in the case of an accidental pregnancy, not rape, or the life is in danger.

So, if a women states they have been raped, don't want to be in the position of prosecuting the rapist (the messy part of the trial) then they should be able to get an abortion - no questions asked other than that one?

Of course you aren't (as stated previously). You will say, nope - she has to prove it. Yep, that will take more than a trimester.

And Zonk brings up a good point (as poorly as he could). What is the remedy for those getting an abortion? Jail? We already have had the failed prohibition, war on drugs, stupid on crime. You want to lock up a million or two women?

The problem with your argument is that there is no remedy. There is no intelligent way to enforce your "belief".

If they falsely accuse someone of rape, isn't that a crime? So if you have an abortion and it was proven without a shadow of a doubt you were not in fact raped, then hard time is indeed the answer. That's 2 crimes. if she was raped, lock that guy up for life and treat him like the animal he is.

Naturally you didn't answer any of the questions.

Q1: should be able to get an abortion - no questions asked other than that one (were you raped)?
Q2: What do we do with those that get an abortion (lock them up)?

And to Q1: What if she was raped but can't prove it within a reasonable doubt (the current standard of prosecution)?

You will obfuscate and not answer the questions. Because you don't have them. And that is the problem with your position(s).
daoneandonly
General Manager
Posts: 8,177
And1: 1,255
Joined: May 27, 2004
Location: Masalaland
 

Re: Political Roundtable Part XXVI 

Post#1206 » by daoneandonly » Mon Sep 9, 2019 6:21 pm

doclinkin wrote:
daoneandonly wrote: It's a matter of what should be "free" in question. Obviously nothing in life is free, but what should fall in the umbrella of rights and just handouts is where I'm driving at. Health insurance sure, but I have yet to hear any Democratic candidate come up with a fair and sustainable solution of how we achieve that. College is not a right, hence the onace should not be on the tax payer. Community college, sure, there's an argument for that, but is community college really that expensive where its breaking people's backs?


'Onus' by the way. Like bonus.

Well the point of the Warren plan on college was that publicly funded universities should be free. State colleges, community colleges etc. Why should the public dollars be funding a for-profit education mill that is not accessible to all who qualify? If we want hard working poor people to bootstrap their way into the middle class, this seems like a smart way to do it.

(Leaving aside where the money goes to. If we bitch about welfare for a struggling mother who can't pay to feed their kid, why should we pay billions in welfare handouts for state universities to have bloated athletic departments? Where the NCAA makes billions in profit from uncompensated athletes but the public dollar funds the departments in the first place. Why not at least pay for her kid to have child care and her to get a scholarship to attend that public university for free. You've seen the eight figure salaries that coaches command on the public dollar. Why should we pay that instead of a stiped or scholarship for continuing education for the striving class?)

The fix is easy, have a flat tax, or at the very least, a 2 maybe 3 tier tax system where the deltas between the tiers are maybe 3%. is it really fair that a difference in income of $1000, hell even 5K, can put someone in the 22% threshold while the other still sits at 12? No, there shouldnt be these ridiculously imbalanced tiers that favor certain income brackets


But at least you agree that health insurance should be free, and so should possibly community colleges, and someone would need to pay for that.

The Warren plan pays for it by a 2% tax on billionaires and a 1% bump on people whose wealth is $50 million or higher. What you are proposing is the opposite, a reduction in taxes for the very very wealthy, and shifting the tax burden to poor people and the middle class. reasonable people can disagree on who and how. Seems to me smart to think that the upper tier can bear that burden a little better.

Would you cede that there are probably people who know how best to balance the ridiculously unbalanced tiers? Like what if it were a steadily graduated slope, so you wouldn't have a sudden jump from one tier to the next. I have been on that dividing line. Sure that sucks. OR WHAT IF economists looked at the tax scale and compared with with how money is spent and came to conclusions on what is a reasonable and fair way to make it work?

Because some very smart people have made it clear that in some cases the tax burden is proportionately heavier on those who can least afford it. And that your plan increases that burden significantly and makes the people who makst need help instead have to pay the most in real life terms, That at the highest levels people are not choosing between buying food for their kid and paying a light bill. Or eating and going to college.

Rich people tend to stay rich, poor people tend to stay poor. That's in the numbers. But this country built itself as an economic powerhouse when we had a growing middle class. Middle class people spend money instead of hoarding it, and that makes for more jobs in general. Start up businesses, homes bought and sold, etc. Seems to me we want programs that encourage people to make it to the middle class and stay there.

Education is a right for little kids, and high schoolers, but what is education for?

To prepare people for adult life. Right?

We do need educated adults, and in this economy things get more and more difficult and require higher levels of smarts to do whatever jobs the robots can't (yet) do. That's the only way to remain relevant on a global economy.

So as a civilization why would we want to fall behind other countries in educating our people? Schools that accept public money should be free for anyone who has the ability to do the work. Nobody is saying Harvard and Yale should be free. But why am I paying for the University of Maryland to have a team full of lacrosse douchebags? What are these entitled bros going to do with those killer LAX chops once they graduate and move on? I'm not watching a pro LAX league. They do nothing for me and their mummy and popop already have jobs lined up for them in investment firms when they graduate anyway. F them. I'd rather my money go to make sure a girl who has a biochemistry talent can afford her $700 text books so she can learn to grow new retinas in a nutrient rich fluid so I can have 20/20 vision and not have to lose reading glasses all the time. Right?

And AOC is the queen of self interest. She had a job that paid minimum wage because thats what it warrants with all due respect, yet she feels that job is entitled to more, and make no mistake she still has many friends in that field that she wants to hand these things out to.


It's not self interest to say: I've been there, I feel the pain. You yourself had a revelation that health insurance is critical, and it changed your opinion. AOC was blessed with smarts and good looks and passion and an opportunity that lifted her out of the minimum wage into the six figure career of public politics. And in looking around she sees how few people from the working class make it into power. So she says: these people are not being served by the political class the way corporate interests are. If Democracy means anything it is that We the People should have a say in how are lives are run. But right now politics serves Big Money first, since in general unless you get exceedingly lucky like her, you cannot get elected without making the giant corporate donors and lobbyist happy. They pay your election campaign and expect to have influence on policy. The average three job working schmoe has no input or say. He just votes for a candidate who someone else selected and said he gets to pick between.

I would suspect the policies that AOC would write or vote for would better benefit you the working guy compared to the politics as usual sort that the big money donors would give you to pick between. Like Hillary, say. Eff her. And Trump as well, may he feel the full weight of his actions when his karma comes around.

If I were you I'd look a little deeper into the actual policies proposed by these people instead of listening solely to conservative media. Or any media. Big corporations have a vested interest in you picking the wrong fight. You have good instincts to say someone is trying to screw me, but its not the people that they hold up as enemies of America.


Ha thanks for the onus remark, fat fingered that one badly, but good to know regardless

You know truth be told, you're convincing me on the education side. Perhaps it should be free for the reasons you've eloquently outlined. I can concede much of this.

Whether its a flat tax or a more structured, less tier tax approach, the higher incomes are going to pay more. By virtue of say 18% of 50 million being more than 18% of 50K. That's just the flat side, if you go the smaller tiered route, whatever have you, 20% of 50 million is still far more than 14% of 50K. A key piece is to eliminate the ridiculous loopholes so many take advantage of, that should be #1. Then, it should be to make it more fair to the middle class where they aren't paying a lion's share compared to others for services we all utilize. I get the argument about having to pick between paying a light bill or eating, but the middle class side shouldn't have to give up certain things they'd be otherwise able to afford, sure they may not be do or die necessities, but it's still money they've earned and worked for.

The AOC side we may still just agree to disagree. You have to give some people in this world, a kick in the pants, a motivating factor to strive to do more and be more, and increasing the wages in certain occupations that she is suggesting, just does not accomplish that, in fact it furthers the problem. We as a country would be at our best if we desire to be more and grab that brass ring, you won't accomplish that by raising the minimum wage for jobs that can be done by kiosks or phased out in other ways.
daoneandonly
General Manager
Posts: 8,177
And1: 1,255
Joined: May 27, 2004
Location: Masalaland
 

Re: Political Roundtable Part XXVI 

Post#1207 » by daoneandonly » Mon Sep 9, 2019 6:28 pm

dckingsfan wrote:
daoneandonly wrote:
dckingsfan wrote:So, if a women states they have been raped, don't want to be in the position of prosecuting the rapist (the messy part of the trial) then they should be able to get an abortion - no questions asked other than that one?

Of course you aren't (as stated previously). You will say, nope - she has to prove it. Yep, that will take more than a trimester.

And Zonk brings up a good point (as poorly as he could). What is the remedy for those getting an abortion? Jail? We already have had the failed prohibition, war on drugs, stupid on crime. You want to lock up a million or two women?

The problem with your argument is that there is no remedy. There is no intelligent way to enforce your "belief".

If they falsely accuse someone of rape, isn't that a crime? So if you have an abortion and it was proven without a shadow of a doubt you were not in fact raped, then hard time is indeed the answer. That's 2 crimes. if she was raped, lock that guy up for life and treat him like the animal he is.

Naturally you didn't answer any of the questions.

Q1: should be able to get an abortion - no questions asked other than that one (were you raped)?
Q2: What do we do with those that get an abortion (lock them up)?

And to Q1: What if she was raped but can't prove it within a reasonable doubt (the current standard of prosecution)?

You will obfuscate and not answer the questions. Because you don't have them. And that is the problem with your position(s).


Because I'm never going to be okay with a child being killed, you can call it obfuscating, but regardless of the situation, a baby being aborted is a sad situation. The 3 cases of rape, mother life in danger, baby's life in danger are horrific, no person should ever have to deal with it., and the woman in said case did nothing to put herself in that situation, it was a terrible curveball thrown right at her full force. The other, the whoops, which is probably 90% of abortions, is what I'll gladly get on a high horse and scream about, because it's about being accountable and owning your stuff.
daoneandonly
General Manager
Posts: 8,177
And1: 1,255
Joined: May 27, 2004
Location: Masalaland
 

Re: Political Roundtable Part XXVI 

Post#1208 » by daoneandonly » Mon Sep 9, 2019 6:33 pm

dobrojim
RealGM
Posts: 13,332
And1: 1,168
Joined: Sep 16, 2004

Re: Political Roundtable Part XXVI 

Post#1209 » by dobrojim » Mon Sep 9, 2019 9:36 pm

Just curious. It's not completely clear (to me), maybe because I tend to skim quickly through these
'discussions', that DA1 understands what the meaning or effect of marginal rates is.

https://taxfoundation.org/2019-tax-brackets

Using me, a married person, as an example -

the 1st $19.4K (after deductions) , I would pay 10% or $1940.

Beginning with the 19,401st dollar, I would begin to pay 12% on those dollars up to the next bracket, $78,950.
So if I was fortunate enough to surpass that dollar amount, that 12% on those dollars creates a liability of $7146
for a combined total of $9086. Note this is less than 12%, your marginal rate, of 78950, the high end of that bracket.

By going to another bracket, your income tax rate doesn't become the new rate for every dollar you made.

Parts or tiers of your income are taxed at different rates.

There are very good reasons for this as many have discussed here previously.

If you already understood all this, than I apologize for assuming less of you than I should have.
My possibly imperfect reading led me to question whether this is clear to you.
A lot of what we call 'thought' is just mental activity
Zonkerbl
Retired Mod
Retired Mod
Posts: 5,841
And1: 1,666
Joined: Mar 24, 2010
       

Re: Political Roundtable Part XXVI 

Post#1210 » by Zonkerbl » Mon Sep 9, 2019 11:24 pm

daoneandonly wrote:
dckingsfan wrote:
daoneandonly wrote:Again, I've constantly only brought up abortion in the case of an accidental pregnancy, not rape, or the life is in danger.

So, if a women states they have been raped, don't want to be in the position of prosecuting the rapist (the messy part of the trial) then they should be able to get an abortion - no questions asked other than that one?

Of course you aren't (as stated previously). You will say, nope - she has to prove it. Yep, that will take more than a trimester.

And Zonk brings up a good point (as poorly as he could). What is the remedy for those getting an abortion? Jail? We already have had the failed prohibition, war on drugs, stupid on crime. You want to lock up a million or two women?

The problem with your argument is that there is no remedy. There is no intelligent way to enforce your "belief".


If they falsely accuse someone of rape, isn't that a crime? So if you have an abortion and it was proven without a shadow of a doubt you were not in fact raped, then hard time is indeed the answer. That's 2 crimes. if she was raped, lock that guy up for life and treat him like the animal he is.


Lock her up. I could just tell you were a right wing extremist terrorist.
Comparing Rose to Wall is like asking which is a more impressive cat: A cheetah or a wolf? Dude, Wall ain’t no damn cat!
User avatar
FAH1223
RealGM
Posts: 10,856
And1: 3,780
Joined: Nov 01, 2005
Location: Laurel, MD
       

Re: Political Roundtable Part XXVI 

Post#1211 » by FAH1223 » Tue Sep 10, 2019 4:23 am

Read on Twitter

Read on Twitter

Read on Twitter

Read on Twitter
Image
Wizardspride
RealGM
Posts: 11,311
And1: 4,959
Joined: Nov 05, 2004
Location: Olney, MD/Kailua/Kaneohe, HI
Contact:
       

Re: Political Roundtable Part XXVI 

Post#1212 » by Wizardspride » Tue Sep 10, 2019 10:33 am

Read on Twitter
?s=19


Read on Twitter
?s=19
McCabe explains that Trump believed Putin over US intel about NK missiles: "Intel officials [told Trump his position] was not consistent with any of the intel our govt possesses. To which POTUS replied, 'I don't care. I believe Putin.'"
Wizardspride
RealGM
Posts: 11,311
And1: 4,959
Joined: Nov 05, 2004
Location: Olney, MD/Kailua/Kaneohe, HI
Contact:
       

Re: Political Roundtable Part XXVI 

Post#1213 » by Wizardspride » Tue Sep 10, 2019 10:38 am

Read on Twitter
?s=19
McCabe explains that Trump believed Putin over US intel about NK missiles: "Intel officials [told Trump his position] was not consistent with any of the intel our govt possesses. To which POTUS replied, 'I don't care. I believe Putin.'"
daoneandonly
General Manager
Posts: 8,177
And1: 1,255
Joined: May 27, 2004
Location: Masalaland
 

Re: Political Roundtable Part XXVI 

Post#1214 » by daoneandonly » Tue Sep 10, 2019 11:31 am

Zonkerbl wrote:
daoneandonly wrote:
dckingsfan wrote:So, if a women states they have been raped, don't want to be in the position of prosecuting the rapist (the messy part of the trial) then they should be able to get an abortion - no questions asked other than that one?

Of course you aren't (as stated previously). You will say, nope - she has to prove it. Yep, that will take more than a trimester.

And Zonk brings up a good point (as poorly as he could). What is the remedy for those getting an abortion? Jail? We already have had the failed prohibition, war on drugs, stupid on crime. You want to lock up a million or two women?

The problem with your argument is that there is no remedy. There is no intelligent way to enforce your "belief".


If they falsely accuse someone of rape, isn't that a crime? So if you have an abortion and it was proven without a shadow of a doubt you were not in fact raped, then hard time is indeed the answer. That's 2 crimes. if she was raped, lock that guy up for life and treat him like the animal he is.


Lock her up. I could just tell you were a right wing extremist terrorist.


Yeah let a false rape accusation go unpunished, that's the right way of handling things. But again, lets not be accountable for anything in this world.
daoneandonly
General Manager
Posts: 8,177
And1: 1,255
Joined: May 27, 2004
Location: Masalaland
 

Re: Political Roundtable Part XXVI 

Post#1215 » by daoneandonly » Tue Sep 10, 2019 11:38 am

dobrojim wrote:Just curious. It's not completely clear (to me), maybe because I tend to skim quickly through these
'discussions', that DA1 understands what the meaning or effect of marginal rates is.

https://taxfoundation.org/2019-tax-brackets

Using me, a married person, as an example -

the 1st $19.4K (after deductions) , I would pay 10% or $1940.

Beginning with the 19,401st dollar, I would begin to pay 12% on those dollars up to the next bracket, $78,950.
So if I was fortunate enough to surpass that dollar amount, that 12% on those dollars creates a liability of $7146
for a combined total of $9086. Note this is less than 12%, your marginal rate, of 78950, the high end of that bracket.

By going to another bracket, your income tax rate doesn't become the new rate for every dollar you made.

Parts or tiers of your income are taxed at different rates.

There are very good reasons for this as many have discussed here previously.

If you already understood all this, than I apologize for assuming less of you than I should have.
My possibly imperfect reading led me to question whether this is clear to you.


No apologies necessary, you said it in a respectful, upfront way. I respect you dob, you seem like good ppl, it's just a matter of seeing things differently politically, which we cans till be cordial, so thank you for doing so.

I just disagree that there are good reasons for having the structure we have, we shouldn't have a system in place where a fairly large amount of people are holding the bag and having to sacrifice and give up more of what they earned, for others in a different bracket. I understand the argument where doc and others have said a raise in taxes for the lower income could potentially mean having to choose between a light bill or dinner, but at the same time, the folks in the other bracket are still losing out. Sure it may not be the do or die like that example, but if I want to buy sometime extravagant for my kids to reward them for doing great in school, I shouldnt have to give that up because i lost a good amount of money in taxes that I otherwise would not have. They earned it, and I want to reward them as such. Or even moreso, what one has to pay in taxes in such a structure could be the difference between living in an area where someone's kids go to Wooten High School, or Gaithersburg High School.
Ruzious
Forum Mod
Forum Mod
Posts: 38,131
And1: 5,281
Joined: Jul 17, 2001
       

Re: Political Roundtable Part XXVI 

Post#1216 » by Ruzious » Tue Sep 10, 2019 1:30 pm

dobrojim wrote:Just curious. It's not completely clear (to me), maybe because I tend to skim quickly through these
'discussions', that DA1 understands what the meaning or effect of marginal rates is.

https://taxfoundation.org/2019-tax-brackets

Using me, a married person, as an example -

the 1st $19.4K (after deductions) , I would pay 10% or $1940.

Beginning with the 19,401st dollar, I would begin to pay 12% on those dollars up to the next bracket, $78,950.
So if I was fortunate enough to surpass that dollar amount, that 12% on those dollars creates a liability of $7146
for a combined total of $9086. Note this is less than 12%, your marginal rate, of 78950, the high end of that bracket.

By going to another bracket, your income tax rate doesn't become the new rate for every dollar you made.

Parts or tiers of your income are taxed at different rates.

There are very good reasons for this as many have discussed here previously.

If you already understood all this, than I apologize for assuming less of you than I should have.
My possibly imperfect reading led me to question whether this is clear to you.

I do taxes for a living and have found a significant number of clients didn't understand marginal rates. They're convinced that if they earn a dollar more into a higher bracket that all of their income is taxed at the higher rate. No folks, only the dollar(s) you earned into the next bracket are taxed at the higher rate. Every time I've tried explaining that - it's taken several attempts before that concept clicks with them - and these are generally bright people, but they had the wrong idea etched in their brain for so long that it's not easy for them to accept they had a misconception.
"Look, you never know when you may need to borrow a cup of sugar, maybe some milk or a handgun" - Dan C. from Texas
daoneandonly
General Manager
Posts: 8,177
And1: 1,255
Joined: May 27, 2004
Location: Masalaland
 

Re: Political Roundtable Part XXVI 

Post#1217 » by daoneandonly » Tue Sep 10, 2019 1:35 pm

Ruzious wrote:
dobrojim wrote:Just curious. It's not completely clear (to me), maybe because I tend to skim quickly through these
'discussions', that DA1 understands what the meaning or effect of marginal rates is.

https://taxfoundation.org/2019-tax-brackets

Using me, a married person, as an example -

the 1st $19.4K (after deductions) , I would pay 10% or $1940.

Beginning with the 19,401st dollar, I would begin to pay 12% on those dollars up to the next bracket, $78,950.
So if I was fortunate enough to surpass that dollar amount, that 12% on those dollars creates a liability of $7146
for a combined total of $9086. Note this is less than 12%, your marginal rate, of 78950, the high end of that bracket.

By going to another bracket, your income tax rate doesn't become the new rate for every dollar you made.

Parts or tiers of your income are taxed at different rates.

There are very good reasons for this as many have discussed here previously.

If you already understood all this, than I apologize for assuming less of you than I should have.
My possibly imperfect reading led me to question whether this is clear to you.

I do taxes for a living and have found a significant number of clients didn't understand marginal rates. They're convinced that if they earn a dollar more into a higher bracket that all of their income is taxed at the higher rate. No folks, only the dollar(s) you earned into the next bracket are taxed at the higher rate. Every time I've tried explaining that - it's taken several attempts before that concept clicks with them.


I didn't know that was your field, interesting. Curious to get your take though, do you think its fair though? To be taxed those dollars at a higher rate? In your opinion, is there a better alternative?
dobrojim
RealGM
Posts: 13,332
And1: 1,168
Joined: Sep 16, 2004

Re: Political Roundtable Part XXVI 

Post#1218 » by dobrojim » Tue Sep 10, 2019 1:58 pm

Wizardspride wrote:
Read on Twitter
?s=19


Read on Twitter
?s=19


But because of emails, HRC couldn't be trusted to protect secrets.
It's so hard to convince someone when they already believe they know different.
A lot of what we call 'thought' is just mental activity
User avatar
Jamaaliver
RealGM 2018 NCAA Tourney Challenge Champ
Posts: 21,663
And1: 7,394
Joined: Sep 22, 2005
Location: Officially a citizen of the World...
Contact:
     

Re: Political Roundtable Part XXVI 

Post#1219 » by Jamaaliver » Tue Sep 10, 2019 2:26 pm

Six in 10 Americans expect a recession and higher prices as Trump’s approval rating slips, Washington Post-ABC News poll finds

President Trump is ending a tumultuous summer with his approval rating slipping back from a July high as Americans express widespread concern about the trade war with China and a majority of voters now expect a recession within the next year, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll.


Image

Image

Image
Washington Post
Pointgod
General Manager
Posts: 7,828
And1: 7,559
Joined: Jun 28, 2014

Re: Political Roundtable Part XXVI 

Post#1220 » by Pointgod » Tue Sep 10, 2019 2:51 pm

Wizardspride wrote:
Read on Twitter
?s=19


Read on Twitter
?s=19


This is legit insane. Read that again. CIA pulled a spy high up in the Russian government because they couldn’t trust the President of the United States. Crazy times we live in.

Return to Washington Wizards