Ambrosia Software Web Board: Who will win? - Ambrosia Software Web Board

"Huge" being relative. I mean, $50 would be worth a lot more to your family than $5000 would to a multi-millionaire. The rich got more numberwise.

Though the small business thing was dunno...a mess?

He only gave tax cuts to the rich in the sense that a vast amount of money went to the rich. Now, this makes sense in a way because they pay more to begin with. However, rich people do not need money back, the poor do. Plus, the tax cuts could take money from social programs that benefit the poor, so they get even less in net.

I don't care who you are or how much money you make, having the government come by and confiscate over fifty percent of your yearly income hurts, and, as far as I'm concerned, you should recieve a tax cut at least on the same scale as everyone else receives.

When you really get down to it, we're all, for the most part, making more money than we actually need to survive and very few of us actually need tax cuts. There is a fellow down here named Don Schrader who has lived comfortably on under $4,000 per year for well over the past twenty years. He maintains, and he has a point, that even folks making $13,776 per year (what I stand to make next year, pre-taxes, working part time) simply don't need that much money to survive on and, thus, should be taxed even more heavily, much less those who make something entirely obscene (in his view) like $143,000/yr (what our piece of the family business stands to make next year). I certainly don't agree with this, and I'm sure that few of you would also, but I think that you can see where I'm going with this. Everything is relative; as a whole, we Americans really can't conceive of living comfortably on anything less than, say, the average of our past five years' incomes and everybody, regardless of income or wealth, feels that he/she is entitled to receiving a tax break, but, as Mr. Schroder often points out to us while standing naked out in front of the UNM Bookstore, none of us are when viewed from below.

-Pufer

This post has been edited by Pufer: 15 April 2007 - 12:12 AM

Let me guess, he lives with his mom, has no car, and has no wife or kids to support? That certainly would make it easy to live on a $4,000 a year income. I cannot see any place that would cost less than a very bare minimum of $1,500 a year to live in, and that would be the worst of the worst. Car insurance would cost at least about $700 a year at the minimum, and food expenses would be at least $800 a year, and thats if you only spend $15 a week on food. That leaves $1000 for taxes, clothes, shoes accessories such as tooth brushes and soap, and for other unforseeable things. I don't think it is realistic at all.

Unless you don't have a car.

But I don't think anyone was taxed at 50%, under Clinton the rich were something like 33%.

By the way Jambo, what is your icon?

Read my signature it explains it. He is actually a blood splattered clown and I actually found it on the google picture search. That thing is awesome it finds some really odd pictures.

This post has been edited by Jambo: 20 November 2004 - 10:10 PM

Avatara, on Nov 20 2004, 12:43 AM, said:

We got 2,000 back.

Jambo, on Nov 20 2004, 02:49 PM, said:

You're close, but he does live on his own, he's roughly 50, and is gay (so, yes, no kids or wife to support). He grows a lot of his own food (he's a raw-food vegetarian anyway, certainly costing under $15/week, if not under $1/week), walks everywhere (no car payment/insurance/gas, and seriously, I'm not paying all that much more than $700 a month for insurance and I'm a male under 25, my parents each pay well under $500 for full coverage, and NM has really high insurance rates), is a nudist (no clothing costs, not really realistic, but I seriously doubt that I've spent even $100 on clothing this year until this point, so I'm doing this completely unintentionally), and the government will pay for medical care should he ever need any. He also pays no taxes as he doesn't have enough income to qualify for income taxation and doesn't purchase anything from any stores so not even any sales tax.

Avatara, on Nov 20 2004, 03:33 PM, said:

Then toss in the 8-12.9% (TX rate-NY rate) for state taxes, plus sales taxes, property taxes, luxury taxes, gas taxes, tobacco taxes if they smoke, GRT's, etc. and you exceed 50% rather easily.

-Pufer

This post has been edited by Pufer: 15 April 2007 - 12:13 AM

The thing is, not everyone has his lifestyle. It is extremly unrealistic of him to expect that of everyone.

I don't think he expects that of anyone. That was just an example.

Thank you µ.

-Pufer

Mmmmm-hmmmm.

I'm actually willing to hear arguments in favour of a flat tax, so long as the first (insert amount of money required to support you and your dependants here) isn't taxable. Progressive taxation is an ideal and a necessity, but there could certainly be simpler ways to accomplish it; ways which make it harder to slip a thousand loopholes into the tax code for the wealthy to exploit.

Pufer, on Nov 22 2004, 05:53 AM, said:

Anytime.