I Am Bored

Loads of viral videos, games, memes, lists and social networking for when you're bored. Updated every day, so visit often.
LatestPopularMost BookmarkedMost EmailedTop RatedMy FavoritesRandomChat
AllGamesFunnyEntertainmentQuizzesWeirdTechLifestyle, Arts & Lit.News & PoliticsScienceSportsMisc
Submit Content  





rss

friendsmore friends | add your site
Asylum

Holy Taco

Funny Videos

BuzzFeed

NothingToxic

Oddee

Mousebreaker

Online Games

Eat Liver

Online Games

Gorilla Mask

Full Downloads

Norway Games

Damn Cool Pics

Kontraband

Extreme Humor

X Hollywood

I Dont Like You

123 Games

Hollywoodtuna

Funny Games

Cool Stuff

Viva La Games

X - Vids

Smit Happens

Funny Videos

Funny Stuff

ebaumsworld



Back to Listing

Here's Why You Can Stop Trying To Get Richer

Hits: 6071 | Rating: (2.7) | Category: News & Politics | Added by: CaptKangaroo
Page: 13 4 5 6 7 Next >   Jump to: Bottom    Last Post
richanddead
Male, 18-29, Eastern US
 1831 Posts
Monday, August 05, 2013 11:17:09 AM
(cont)
link

link

link

link

...not a denialist websites among them and all peer reviewed. You know just looking at the citation on the graph or the sources I provided you would have revealed this. Maybe you should refine you reverse google search or maybe you should look at the validity of data rather than simply who wants to show it and if it supports your case.

richanddead
Male, 18-29, Eastern US
 1831 Posts
Monday, August 05, 2013 11:12:45 AM
(cont)
And here is the 9 article it was cited in, in 2013 alone. (keep in mind over the 12 years it was cited in dozens and dozens of studies, but if you need those cited as well just ask.)
link

link

link

link

link

richanddead
Male, 18-29, Eastern US
 1831 Posts
Monday, August 05, 2013 11:06:57 AM
link

link

link

link

link

richanddead
Male, 18-29, Eastern US
 1831 Posts
Monday, July 01, 2013 4:24:11 PM
"you can't start blaming it now for insurer's greed."
Your right I can't I can blame it on the fact that because the insurance companies have to take on 25 million new people with preexisting conditions and they need to have enough money to cover them and their trips to the hospitals it will raise the cost and also to offset the cost so that lower income brackets can enter in as well. And yes they were increasing but only because of inflation and other procedures the government told them they had to take on. Even the CBO has linked these increases to the new healthcare plan.
link

"More medical misadventures"? Huh?"
link

richanddead
Male, 18-29, Eastern US
 1831 Posts
Monday, July 01, 2013 3:46:54 PM
Also preventive care does not save any money like Obama and the dems love to lie about. Politifact.com and even the NY Times thoroughly dispelled this belief. Although Obama still flagrant lies that it does, like in his speech on Feb. 10, 2012.
link

"more than $200 billion in deficit reductions"

Sorry to break it to you, but just because it was in the CBO doesn't make it real, as I have already discussed. Although it wasn't the CBO's fault, it's because some provisions of the law may not end up being implemented because 15 percent of hospitals and other such providers would become unprofitable if they were. Factcheck.org looked into it and found that claim to be unrealist.
richanddead
Male, 18-29, Eastern US
 1831 Posts
Monday, July 01, 2013 3:46:37 PM
"price of a trillion dollars" is a bit disingenuous. The $1.1 trillion estimate is over ten years"

So if I pay for a BMW that costs $100,000 over ten years, you're saying I'm not spending $100,000? A trillion is a trillion no matter how you sugar coat it, and its a trillion we don't have on top of it. Don't blow smoke up my ass.

"you don't mention the tens of billions each year in reduced healthcare spending"
No that was on purpose, because there is no savings. Unlike the Department of Veterans Affairs, Medicare can not negotiate drug prices although Obama promised to end the "prohibition on Medicare negotiating." As an example, the VA pays as little as $191.16 for a year's supply of Zocor 20 mg, while the Medicare pays at minimum $1,485.96 and up to $1,693.92 on Part D plans.link

richanddead
Male, 18-29, Eastern US
 1831 Posts
Monday, July 01, 2013 3:46:26 PM
(cont)

"they are choosing to disobey the law"
No they are not, although you may want to believe they are to satisfy your own bias. The penalty is not a sentence for a crime, it is a tax, just as the white house said it was to the SCOTUS but had lied to the public by promising it wasn't.

"by foisting their health expenses on the rest of us."
Thats not their fault, the democrats worded their legislation so that this was the effect. Maybe next time they should read what they are signing if they don't like the results. Next time don't foist legislation on them and they won't foist their debt on you.

"more people will have true healthcare instead of using subsidized emergency room visits"
Exactly where do you think the money is coming from for these extra people? The 25 million are being subsidized by everyone elses rise in premiums and taxes. The money didn't just appear out of thin air.

richanddead
Male, 18-29, Eastern US
 1831 Posts
Monday, July 01, 2013 3:46:20 PM
@chalket:
"it says nothing about them continuing to rise."
It didn't say it was going to rise in 2010 but it still did

"15% of it is basically ass-hat Republican governors refusing to play the game."

Firstly it is not a game, secondly it is their constitutional right to do so, that the democrats tried to infringe upon. Thirdly, what did you expect when democrats took no interest in seeking any bipartisan approach or even reading what they were voting on. Fourth, republicans shouldn't it financially irresponsible and an inefficient way to create jobs. More than half a dozen states may join the 21 already opting out after the 2014 and 2016 elections.

"average penalty of $312. That, to me, is not too much of a hardship"
Nice to be you, but thats over a weeks pay to a person on MW. It goes up to $7B in 2016 and will be a minimum penalty of $695 per person and up to 3-times that per family. After 2016, these amounts will

richanddead
Male, 18-29, Eastern US
 1831 Posts
Monday, March 18, 2013 4:45:59 AM
@alltagstod: The region of declining revenue includes corruption in its construct and never states that even at optimum levels that corruption vanishes, merely that it becomes far less prominent, this spans all income brackets too not simply the rich, anyone can cheat on their taxes rich, middle class, or poor.
Secondly, it does not correlate to any of the fallacies of logic since it is based on deductive reasoning and empirical data. Which fallacy did you believe it was by the way?
Even if you did tax the rich more because you dislike this, your revenue produced will continue to fall. The gov. will take in less money then it is presently and as taxes increase so will the amounts corruption.
Everyone, not simply the rich, hopes to save their own money, including Warren Buffet. If a person wishes to give everything they own away, they are an outlier and not statistically relevant. It is even considered a sign of mental illness according to the DSM.

alltagstod
Male, 18-29, Southern US
 20 Posts
Sunday, March 17, 2013 10:30:17 AM
@richanddead
The rich already hide their money, so your "region of declining revenue" is a fallacy. People with money will always look for ways to not part with that money, especially where the government is concerned(exceptions made for Warren Buffet and the like). SO in fact, since the rich already are hiding their money, we might as well go for a hiked up tax rate on them anyways.

AvatarJohn
Male, 30-39, Southern US
 997 Posts
Friday, March 15, 2013 7:10:17 AM
Richanddead, we're just to the right of point C.

Can we just tax Robert Reichhhhhhhhhhh's vast wealth about 99.9%?

5Cats
Male, 50-59, Canada
 24890 Posts
Thursday, March 14, 2013 3:05:48 PM
Funny thing: I was watching BBC World News today, and they reported on how the "disparity between the very rich and the very poor" is a big problem... in China!

But bash away at the USA! It's been a "problem" since the dawn of humanity.

richanddead
Male, 18-29, Eastern US
 1831 Posts
Thursday, March 14, 2013 1:08:11 PM
as I said before,

Taxation and revenues are a clinically defined mathematical sum based on thousands of years of market study, not a generalized feeling of quality like "fairness" or "what should be". I understand the argument but it isn't reasonable, it would hurt more people than it helped.

richanddead
Male, 18-29, Eastern US
 1831 Posts
Thursday, March 14, 2013 12:17:10 PM
"but it can't afford to take a HIGH LEVEL INCOME based tax cost."

@klaxor: ok I'm back but doing some home repairs, so I won't be able to answer as fast as before.

In regards to your questions about income tax, as you tax higher amounts of personal income, despite if it be from rich or middle class. After a certain point the total revenues from the tax begin to decrease, its known as the "region of declining revenue." It's occurs because of more incentive traps, demotivation, corruption, and increasing inefficiencies as income taxes increase.
In essence, in a non-extreme example, if you had 100 people at a tax of $10 a day you make $1000 a day in revenue. If you increase it to $50 a day, some people will leave or give up, some will hide their money, some choose other forms of payment, ect. Then you end up with say 17 people who fill the void and still pay the $50 tax. Yet now your only making $850 in revenues. It's an opportunity cost of $150

richanddead
Male, 18-29, Eastern US
 1831 Posts
Thursday, March 14, 2013 12:12:06 PM


5Cats
Male, 50-59, Canada
 24890 Posts
Thursday, March 14, 2013 12:08:35 PM
How is a CEO making less money a cost to the company. Hell, it frees up more funds.

@klaxor: How does "taxing a CEO" free up money for a company? You wonder if I can read? lolz! Srsly dude...
Speaking of "ignorant asses who spew pseudo-economic bullpooe" do you have the faintest idea what "predatory pricing" is?
You charge a low-low price, steal customers, drive the cometition out of business, gaining a "monopoly". Then... you RAISE prices and make lots of money! There's no more competition, so consumers have NO CHOICE but to pay!
Basic. Economic. Priciples. You seem to not understand a single one of them.

@HumanAction: You're correct! @klaxor seems to have trouble understanding ANY of this!
ESPECIALLY: That R.Reich is asking for a tax on WEALTH, NOT INCOME!! Get the two straight before replying, k-thx!

HumanAction
Male, 18-29, Midwest US
 2353 Posts
Thursday, March 14, 2013 11:16:21 AM
The reason that they don't is b/c their prices are all as low as they can be.

Thus, if your $5/dildo tax was levied against all of them, which do you suppose would be able to keep selling dildos at the lowest price? It would still be Walmart. Additionally, more people would buy their dildos from Walmart and these other retailers may stop selling dildos entirely. So, your dildo tax has actually led to a pseudo-monopoly.

If the CEO a smaller company makes 500k, and there's a tax on CEO's that make over 2 million, then why would he raise his prices to offset a tax that doesn't affect him?

What does this have to do with taxing dildos? I don't understand how you've considered this to be a reasonable defense to your suggested $5/dildo tax.

It would appear that you should attempt to read more precisely as the may assist you in staying on topic.

HumanAction
Male, 18-29, Midwest US
 2353 Posts
Thursday, March 14, 2013 11:11:30 AM
@klaxor

Jeez, someone else who can't read.

Really? Are you sure this is the road you want to go down? You offered a hypothetical situation based on an absurd assumption in a pathetic attempt to validate your argument. What's more, you vainly attempted to relate it to a free market system.

I'm sorry your feelings were hurt that I called you out for your bullsh*t. That being said, your argument was still bullsh*t.

Kmart, Target, Bestbuy, Costco

So, in your attempt to disprove my statement that corporate taxation leads to the growth of corporations, you offer a variety of corporations that could benefit? Do you see why I would have an issue with this logic?

So yea, Walmart can take a SALES tax cost, but it can't afford to take a HIGH LEVEL INCOME based tax cost.

We were discussing you $5/dildo tax. That is a sales tax, not an income tax.

klaxor
Male, 18-29, Western US
 647 Posts
Thursday, March 14, 2013 10:59:45 AM
@HumanAction - Jeez, someone else who can't read.

First of all, there's more than one corporation willing to sell cheap chinese goods other than Walmart. Kmart, Target, Bestbuy, Costco and many others are willing to undercut Walmarts prices if given the chance. The reason that they don't is b/c their prices are all as low as they can be.

The CEO's of smaller companies most likely make less than those of bigger companies. If the CEO a smaller company makes 500k, and there's a tax on CEO's that make over 2 million, then why would he raise his prices to offset a tax that doesn't affect him? He won't. And if he doesn't, why would Walmart? They can't. Not without risking the loss of customers.

So yea, Walmart can take a SALES tax cost, but it can't afford to take a HIGH LEVEL INCOME based tax cost.

HumanAction
Male, 18-29, Midwest US
 2353 Posts
Thursday, March 14, 2013 10:33:09 AM
@klaxor

His neighbor will steal his customers, and the guy will be even worse off than before.

This assumes that the "neighbor" is more efficient than the original seller. The problem, of course, is that the most efficient entities tend to be large corporations as they typically enjoy a much lower cost per unit output.

With this in mind, we find that large corporations tend to be the entities that can absorb such costs as tax increases; as such, they are more capable of shielding consumers from price increases than smaller competitors. Inevitably, consumers will migrate to the lower priced product (See: Walmart).

Corporate taxes, in any form, assist in the creation of corporations. They do not punish or spread the wealth of corporations. Rather, they remove potential competition from the market and accelerate the formation of pseudo-monopolies.

klaxor
Male, 18-29, Western US
 647 Posts
Thursday, March 14, 2013 9:56:45 AM
"It's just that the worst idea ever is to let the government have more money. "
- Except for the fact that govt has run a huge deficit that they have to pay back if they ever want to be able to borrow money again.

"I am dumb cause I think the problem isn't how much taxes will bring in but in the deregulation of the stock market"

- Those two are kind of connected. Low regulation requires low taxes.

klaxor
Male, 18-29, Western US
 647 Posts
Thursday, March 14, 2013 9:50:35 AM
"Can someone explain where all that money they lost went to?"

- Depends on what money you're talking about. In terms of the housing crash, people were selling each other other people's debt. The problem came when people couldn't pay back that debt. They declared bankruptcy and the debt was cancelled, which is fine for the bank, b/c they get a really expensive house as collateral, which they can sell. But, when there are a lot of expensive houses that nobody wants/can buy, then they are no longer that expensive, and the money invested in it is lost.

It's like hot potato, where a bunch of people bet on one guy, and if that guy loses, they lose their money, and the guy says "well, you shouldn't have bet on me.

klaxor
Male, 18-29, Western US
 647 Posts
Thursday, March 14, 2013 9:35:26 AM
" Oh, I guess you are scared. Poor bunny! "

- I'm scared of ignorant asses who spew pseudo-economic bullpooe that they pick up from other ignorant asses who spew pseudo-economic bullpooe.

It's like a human centipede of dumbass. And, just like in the movie, it's the middle class that ends up eating all the pooe

klaxor
Male, 18-29, Western US
 647 Posts
Thursday, March 14, 2013 9:28:14 AM
@5cats - Manufacturing jobs move b/c of taxes on "production".

SO, if you impose a $5 tax on dildo's, then yes, the cost of dildo's will go up by $5. But, if you tax the guy who makes dildo's by 5%, and he decides to raise the price by 5%, his
neighbor down the street may keep the prices where they are.

His neighbor will steal his customers, and the guy will be even worse off than before.

"O'really? Then just how did they get those multi-million dollar paycheques with multi-million dollar bonuses every year"

- Either, the company is doing well, they lie about how the company is doing, the bonuses are written into their contract, or they just don't tell anyone how much they actually get paid (lack of regulation).

"If the company makes less money (ie: does NOT pass the cost to the consumer)" - How is a CEO making less money a cost to the company. Hell, it frees up more funds.

5Cats
Male, 50-59, Canada
 24890 Posts
Thursday, March 14, 2013 7:57:12 AM
We're not talking about foreign companies

@klaxor: What do you imagine they are after they move? srsly. And where do these "outsourced jobs" goto? Where do they make "Levi Jeans" now? China. Is Levi still an "American Company"? Yes, but the bulk of it's workers are not. It wouldn't take much for them to move the rest of their infrastructure "offshore" as well, and yes the shareholders would support more profits, duh!

I gotta go to bed people..good night, sleep tight, don't let the keynesians bite, lol.

@richanddead: You are far more patient and polite than I am!
That "IAB thing" is from the character counter: the number of characters inside your link isn't counted, but does drive you over 1000, which causes that "eats the post below it" effect. (when you end on a link)

Page: 13 4 5 6 7 Next > 

You Must be Signed in to Add a Comment

If you've already got an I-Am-Bored.com account,
click here to sign in.

If you don't have an account yet,
Click Here to Create a Free Account
 

Back to Listing ^top


Bored | Suggest a Link | Advertise | Contact I Am Bored | About I Am Bored | Link to I Am Bored | Live Submission | Privacy | TOS | Ad Choices | Copyright Policy |
© 2014 Demand Media, Inc. All rights reserved.