Three card monte or tax plan?

[Damn True]

Hello socialism.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-05-31-taxing-rich_x.htm

[Changleen]

Oh No! The ultra-rich asked to give something back? Surely not!

:drool:

This is what everyone else in the world does. It's a good idea.

[Damn True]

Punish sucess and reward mediocrity. Yeah, good idea Mr. Marx.

The idea here (unlike in some other countries) is to create opportunity for sucess and reward those who work hardest to achieve it.

[Ciaran]

Punish sucess and reward mediocrity. Yeah, good idea Mr. Marx.

The idea here (unlike in some other countries) is to create opportunity for sucess and reward those who work hardest to achieve it.
Because in a capitalist nation the idea of SHARING is taboo. Which is really sad. The idea of "why should I have to help someone else!? I earned the money, therefore I don't have to share it." is very sad. Well, of course you don't have to share, but you should. Why? Because you can.

Maybe we should start taxing big business more, instead of just the individuals? Maybe not, I don't know anything about finance or business... But I do know this: when you see a person who is hungry, you feed them. Period. Anything less is inhumane.

[Damn True]

What we are talking about here is redistribution of wealth. Essentially taking from people who have earned and giving it to those who have not. Again, punishing sucess and rewarding medicority.
The whole thing smacks of the liberal bent for creating a society dependant upon the government for support. Nothing but the work of lazy, jealous whiners with an overdeveloped sense of entitlement.

The "rich" give a lot more than you'd think.
http://www.twfound.org/
http://barrybonds.mlb.com/players/bonds_barry/about/foundation.html
http://www.ellisonfoundation.org/index.jsp
http://www.gatesfoundation.org/default.htm
http://www.carveracademy.com/public/carver.nsf/generalcontent/SWBV-62WRT6?opendocument

[Toshi]

Punish sucess and reward mediocrity. Yeah, good idea Mr. Marx.

The idea here (unlike in some other countries) is to create opportunity for sucess and reward those who work hardest to achieve it.
the secret of the u.s.: you can't make money without having money to begin with. if you don't have money to spare for college application fees, a suit for that important interview, whatever, then you get the shaft and remain in the lower class. another thing going against your simplistic worldview is that once above a certain threshold of wealth, let's say several million, then one can live off the dividends. that's not doing work, let alone hard work, and people who live like that should indeed shoulder the brunt of the tax burden (as they do), and, by extension, social security.

[Damn True]

the secret of the u.s.: you can't make money without having money to begin with. if you don't have money to spare for college application fees, a suit for that important interview, whatever, then you get the shaft and remain in the lower class.

Bull$hit. The secret to the U.S. is not to listen to people (like you) who would have you believe that there is some sort of barrier to sucess based on social class. That people who are poor will remain poor unless someone who isn't poor tosses them a handout.

People emigrate to this country all the time without a freakin dime to their name and manage to create lives for themselves and build wealth without a freakin handout.

I grew up in a single parent household, a latchkey kid from the 3rd grade and mom never made more than about $15k per year. Doomed to a life of poverty and entry level jobs right? Wrong. Joined the military (I know your ilk hates the idea of that) learned a number of life and professional skills and now make more money than anyone in my family ever has. Why? Because I worked my a$$ off. Graduated from HS, went to college when I could and did it myself without a freakin handout.

This country is full of stories about people who have done far more and come from far more meager means than I. Of course talking about that wouldn't support the socialistic bull$hit the posted article and some of you suggest.

[Silver]

Haha...you did it all without a handout, but you spent time in the most socialistic organization this country has to offer.

This country is full of stories about people who have done far more and come from far more meager means than I.

You lazy asshole.

[valve bouncer]

Haha...you did it all without a handout, but you spent time in the most socialistic organization this country has to offer.

This country is full of stories about people who have done far more and come from far more meager means than I.

You lazy asshole.
Bwahahaha :stupid:

[Toshi]

That people who are poor will remain poor unless someone who isn't poor tosses them a handout.
sentence fragment aside, what's your point? you made it from the poverty line to a middle class existence, a jump of maybe $60k annually at the price of much self-professed hard work. why then do you defend so vehemently fat cats who live off of trust funds orders of magnitude greater than your lifetime earning potential?

and Silver has a great point: the GI Bill and other join-the-military incentives are socialism at its finest.

[Damn True]

Haha...you did it all without a handout, but you spent time in the most socialistic organization this country has to offer.

This country is full of stories about people who have done far more and come from far more meager means than I.

You lazy asshole.

You have no idea what you are talking about.

I was in the CG for eleven years. It was a job, unlike any other. With the proceeds from that job I paid, in cash, for the education of my now ex-wife and for my own education.

What part of your VAST experience with the US military leads you to believe it is a socialist organization?

You work. You get paid. If you are good at your job and work hard you get promoted and therefore you get paid more. Seems exactly the same as my current situation in the private sector.

[Changleen]

You work. You get paid. If you are good at your job and work hard you get promoted and therefore you get paid more. Seems exactly the same as my current situation in the private sector.And where does the money that pays your wages come from?

[Toshi]

and you didn't use the GI bill or equivalent?

here's another question: do you think it's easier to move from growing up in a $100k household to making $200k yourself than to grow up in poverty and end up making $100k? as Brian HCM #1 says elsewhere $500k isn't a lot of money in some places (such as the cali housing market), and that kind of scratch doesn't come easily to most, even if they work as hard as they can.

[Damn True]

sentence fragment aside, what's your point? you made it from the poverty line to a middle class existence, a jump of maybe $60k annually at the price of much self-professed hard work. why then do you defend so vehemently fat cats who live off of trust funds orders of magnitude greater than your lifetime earning potential?

and Silver has a great point: the GI Bill and other join-the-military incentives are socialism at its finest.

Because I have exactly the same opportunity to become among the group you call "fat cats" (tell me you aren't striving to get there too Mr. Harvard). If we as a society punish those who achieve we take away the incentive to do so. The result will be a society of self entitled boobs who think that someone else owes them a living rather than people who want to create it for themselves.

Jobs and Wozniak didn't have two dimes to rub together when they dreamed up Apple.

There were no "join the military" incentives for the Coast Guard in 1988. Never have been, they've never needed them. As for the GI Bill, yeah, I signed up for it.
But again....you don't freakin know what you are talking about. You can't use it while on active duty. I have yet to use it. I might someday but as yet, I have not needed to.

[Damn True]

and you didn't use the GI bill or equivalent?

here's another question: do you think it's easier to move from growing up in a $100k household to making $200k yourself than to grow up in poverty and end up making $100k? as Brian HCM #1 says elsewhere $500k isn't a lot of money in some places (such as the cali housing market), and that kind of scratch doesn't come easily to most, even if they work as hard as they can.

No. I paid for every class in cash directly from my paycheck. I have yet to touch the GI Bill. Have yet to graduate either...hasn't slowed me down a bit.

As for your second question, I dunno, you tell me? I'm guessing Mr. & Mrs. Toshi are doing pretty well if they put their sweet boy through Harvard. How's that workin out for ya?

I currently live in the same county I grew up in. When I was a kid (6yrs old in '76) homes in the area I live in went for about $50k. My folks bought the house we lived in for about $35k. Before the end of the year I will be living in one that will close at just shy of $1M.

[Damn True]

Again, the simple fact is this:
If we as a society punish those who achieve we take away the incentive to do so. The result will be a society of self entitled boobs who think that someone else owes them a living rather than people who want to create it for themselves.

[Changleen]

Can you really only see in black and white? What's it like?

Look, your nothion of 'punishing' the rich for doing well is ludicrous. It's not like you're taking away all their wealth, forcing them to walk over hot coals or sending them to Abu-Ghirab. You're taking a small percentage of a hell of a lot of money to help the rest of the country. Following your extremist logic, there'd be no roads, no schools, no waste collection. Everyone would be forced to 'pay' for their own facilities. Although you're too blind to see it, helping the disadvantaged is helping the country. When these disadvanted people earn more money, they can spend more, and the fat cats and leaders of industry who gave a tiny percentage of their wage to help them out in the first place will reap the benefits once again. The cycle will perpetuate and everyone will get richer and have a better quality of life. "What go around come around." Try thinking more than 30 seconds ahead for a change.

[Damn True]

You folks have managed to steer this thing way off topic and this is only going to make it worse, but:

At what point did things change? 50-100 years ago we as a society regarded people like Ford, Hearst, Getty, etc as hero's. People who built empires created entire industries and shaped the world because of their hard work. In return they became wealthy and we honored that.
Now we vilify it. I think at some point laziness and greed took over. People saw the things that those people had and not only wanted them, but thought they DESERVED them. Regardless of what ability they had or how much or how little they worked to earn it.

It has become far too common for people to say "Well he has so much, he should just give it away." Bull$hit.
Chang, you refered to it as a "small percentage". We are talking about a tax rate in exess of 60-70 percent. Do a little math here. How would you like to give up 70% of YOUR paycheck every month? Would that be a small percentage to you? Hell no. You earned that money, you deserve to keep as much of it as possible (IMO I think everyone should pay taxes commensurate to what they earn, there should be a flat tax for everyone). Should Tiger Woods not be afforded the same opportunity to keep the majority of what he has earned just as I am?

[Damn True]

BTW, most of you clearly did not read the entire article. The connundrum presented by doing this is illustrated below, and is the reason why I used the term "three card monte" in the thread title.

Invitation to tax dodging?

Imposing the Social Security tax on the ultra-rich would push the nation's top federal tax rate from the current 37.9% to 50.3% — and near 60% in California and other high-tax states. The top federal income tax rate is 35%. The Medicare tax is 2.9% on all income.

This would reverse the economic revolution of the Reagan era that lowered top tax rates to stimulate the economy by encouraging investment and work while reducing tax-dodging.

Some economists warn that high tax rates could devastate economic growth, even if they make Social Security richer. "High marginal rates drag the economy down and result in massive tax avoidance," says Florida State University economist James Gwartney, co-author of Common Sense Economics.

With so much money at stake, the tax would be dodged. "The rats would come out of the basement with all kinds of tax strategies to reclassify salary as another type of income," says Paul Caron, a tax law professor at the University of Cincinnati.

For example, a surgeon earning $1 million might direct his earnings to a corporation he owns. He'd pay himself a $200,000 salary and classify $800,000 as dividends.

But Social Security can be a tough tax to dodge because it is a pure flat tax, skimmed off the top before deductions. It applies to all income earned for services rendered, so its reach is extremely broad, covering endorsements and bonuses.

Caron says athletes would have a hard time avoiding the tax. "A sport that has a salary cap will have a hard time saying it's not paying salaries," he says.

Even if an athlete couldn't elude the Social Security tax, the high tax rate would create a greater incentive to dodge regular income taxes. While Social Security might collect more, "the federal government, as a whole, will collect less money if the top marginal rates return to 60% or 70%," as they were as recently as 1981, Gwartney says.

For example, a professional athlete might spend $1 million on a fancy gymnasium, a deductible business expense, to avoid paying $500,000 in federal and state taxes at a 50% rate.

"You're just inviting people to evade taxes," says Dean Baker, a Social Security expert of the liberal Center for Economic Policy Research. "It's counterproductive and you won't get as much money as you expect."

And the Social Security tax would hardly nick many of the richest people. Microsoft founder Bill Gates, worth $46.5 billion, earns less than $1 million a year in salary. His income comes from dividends and stock sales, which are not subject to Social Security taxes.

In fact, half the income generated in the top 2% of households — the 2.5 million families that earned more than $200,000 in 2003 — would escape the Social Security tax because the money comes from stock sales, dividends and other exempt sources.

'A political disaster'

Taxing all income could create another problem: huge monthly benefit checks for the richest people. That's because Social Security benefits are based on the taxes people pay into the system.

If Social Security taxed all income — not just the first $90,000 — New York Yankees superstar Alex Rodriguez would be entitled to $1.6 million in annual benefits starting at his full retirement age of 67, based on his career earnings, including his current 10-year, $252-million contract, according to a USA TODAY calculation. Woods would stand to get $5.9 million a year.

"It would be a political disaster" for Social Security to pay millions to millionaires, says David John, a Social Security expert for the conservative Heritage Foundation in Washington.

It wouldn't be disastrous for Social Security, though. Based on Rodriguez's life expectancy, Social Security would collect $32.5 million in taxes from the ballplayer and pay the elderly A-Rod only $15 million.

John says denying the affluent benefits for added contributions would be a mistake. "That makes it a welfare program," he says. "It requires abandoning the idea that Social Security benefits are tied to the contributions," he says.

'Breach of faith'?

Liberals take an even harder line at denying benefits to the rich, saying the system should be considered a pension program. "It's a breach of faith to make the wealthy pay and get nothing in return," says Michael Ettlinger, director of economic analysis at the liberal Economic Policy Institute.

The idea that rich and poor are treated alike in retirement programs is so central that Kennedy tried to block the Medicare prescription drug benefit in 2003 because it charged the rich more than the poor. "Hold on to your hat," he declared. "Today, Medicare. Tomorrow, Social Security."

"It's the strangest thing," says Bruce Josten, chief lobbyist for the American Chamber of Commerce and a supporter of cutting benefits for the affluent. "I (mention) cutting benefits for the wealthy everywhere I go, and I can't find anyone willing to buy the argument — not politicians or even well-off people themselves."

[Ciaran]

The result will be a society of self entitled boobs who think that someone else owes them a living rather than people who want to create it for themselves.

We're already there.

I noticed that no one responded to my post. I am curious as to what you all think about what I tried to say. I'm not the most eloquent and thus have difficulty expressing myself as well as I would like. But I am wondering, what do you all think of the notion that one should share and help those who need it not because they have to but because they can.

DT, I believe that you are right, to a point. My own grandfather came to this country with pretty much nothing. He worked very hard and eventually came to own his own business and made a fair amount of money. He made the most of what he had and succeded as best he could.(He was not RICH, though. I feel that you are rich when your money works for you, not when you work for your money). However, there are absolutely many people who will not have that chance because of the situation they were born into. A young mexican boy living in East Los Angeles has many more obstacles to overcome than the upper middle class kid that I was. In addition to not being able to afford college, that kid may have to work to support his family (mother, et al. Not his wife and kids), may be beaten up daily untill he joins a gang, etc. Not to mention the sheer frustration that poverty brings. Yes, the opportunities are there for everybody. But I think that the obstacles that one must overcome to take advantage of said opportunities are increased for the many lower income, and therefore lower class people.

[Changleen]

You folks have managed to steer this thing way off topic and this is only going to make it worse, but:

At what point did things change? 50-100 years ago we as a society regarded people like Ford, Hearst, Getty, etc as hero's. People who built empires created entire industries and shaped the world because of their hard work. In return they became wealthy and we honored that.
Now we vilify it. I think at some point laziness and greed took over. People saw the things that those people had and not only wanted them, but thought they DESERVED them. Regardless of what ability they had or how much or how little they worked to earn it.

It has become far too common for people to say "Well he has so much, he should just give it away." Bull$hit.
Chang, you refered to it as a "small percentage". We are talking about a tax rate in exess of 60-70 percent. Do a little math here. How would you like to give up 70% of YOUR paycheck every month? Would that be a small percentage to you? Hell no. You earned that money, you deserve to keep as much of it as possible (IMO I think everyone should pay taxes commensurate to what they earn, there should be a flat tax for everyone). Should Tiger Woods not be afforded the same opportunity to keep the majority of what he has earned just as I am?
Take away 70% of Tiger Woods money, and guess what, he's still ****ing rich!
You should have a sensible sliding scale of tax that allows you to keep a reasonable amount of your wage. If I earn several million dollars a year, than asking me to give away 50%+ to help the country is fine. Oh no, I can't quite afford that 3rd Ferrari.

And as you said yourself, Rich people do give away a lot of their money. Maybe that's because they realise a) They've got way too much to reasonably spend with any purpose or meaning and b) helping other people helps them in the long run.

I mean, it's fine to be rich, to drive a nice car, live in a nice house, go on a bunch of holidays, put your kids through college, have investments, have the latest TV/bike whatever - the people we're talking about can afford that several times over. Seriously, what is BIll Gates usefully going to do with his money other than give it to good causes?

[Damn True]

Take away 70% of Tiger Woods money, and guess what, he's still ****ing rich!
You should have a sensible sliding scale of tax that allows you to keep a reasonable amount of your wage. If I earn several million dollars a year, than asking me to give away 50%+ to help the country is fine. Oh no, I can't quite afford that 3rd Ferrari.

And as you said yourself, Rich people do give away a lot of their money. Maybe that's because they realise a) They've got way too much to reasonably spend with any purpose or meaning and b) helping other people helps them in the long run.

I mean, it's fine to be rich, to drive a nice car, live in a nice house, go on a bunch of holidays, put your kids through college, have investments, have the latest TV/bike whatever - the people we're talking about can afford that several times over. Seriously, what is BIll Gates usefully going to do with his money other than give it to good causes?

Who the hell are you or I to decide how much of somone else's earned income they actually should get to keep? It's theirs, they earned it. I didn't. You didn't.

The sliding scale is patently unfair and simply satisfies your greed and jealousy. IMO a flat tax of all personal and corporate revenue would do a much better job and would not take away the incentive for achievement.

Try this on for size. You don't really need anything more than a $500 per month studio apartment and about $300 for groceries and utilities. So how about we take away everything else?

Something like the Carver Institute (http://www.carveracademy.com/public/carver.nsf/generalcontent/SWBV-62WRT6?opendocument ) funded by ex-NBA star David Robinson does a hell of a lot more for society than dropping the same amount of cash into the federal coffers to be wasted on another wasteful government program. If people like him are taxed to the hilt they won't be able or willing to fund things like this.
IMO far more good has been done by private contribution than will ever be done by another in the long list of entitlements.

Since we are on the subject of G.W. Carver & private funding, the majority of the funding for his studies at the Tuskeegee institute (an all black southern University) were funded by Henry Ford. Those studies created the soy industry as we know it today among many other things.

[Changleen]

Who the hell are you or I to decide how much of somone else's earned income they actually should get to keep? It's theirs, they earned it. I didn't. You didn't.Whose roads did they use to get to work? Anyway, the real answer to that is: It's society's. As a democratic country you should decide how much you think is a reasonable amount, based on logical factors such as the cost of living, the cost of running the country and so on. Some people will think more, some will think less. Economists would probably be the most sensible. You seems to think that the rich should just wallow in useless cash, and that everyone should drag themselves out of poverty on their own merit. Very darwinian, but not everyone is a business mastermind, or has skills that mark them out above the average for that matter. By definition, 50% of people are 'below average'. Should their lot in life be to live in a ****hole with no chance of progression? In civilised societies with the highest average standard of living, people give a lot back to society. Maybe you should learn something from that, and not be so selfish.

The sliding scale is patently unfair and simply satisfies your greed and jealousy. IMO a flat tax of all personal and corporate revenue would do a much better job and would not take away the incentive for achievement.How is the sliding scale unfair? It would only be unfair if the richer you got, the more things cost. That's not the case. Things cost the same for everyone. Secondly, if higher taxes remove the incentive for achievement, how come people in Europe and Japan achieve anything? That's just not true.

Try this on for size. You don't really need anything more than a $500 per month studio apartment and about $300 for groceries and utilities. So how about we take away everything else? I know you like to reduce everything to a extreme, black and white version of what's being discussed, but it's really stupid and pointless in reality. You need to deal with the actual situation.

[Damn True]

How is the sliding scale unfair? It would only be unfair if the richer you got, the more things cost. That's not the case. Things cost the same for everyone. Secondly, if higher taxes remove the incentive for achievement, how come people in Europe and Japan achieve anything? That's just not true.



It's absolutely unfair to tax people at different rates. I currently get taxed at a rate of 28% from the federal govt. Someone who makes over $300k gets pinched for 35%. Both people go to work every day, do what they do, get paid what they get paid. Why should bear a heavier burden than the other?

And that is not counting state income taxes, taxes at the gas pump, state and local sales tax, property taxes etc etc.

Consider the fact that many who are in the upper tax brackets never use many of the services that the taxes fund (public education, community health care etc) its an even bigger rippoff and greater penalization.

Again, the only fair tax is a flat sales tax on all goods or a flat revenue tax.

In the case of the sales tax, individuals and corporations would be taxes on anything they buy at the same rate. It would be absolutely fair. Wanna buy a 25,000 car? You pay 10% tax = $2,500. Wanna buy an $80,000 car? You pay 10% tax = $8,000. If GM buys $1m worth of steel they pay 10% tax = $100,000. All parties are taxed comensurate to their spending. If they should choose to spend more, they keep less.

In the case of a revenue tax, its just as fair. Earn a total household revenue of $25,000 a year, you pay 10% = $2,500. Earn a total household revenue of $2,500,000 a year, you pay 10% = $250,000. Both parties are left with 90% of their income which they earned.

[Damn True]

Whose roads did they use to get to work? Anyway, the real answer to that is: It's society's. As a democratic country you should decide how much you think is a reasonable amount, based on logical factors such as the cost of living, the cost of running the country and so on. Some people will think more, some will think less. Economists would probably be the most sensible. You seems to think that the rich should just wallow in useless cash, and that everyone should drag themselves out of poverty on their own merit. Very darwinian, but not everyone is a business mastermind, or has skills that mark them out above the average for that matter. By definition, 50% of people are 'below average'. Should their lot in life be to live in a ****hole with no chance of progression? In civilised societies with the highest average standard of living, people give a lot back to society. Maybe you should learn something from that, and not be so selfish.



Roads are paid for by federal highway funding largely supported by vehicle and fuel taxes. Everyone who buys a car or buys gas pays these taxes. Lame reply.

Again with the "reasonable amount" thing. It's not yours or my place to decide what is a "reasonable" standard of living for anyone else.
If Lebron James decideds take his $90M for four year contract and drive a used Honda and live in a $1500 per month apartment and save the rest he ought to be as free to do so as he is to spend the entire mess on a palatial estate and a different McLaren for every day of the week and be dead broke at the end of that four years. It's his freakin money he earned it. He ought not be penalized for having more of it than me. I can't dunk, he can.

As to your "Darwin" argument. Giving people money is proven to do nothing in terms of raising the standard of living from generation to generation. People who become conditioned to entitlement will remain so, as will their children.
Give a man a fish he eats for a day. Teach him to fish he eats for a lifetime.

That which is earned is valued.

[Toshi]

As for your second question, I dunno, you tell me? I'm guessing Mr. & Mrs. Toshi are doing pretty well if they put their sweet boy through Harvard. How's that workin out for ya?
i think the answer is yes, and i think the reasons for it being harder to go from 10-100 are examples of the barriers whose existence you doubt.

fyi: for u.s. students all Ivy League schools are need blind on admission, and will provide in scholarships and loans the difference between actual costs and expected family contribution as per the fafsa. if your parents don't cough up the expected family contribution then you will be stuck with a huge tab, sure, but the Ivies (Ivys since proper noun? hm) do a lot to keep the class from being all rich kids from prep schools. btw i did grew up in a poor household even tho my parents are doing well now -- living in manhattan with 1 parent in (a second) grad school after being a post-doc, another fresh out of grad school will do that.

yet even with my cheap-clothes-yet-not-quite-rags to harvard-and-beyond story i am not so foolish as to portray myself as some hank rearden character from ayn rand. i couldn't have followed such a smooth path through the academic system had my parents been absent, destitute, or drug abusers, for instance, and i certainly didn't come by my education on my own (see below).

just as scientific achievements are built on the shoulders of the investigators who came before you, economic success comes largely from society: without the stable social framework, network of established companies and markets, previous failed ventures, and schooling system we would not have many if not most of your hallowed entrepreneurs.

[Toshi]

also:

it's not punishment since income up to the lower tax bracket limit is taxed at that lower level. it's not like you'll ever lose money by making $1 more, putting you in a higher retroactive tax bracket.

and a flat tax would not be fair since living costs are fixed (or at least have a fixed lower bound), and, as i noted initially, money begets money. poor people don't have the luxury of investing money and reaping the dividends or returns.

[Damn True]

also:

it's not punishment since income up to the lower tax bracket limit is taxed at that lower level. it's not like you'll ever lose money by making $1 more, putting you in a higher retroactive tax bracket.

and a flat tax would not be fair since living costs are fixed (or at least have a fixed lower bound), and, as i noted initially, money begets money. poor people don't have the luxury of investing money and reaping the dividends or returns.

Go from making $70,350 to $70,400 and your tax burden increases by 3%. Go from $70k to $90k and you really get pinched.See graphic at the bottom of this page (http://www.fairmark.com/begin/bracket.htm)

Living costs are not at all fixed.
When your folks were stuggling you probably ate a crap-load of Mac-n-cheese and hamburger helper. I know I did when I was a kid. Now I buy the groceries I want and dinner at Ruth's Chris once a month because I can.

When your folks were struggling you lived where you could afford. We did. Now I live where I want because I can.

Even utility costs are not fixed. Someone pulling down $25k a year is not paying to heat a pool and hot tub, paying for satellite TV, and running a 50cft Viking fridge.

Once you are out of school and start pulling a check I want you to do something for me. Take a look at the stub. Consider the work you did busting your a$$ to get into Harvard, busting your a$$ to graduate (which is no mean feat, I commend you for that) busting your a$$ to get into the field you wish to be in and ask yourself how much of the money that you busted your a$$ for are you willing to give away. I'm pretty sure you won't be calling up the Treasury Department to make a donation becuase you think they aren't already taking enough.

[Silver]

Maybe we should start taxing big business more, instead of just the individuals? Maybe not, I don't know anything about finance or business... But I do know this: when you see a person who is hungry, you feed them. Period. Anything less is inhumane.

That wouldn't help. There are a million and a half ways for a business to avoid tax, and the ones they can't avoid simply get passed on in many cases.

Feeding hungry people is bad to the Social Darwinists. That only makes the poor lazier than they already are. Interestingly enough, once you toss out the Objectivists, the largest group of Social Darwinists I can think of don't believe that regular Darwinian theory is valid, which is also sort of interesting.

Personally, I can't think of a society that doesn't have some sort of income redistribution that functions well. I do know that most of the places I think of as non functioning societies have some pretty huge disparities in wealth. Also, assuming that rich and poor people reap the same benefits from society seems to be a very fragile starting point.

[Toshi]

Go from making $70,350 to $70,400 and your tax burden increases by 3%. Go from $70k to $90k and you really get pinched.See graphic at the bottom of this page (http://www.fairmark.com/begin/bracket.htm)

Living costs are not at all fixed.
you have to agree that living costs have a fixed lower bound. and given that they will be an increasing percentage (approproaching and indeed passing 100% of income for those who literally can't make ends meet) of total income as you descend down the income ladder. therefore a flat tax penalizes poor people, and makes it even harder to pull a rags to riches success story. (assuming success == money, etc.)

and note the "Of the amount over" column in that linked page. go from 70,350 to 70,400 and the amount over 70,350 will be taxed at 28%, while the 70,350 itself will still be at its prior tax rate (less than 25% due to the nested "of the amount over"s).

[Silver]

Go from making $70,350 to $70,400 and your tax burden increases by 3%. Go from $70k to $90k and you really get pinched.See graphic at the bottom of this page (http://www.fairmark.com/begin/bracket.htm)


My math gives me a total tax burden (I'm assuming that is just fed income) of 20% at 70K and 22% at 90K.

That's a large pinch?

You do know what currently happens after around 90K, right?

Go from making $70,350 to $70,400 and your tax burden increases by 3%.

No, your tax burden increases by a grand total of $14. That's an increase of 0.005%.

edit: Toshi caught that as well, I see. Must be that Harvard education at work :D

[Damn True]

That wouldn't help. There are a million and a half ways for a business to avoid tax, and the ones they can't avoid simply get passed on in many cases.

Feeding hungry people is bad to the Social Darwinists. That only makes the poor lazier than they already are. Interestingly enough, once you toss out the Objectivists, the largest group of Social Darwinists I can think of don't believe that regular Darwinian theory is valid, which is also sort of interesting.

Personally, I can't think of a society that doesn't have some sort of income redistribution that functions well. I do know that most of the places I think of as non functioning societies have some pretty huge disparities in wealth. Also, assuming that rich and poor people reap the same benefits from society seems to be a very fragile starting point.

First of all, I don't think anyone is suggesting letting people starve. Im all for offering a hand up, but recoil when asked for a handout.

Beyond that.....
A couple of interesting paradoxes (is that how you pluralize that?) you've offered here.

As to the last one I'll submit the following:
The model we are working under has been in existance for 229 years. In that time said model has been the crucible for very nearly every advancement in technology made within that time. Other systems contributions pale in comparisson. Would the advancements have been made as soon, if at all if things ran here they way they do in France, China, Switzerland etc?

I'll submit that investment, ownership and ruthless competition played huge roles in all of this. Add in the fact that the opportunities afforded by this model make living and here far more attractive to the great minds that existed in many other places. They immigrated here so that they could advance their work because in their home countries they could not.

There is a reason why the richest countries in the world are democratic and capitalist. As of yet, its the best solution. There may someday be another model that surpasses it, but it most likely wont be in our lifetime.

[Damn True]

My math gives me a total tax burden (I'm assuming that is just fed income) of 20% at 70K and 22% at 90K.

That's a large pinch?

You do know what currently happens after around 90K, right?

Go from making $70,350 to $70,400 and your tax burden increases by 3%.

No, your tax burden increases by a grand total of $14. That's an increase of 0.005%.

edit: Toshi caught that as well, I see. Must be that Harvard education at work :D

Math + Rum = woops

Yes, that is only Federal Income tax.

However, my point is that one should not give up a greater percentage of what they make simply because they make more. Flat taxes are the only fair taxes.

[Damn True]

you have to agree that living costs have a fixed lower bound. and given that they will be an increasing percentage (approproaching and indeed passing 100% of income for those who literally can't make ends meet) of total income as you descend down the income ladder. therefore a flat tax penalizes poor people, and makes it even harder to pull a rags to riches success story. (assuming success == money, etc.)

and note the "Of the amount over" column in that linked page. go from 70,350 to 70,400 and the amount over 70,350 will be taxed at 28%, while the 70,350 itself will still be at its prior tax rate (less than 25% due to the nested "of the amount over"s).


True. People who cannot help themselves should be helped. However, I think there are better ways to meet those needs than by increasing taxation and entitlements. We have been trying that for years and the number of people on the take has gone up, not down. IMO the psychological barrier foisted on people by entitlement culture is greater than presented by the actuall challenges of making it out of poverty.

....yeah, I caught on to the math error on my part. :mumble:

[Changleen]

Finally, If you taxed everyone at your suggested flat rate, your country would go bust in 30 seconds flat.

[reflux]

I am a firm believer that the rich should give back to the society from which they have taken so much. It's mathematically fair to tax both the poor and rich at the same rate, it is not "fair" in reality. Let me quote Chris Rock, "When you have $30 million, and your wife wants 10, you ain't starvin'. But when you make 30,000 and your wife wants 15...you might just hafta kill 'er!"

DT, how do you consider the elimination of estate taxes to be fair to society? Estates are comprised of assets (stocks, bonds, real estate, whatever) that typically have unrealized gains and stuff. Usually, we mortals (non rich) pay capital gains taxes (20%?) when we sell these assets with unrealized gains. With the elimination of estate taxes, the rich can let these assets pass through the estate, the beneficiaries receive a step-up in basis, and can now sell the assets without paying one f'n cent in taxes. Is that fair to society? According to those that make the rules...yes.

[Silver]

First of all, I don't think anyone is suggesting letting people starve. Im all for offering a hand up, but recoil when asked for a handout.

Beyond that.....
A couple of interesting paradoxes (is that how you pluralize that?) you've offered here.

As to the last one I'll submit the following:
The model we are working under has been in existance for 229 years. In that time said model has been the crucible for very nearly every advancement in technology made within that time. Other systems contributions pale in comparisson. Would the advancements have been made as soon, if at all if things ran here they way they do in France, China, Switzerland etc?

I'll submit that investment, ownership and ruthless competition played huge roles in all of this. Add in the fact that the opportunities afforded by this model make living and here far more attractive to the great minds that existed in many other places. They immigrated here so that they could advance their work because in their home countries they could not.

There is a reason why the richest countries in the world are democratic and capitalist. As of yet, its the best solution. There may someday be another model that surpasses it, but it most likely wont be in our lifetime.

Well, keeping in mind there are other reasons that many advances happened in the US (Jewish scientists fleeing Nazi Germany, for example really helped to kickstart our nuclear, rocket, and space programs. You'd also have to look at how devastated the Axis countries were after WW2 and take that into account) look up the marginal tax rates that were in effect before Reagan became President, and then explain to me how the computer revolution happened with the Apple boys inventing under the pre-Reagan marginal tax rates (which were much too high on the wealthy, that I agree with wholeheartedly.)

Also, if you're going to call the richest countries in the world capitalist, you'd best not call every form of income redistribution socialist. In short, you're taking a very convoluted issue that you don't understand (much like the Laffer curve that came up a couple of months ago) and attempting to make that messy data that doesn't support your point fit into your ideology.

For example, putting France and Switzerland in with China is borderline...I'd say retarded, but the good liberal in me doesn't want to offend the mentally challenged.

[Changleen]

Also most of those 'advances' were made by scientist who were paid by the state, who in turn get their money from...

[Damn True]

For example, putting France and Switzerland in with China is borderline...I'd say retarded, but the good liberal in me doesn't want to offend the mentally challenged.

Take two seconds to attempt to comprehend the point I am making rather than looking for an opportunity to wave your imagined intellectual, google fueled dick in the air.

Those three countries were listed because they are all unique socially, politically, and economically. They are all different from each other, and all very different from the United States.

And yes, there are a ton of contributing factors involved in why the biggest technological advancements in recent history have occured within US borders. But they DID occur within US borders and NOT elsewhere because this model allows for, inspires and rewards achievement. Others stifle it.

Greed, jealousy and fear leads to nothing but social and econmic ruin. Liberals don't want to redistribute wealth out of some grand sense of philanthropy for the underpriveldged. They want to do it to exact revenge upon those who are brighter and work harder than themselves. To get back at the achievers for having what they failed to achieve. Liberals don't give two $hits about the poor. They are simply attempting to get back at wealthy because due to their slacking they are driving Honda's not Bimmers. Childish temper tantrums manifested as legal action and tax legislation.

[Westy]

Math + Rum = woops

Yes, that is only Federal Income tax.

However, my point is that one should not give up a greater percentage of what they make simply because they make more. Flat taxes are the only fair taxes.

Instead of looking at the actual tax rate I'd like to see what the average tax paid by income is. The more money you make the more opportunities you have to hide said money from the government.

[Damn True]

Also most of those 'advances' were made by scientist who were paid by the state, who in turn get their money from...

Let's see:

GW Carvers lab at Tuskeegee was largely funded by the Ford Motor Company, not the state.

Westinghouse: Originators of the Rotary Steam Engine, Provision of Electric Power Networks, Oil filler transfomers, High Voltage power transmission, Dielsel/Electric locomotives, Utility steam electic generators, tungsten fillament electric light bulbs, practical radio, circuit breakers, television tubes, long range ground radar.

The first microprocessor was the Intel 4004, introduced in 1971.

The transistor was invented by Bell Labs.

DuPont created stable TNT, a method of producing ammonia, cellophane, neoprene, Freon (co developed with GM then 1/2 owned by DuPont), Nylon, the first plutonium production plant, Dacron, Mylar, Lycra, Tyvek, Kevlar and Nomex.

Pfizer was the first to produce citric acid and vitamin-C, commercial pennicillin, and polio vaccine.

IBM created the first Selective Sequence Electronic Calculator.

Certainly, academia has been responsible for many advancements but those labs are largely funded by business. And it takes business to make those dreams and discoveries into actual products. Stifle that, and those advancements will remain theoretical.

[Damn True]

Instead of looking at the actual tax rate I'd like to see what the average tax paid by income is. The more money you make the more opportunities you have to hide said money from the government.

Which again supports the idea of flat rate revenue or sales taxes.

[Silver]

Take two seconds to attempt to comprehend the point I am making rather than looking for an opportunity to wave your imagined intellectual, google fueled dick in the air.



You're the retard who can't even read a tax table properly or understand the idea of a marginal tax rate.

Mind you, getting chastened by a towering intellect such as yourself does hurt, I must admit. Whatever shall I do?

[Westy]

Which again supports the idea of flat rate revenue or sales taxes.


What do you think about a flat consumption tax?

[Damn True]

You're the retard who can't even read a tax table properly or understand the idea of a marginal tax rate.

Mind you, getting chastened by a towering intellect such as yourself does hurt, I must admit. Whatever shall I do?


Again, ignoring the point of the discussion and resorting to insults. Very "intellectual" of you.

[Changleen]

DT, I was going to take the time to respond individually to all your points above, but I'll just wrap it up quickly by saying "You're wrong".

[Silver]

Again, ignoring the point of the discussion and resorting to insults. Very "intellectual" of you.

Did you ever look up those marginal tax rates pre-Reagan, by the way? Maybe you'll shut up before you make yourself look stupider.

[Damn True]

What do you think about a flat consumption tax?

Thank you for pointing this out. I should actually have used the term "consumption tax" above rather than sales tax because it applies more accurately to my point.

The following is simplified of course:
A consumption tax is the same as a flat sales tax only it is applied to all goods and services that are purchased by consumers or production entities.

Essentially the idea is that anything that is purchased by anyone or any company is taxed at the same rate. Regardless if it is you buying a gallon of milk or GM buying 100,000 tires both are taxed.

IMO there would have to be exceptions in this, most likely on food and housing below a certain level.

[Changleen]

Come on, what about the fact that if the US adopted a flat rate as you suggested, it would go bust in 30 seconds?

[Westy]

Thank you for pointing this out. I should actually have used the term "consumption tax" above rather than sales tax because it applies more accurately to my point.

The following is simplified of course:
A consumption tax is the same as a flat sales tax only it is applied to all goods and services that are purchased by consumers or production entities.

Essentially the idea is that anything that is purchased by anyone or any company is taxed at the same rate. Regardless if it is you buying a gallon of milk or GM buying 100,000 tires both are taxed.

IMO there would have to be exceptions in this, most likely on food and housing below a certain level.

I kind of like the idea but it seems to have some holes. Does a company paying an employee considered purchasing a service? If not does the same apply for a contractor or temp?

I am intrigued by a consumption tax for simplicity but not sure if I support a "Flat" rate. Like you said basic requirements like food should be at a lower rate but what about products that imply a higher direct cost to society like hazardous materials and alcoholic beverages?

[reflux]

IMO there would have to be exceptions in this, most likely on food and housing below a certain level.
But by simply allowing small exceptions to the rule, politicians (on both sides) would be creating more special "exceptions" to advance their own agendas. Before you know it, we'd back to a similar IRC that we have now.


Interesting thing I read the other day:there have been some reports that income mobility has decreased in recent years. That can't be good for the general public.


I didn't see an answer, but does anyone believe the elimination of the estate tax is a good thing?

[Damn True]

Did you ever look up those marginal tax rates pre-Reagan, by the way? Maybe you'll shut up before you make yourself look stupider.


Again with the insults, do you feel better about yourself after that? If you need to do it to get through the day go ahead, but seriously, you should seek counseling.

Lets see:
Marginal tax rates were stable at 70% for the top quintile from 75-80, then began to decline to a low of 28% in 1991. Since then they have been increasing and were at just a tick under 40% in 1999.

There is considerable debate about the validity of marginal rates as a measurement of potential or actual revenue since they don't take into account as many factors as total effective tax rates. Total ffective rates consider available deductions and exemptions and therefore often illustrate a lower overall taxation.

BTW
http://www.businessknowhow.com/money/lowertax.htm
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Taxes/BG1443.cfm
http://www.libertyhaven.com/politicsandcurrentevents/taxesandtaxation/marginaltax.html

[Damn True]

I didn't see an answer, but does anyone believe the elimination of the estate tax is a good thing?


Absolutely. The value of the estate has already been taxed.

If you work for 40 years, your income over that time is taxed. If in that time you purchase a home, that property is taxed. If you invest the rest of that money it is either taxed upon deposit or withdrawl depending on they type of investment. Now if you die and you will that estate, the home and your investments, to your family or a charity unless it is in a trust it gets taxed again. IMO that is wrong.

I s'pose we could say that the value over time has increased, but unless you are in CA in a prop-13 home, the taxes on the home have also gone up as well.

[Toshi]

Absolutely. The value of the estate has already been taxed.

If you work for 40 years, your income over that time is taxed. If in that time you purchase a home, that property is taxed. If you invest the rest of that money it is either taxed upon deposit or withdrawl depending on they type of investment.
this isn't true if your investment was tax deferred and you never withdrew until retirement (when you're in a low tax bracket, thus the large estate to pass on).

[reflux]

Absolutely. The value of the estate has already been taxed.

If you work for 40 years, your income over that time is taxed. If in that time you purchase a home, that property is taxed. If you invest the rest of that money it is either taxed upon deposit or withdrawl depending on they type of investment. Now if you die and you will that estate, the home and your investments, to your family or a charity unless it is in a trust it gets taxed again. IMO that is wrong.

I s'pose we could say that the value over time has increased, but unless you are in CA in a prop-13 home, the taxes on the home have also gone up as well.
read my previous post and apply it to assets that aren't real estate (no property tax, just unrealized gains).

[Damn True]

I kind of like the idea but it seems to have some holes. Does a company paying an employee considered purchasing a service? If not does the same apply for a contractor or temp?

I am intrigued by a consumption tax for simplicity but not sure if I support a "Flat" rate. Like you said basic requirements like food should be at a lower rate but what about products that imply a higher direct cost to society like hazardous materials and alcoholic beverages?

The most viable plan that I am aware of (Im sure there are others, I haven't read Steve Forbes version) is in the book "The National Retail Sales Tax" by former Congressman Billy Tauzin. Under his suggested format the expense of employee payroll would not be taxed as it would allow for higher rates of pay resulting in more money flying around in the economy and increased tax revenue.

The biggest obstacle to this type of change is the government itself. It would reduce the IRS by 2/3 and severely hamper the legislative branch in its ability to offer tax breaks to company "X" as a means to attract the new plant to their district. Additionaly, it would eliminate nearly every tax loophole and exemption currently in existance. From everything Ive read it is an astronomically better alternative to the status quo but most likely far to radical a change to ever be enacted.

[Damn True]

this isn't true if your investment was tax deferred and you never withdrew until retirement (when you're in a low tax bracket, thus the large estate to pass on).

Well, yeah yer right there. But if the whole thing is in a trust it's pretty well protected regardless right?

[Silver]

Again with the insults, do you feel better about yourself after that? If you need to do it to get through the day go ahead, but seriously, you should seek counseling.

Lets see:
Marginal tax rates were stable at 70% for the top quintile from 75-80, then began to decline to a low of 28% in 1991. Since then they have been increasing and were at just a tick under 40% in 1999.

There is considerable debate about the validity of marginal rates as a measurement of potential or actual revenue since they don't take into account as many factors as total effective tax rates. Total ffective rates consider available deductions and exemptions and therefore often illustrate a lower overall taxation.



And your argument was the getting rid of the current cap and increasing social security taxes would stifle growth and innovation, leading to "socialism." But, I'm still waiting to hear how Jobs and Wozniak possibly could have started Apple before the Reagan tax cuts.

Like I said, you don't understand how marginal tax rates work, you don't understand how to compute a simple tax bracket, and you expect me to take you seriously? You've got a mishmash of about 10 different points thrown in between rants and tirades about liberals.

You throw out misleading numbers (Like attempting to show how the rich get screwed, by just using federal tax numbers), screw up the math (the real percentage was only about 500 times smaller than you thought it was), and then expect to me say, "Hey, you were right all along?"

As far as the insults go, you were fairly rude to Toshi right off the bat, and you dismissed Changleen as "Mr. Marx." So, you know what, it does feel better. You should be turning the other cheek anyways, instead of commenting on me for "looking for an opportunity to wave your imagined intellectual, google fueled dick in the air."

[Silver]

I am intrigued by a consumption tax for simplicity but not sure if I support a "Flat" rate.

With a consumption tax, there isn't any other way to do it than to have a flat rate.

The consumption tax is a pipedream though. To make it revenue neutral, you would be looking at a tax inclusive rate north of 30% to replace all federal taxes, and that's assuming pretty good compliance and a very broad tax base (housing, health insurance, baby formula...all taxed) with no erosion due to political pressure, which would be inevitable.

You'd probably end up with a tax exclusive rate upwards of 60 percent, and it could even get higher with a smaller base, which would increase evasion, which would increase the rate again.

[ALEXIS_DH]

Thank you for pointing this out. I should actually have used the term "consumption tax" above rather than sales tax because it applies more accurately to my point.

The following is simplified of course:
A consumption tax is the same as a flat sales tax only it is applied to all goods and services that are purchased by consumers or production entities.

Essentially the idea is that anything that is purchased by anyone or any company is taxed at the same rate. Regardless if it is you buying a gallon of milk or GM buying 100,000 tires both are taxed.

IMO there would have to be exceptions in this, most likely on food and housing below a certain level.


hahahahaha.. there are a gazillion ways around consumption taxes, even if the gvmt establish a record for money transfers... it just makes a more informal economy, and would hurt banking and etc, etc, etc....

the same with flat rate taxes. they are actually NOT flat rate, the bigger your income, the more cost effective it gets to bury your tax-corpses and the lower your actual % will get..

[MikeD]

"Consumption tax" is a crock. The rich want it because...guess what...they don't use nearly as much of their income in consumption as the poor. Someone making $20-40k a year uses 95% or more (that's a guess) of his income buying/consuming things to live (food, housing, transport, education).

Those in the middle ground...upper-middle-class, $100-300k or so a year, are probably saving and investing a lot more money than the people who make less, but a good chunk of their change is probably wrapped up in mortgage(s) and automobiles and school for their kids.

Someone really rich, except maybe idiotic sports and music stars who manage to live paycheck-to-million-dollar-paycheck, spends proportionally little of his income on his mansion and yacht (and food and college and bath towels, etc.), and uses the majority of his money to make more money. If he doesn't, he won't stay rich very long.

So yeah, consumption tax is great...for him. Sucks to have to pay more proportionally when you're making a tiny fraction of what he does, though. Flat tax is at least philosophically (and not being an economist, I can't say if it's feasible) fair and appealing.

And it's amazing what big business, the "independent" force from government, seeking to de-regulate the economy at every and any turn, will take from government in subsidies and tax breaks, and indeed, engineer such financial boons through political leverage.

As to 50-100 years ago being the time when we looked up to wealthy industrialists, well, I think Teddy Roosevelt would have disagreed, and those whose lives were lost and broken under the thumb of trusts and robber-barons might disagree as well.

There might have been a few standout heroes and rags-to-riches stories, but that's 10% of the story.

Goverment can and should be used by a population to ensure that economic success remains in the best interests of the population. Competition and profit are great and essential (ed: in fact, the *only* realistic motivation) to keep business efficient and strong, so long as there's a giant dis-incentive to prey on society rather than provide it quality, safe products and services. Unregulated, businesses seek profit without care for safety... it's nice to think that the market will force out unsafe or unsavory products, but that's just not the case, especially in the short-term. And I don't want to be the guy in the exploding Pinto that convinces other people not to buy Pintos, or watch my child's brains liquify from an E. Coli infection after a bad hamburger that convinces people to use a different fast-food chain.

Funny thing is that OSHA has tons of power to fix things in places where it's not needed, and where it'd be applicable (industrial and meat-packing settings), the gov't has made it irrelevant.

Wow, that's off-topic.

MD

[valve bouncer]

Good post Michael. See you learnt some common sense in the land of the cool people.;)

[MikeD]

Good post Michael. See you learnt some common sense in the land of the cool people.;)

Yep, that's where I learned it... :rolleyes:

[Silver]

So yeah, consumption tax is great...for him. Sucks to have to pay more proportionally when you're making a tiny fraction of what he does, though. Flat tax is at least philosophically (and not being an economist, I can't say if it's feasible) fair and appealing.


It is feasible. Many countries in eastern Europe have flat income taxes. The Steve Forbes plan mentioned? The little hook there is that it only applies to wage income. I hear that's nice if you happen to inherit a publishing business from your father.

The argument that a flat tax would enable us to get rid of the IRS and tax returns is laughable, if you assume that we are going to tax more than just wage income. Then it simply doesn't help.

I would agree that a flat tax on all income would be fair from a philosophical point of view, but that makes a rather large assumption that the poor and the rich both get the same benefits of living in American society. One look at how the criminal justice system works would tend to make me think that we aren't all on a level playing field.

[MikeD]

One look at how the criminal justice system works would tend to make me think that we aren't all on a level playing field.

Somehow I don't see the government saying, "Yeah, since we're totally ****ing you over in the criminal justice system, here's a tax break..." :p

[Silver]

Somehow I don't see the government saying, "Yeah, since we're totally ****ing you over in the criminal justice system, here's a tax break..." :p

I'm just waiting for them to bring back workhouses and debtor's prisons. Then Damn True can fulfill his lifelong dream of screaming at an orphan asking for more gruel, "MORE? You want more?" :p

[MikeD]

Well, now, I wasn't actually saying that the CJ system inherently screws over the poor, (but it sure does favor the rich...guess it's 2 sides of 1 coin) just thought it was a funny thing to imagine the attourney general and the IRS coming out to say.

[valve bouncer]

Yep, that's where I learned it... :rolleyes:
Don't talk sh*t in my ear mate. You've become noticeably more cleverer since you got back. ;)

[MikeD]

Don't talk sh*t in my ear mate. You've become noticeably more cleverer since you got back. ;)

Hah, that's because I've been posting in here less. That's a MUCH smarter way to live!

I actually DID learn to hold my tongue from the Kiwis...

(and I learned how to flatten every vowel into an indistinct short "i" sound. Yis, I did.)

MD

[valve bouncer]

Hah, that's because I've been posting in here less. That's a MUCH smarter way to live!

I actually DID learn to hold my tongue from the Kiwis...

(and I learned how to flatten every vowel into an indistinct short "i" sound. Yis, I did.)

MD
Me and Partsy are still trying to work out why the hell you wanted to go to Kiwi when everything is so much better in Australia. ;) :stosh:

[MikeD]

Me and Partsy are still trying to work out why the hell you wanted to go to Kiwi when everything is so much better in Australia. ;) :stosh:
I think Warwick is PO'd at me, too...I really should have gone to visit, but was just out of cash at the end...

[valve bouncer]

I think Warwick is PO'd at me, too...I really should have gone to visit, but was just out of cash at the end...
That ginger c*nt. What's he up to nowadays anyway? You know when he came to Japan he spewed in my car. The f*cker :D

[Silver]

That ginger c*nt.

Could I get a translation on that?

I see the filters have been vb proofed :D

[MikeD]

That ginger c*nt. What's he up to nowadays anyway? You know when he came to Japan he spewed in my car. The f*cker :D

I have no idea...he's not living on AIM like he used to. Maybe he got a life...?

MD

[valve bouncer]

Could I get a translation on that?

I see the filters have been vb proofed :D
No mate, I put the star there, didn't wanna piss off the big fella more than I have already. You can still type cunt if you want but I don't wanna be gratutious. ;) :thumb: