The Gaming Den

npc310 wrote:My (and Sam Seaborn's) point is that people with very high incomes (the top 1%) pay a grossly disproportionately high percentage of income taxes.

And Frank's point is that the bottom 50% pay 98% of the Sales taxes, so you are a fucking idiot.

(Those numbers are almost certainly not correct, but represent that point, that one type of tax is not the same as all the taxes. Combined with K's point about percentage of wealth, you are going to be made a fool of, and if you were capable of understanding ratios, you would realize you are wrong as shit. But as previously established, ratios bamboozle you.)

K wrote:The clip is actually supposed to make him come off as an entitled asshole.

I call them Limousine Liberals. The kind of elitists who tell us to put air in our tires, to drive cars the size of roller skates (and with about as much power), and to turn up the thermostat in our homes. All the while, they are living in palaces greedily sucking down coal-generated electricity like fat women with jelly donuts, ride around in massive limos flanked by fleets of gas-guzzling SUVs, and require a squadron of private jets to tote them and their entourage off to Martha's Vineyard for a weekend getaway. Before long, there'll be private lanes on the highways for our betters to use, because their work is so important that they can't be bothered to be stuck in traffic. You know, like ZiL lanes in the Soviet Union.

But that is off topic.

I agree that only people who earn an income should be required to pay income taxes. That is a no-brainer. I also agree that the tax rate should be progressive. When 1% pays for 35%, and 10% pays for over 70%, that is taking it to an unhealthy extreme. I know this the contrary to the class warfare talking points regurgitated to us by the President's press secretaries at MSNBC and CNN, but I don't care.

I also feel that government has grown far too large when "the common man" can no longer support it. Rather than taxing the piss out of businesses and citizens, government should shrink.

As far as tax code, I think we should eliminate the loopholes that allow only the people who can afford accountants to avoid paying taxes. Cut everyone's taxes. Eliminate loopholes that disproportionately benefit the rich. Doctors who own their own practice shouldn't be able to take a tax deduction for their Hummer. That loophole is meant for the agricultural industry. If the tax burden is low, then such measures are less necessary.

Pouring billions into alternative energy research, rebuilding countries after liberating them from genocidal tyrants, and rescuing great American industries from poorly managed decisions that led to the doorstep of bankruptcy are all great and noble goals. They are also things we should do during a time of surplus, not deficit and recession. When families go thru tough periods, we don't spend more than ever before. Only gubmint gets to do that.

When over 50% of taxpayers bear less than 3% of the tax burden, why would we care what happens? Why would we feel like we are part of the system, and that the system values us? We need to be responsible for the power we wield. Sure, I'll elect representatives who want to spend trillions on Wall Street bailouts, rather than forcing Wall Street to suffer for their bullshit. Those trillions are not my dollars, someone else is paying that, so why do I give a shit?

Again, I am straying off topic.

K wrote:No, he's arguing that the people with a disproportionate amount of this country's wealth shouldn't be paying a proportionate amount of taxes.

No, he's not. Did you even watch it? Did you watch the show? The character is fine paying his share of taxes. He is saying don't call him names while he is doing it. He is saying don't tell him he is not paying his share when he is paying 27x more than you.

npc310 wrote:When over 50% of taxpayers bear less than 3% of the tax burden, why would we care what happens?

You are an idiot who does not understand ratios.

The bottom 50% of taxpayers make 20% of the income. They also pay more sales taxes and more payroll taxes (which is not included in those figures, no matter how much you wish it was).

That means the bottom 50% of taxpayers pay about 20% of all taxes, if not more. Therefore, the current tax rates are to progressive at all.

They are in effect, neutral.

The bottom 50% of owners not paying 50% of all taxes is not progressive, it also wouldn't be the case if all we had was a single flat tax.

Must you lob insults like a monkey throwing feces? Aren't you better than that? No, I forgot, you're not. You are the one who accused me of being so wreckless that I would shoot my own children.

Your numbers are so wild that I've got to ask for your source.

The bottom 50%, earning 20%, would only pay 20% of taxes if we had a flat tax. The bottom 50%, earning 20%, would only pay more sales tax if they spent more money on taxable goods that the top 50% who (according to your numbers) earn 80% of the revenue. How is that even possible? Warren Buffett, certainly in the top 1%, pays more in sales tax than everyone who reads this board, combined.

Speaking of Warren Buffett, his claim that his secretary pays higher income tax than he is a strawman argument. His salary is lower than his secretary's. He pays himself with capital gains. He does this intentionally to evade taxes, then says it is unfair. Nothing is preventing him from being fair. He can pay himself the same amount as his capital gains in a regular salary, like he does his secretary, and pay taxes just like she does. Will he be paying less than her then? I don't think so.

SOURCE: forbes.com

Kaelik wrote: The bottom 50% of owners not paying 50% of all taxes is not progressive, it also wouldn't be the case if all we had was a single flat tax.

I don't even know what you are saying. Please reword it in a way that an idiot like me can understand.

npc310 wrote:

K wrote:No, he's arguing that the people with a disproportionate amount of this country's wealth shouldn't be paying a proportionate amount of taxes.

No, he's not. Did you even watch it? Did you watch the show? The character is fine paying his share of taxes. He is saying don't call him names while he is doing it. He is saying don't tell him he is not paying his share when he is paying 27x more than you.

You should write up the clip and take it line by line. Your comprehension skills appear to be too low to actually unpack what is being said.

He starts by stating to believe in paying his fair share and paying for public services, but then immediately goes into how unfair it is for him to be paying a larger flat amount of the taxes compared to an average person despite having a larger, wildly disproportionate, amount of the wealth. He literally makes an argument against progressive tax after admitting to having a disproportionate amount of the wealth while ignoring how other kinds of taxes burden the middle class and poor. It's the basic kinds of arguments popular with Libertarians and the Right Wing for the last few years so that they can increase taxes on the poor and middle class and give more money to the wealthy.

Then he insinuates that he's better than all of those other people because he pays a larger flat amount of taxes. Protip: claiming to be better than other people or that you should have more rights because you spend more money is always a dick move.

The fact that his argument flies in the face of everything we know about tax policy and his "27 times" argument doesn't work from a purely accounting standpoint is just a heavy-handed clue for the policy wonks that he's entitled, selfish, and pushing a line of bullshit.

Frankly, even a cursory understanding of the history of taxation in the US informs the audience that the wealthy are living in a Golden Age in terms of taxation and have some of the lowest tax rates in living memory. The wealthy have no right to complain and the audience knows this, so his complaints come across as the whines of the entitled and greedy.

Yeh, he comes across as a bullshitter and a dick.

npc310 wrote:Please reword it in a way that an idiot like me can understand.

We haven't invented those words yet I'm afraid. They may never be invented because some idiots simply do not wish to understand and comprehension cannot be coerced.

Warren Buffet is complaining that the system allows him to legally get taxed at a lower rate than his secretary. Whether or not he uses that loophole has no bearing on whether that loophole should exist. The argument exists outside of his actions. If you cannot comprehend this, then take some philosophy courses (Logic would be a good starter!) not just until you don't get a big fat F, but until you actually grasp the material. And don't use strawman if you don't fucking know what it means.*

And what the fuck is this?

Your numbers are so wild that I've got to ask for your source.

Why fucking bother asking? You clearly do not care about evidence or sources as previous discussions have shown. You are just trolling and deliberately wasting other people's time.

*strawman is whenever phonelobster says anything. I read that somewhere.

That's just not how I hear it.

You say he comes across as a bullshitter and a dick, and you are entitled to your opinion. Just like it is your opinion that he is insinuating the he's better than other people. I just don't get that from him. I watched the show back in the day. The character just isn't like that.

He is not saying he wants his water to be 27x hotter, or that he wants his life to be 27x better because he pays 27x more taxes. He is illustrating that he has no tangible, obvious benefit for paying 27x more taxes. He had a highly specialized job, requiring highly specialized skills, and the compensation was high. He paid taxes, a lot of taxes. Don't call him names while he does it.

npc310 wrote:That's just not how I hear it.

You say he comes across as a bullshitter and a dick, and you are entitled to your opinion. Just like it is your opinion that he is insinuating the he's better than other people. I just don't get that from him. I watched the show back in the day. The character just isn't like that.

He is not saying he wants his water to be 27x hotter, or that he wants his life to be 27x better because he pays 27x more taxes. He is illustrating that he has no tangible, obvious benefit for paying 27x more taxes. He had a highly specialized job, requiring highly specialized skills, and the compensation was high. He paid taxes, a lot of taxes. Don't call him names while he does it.

The core of his argument is he shouldn't be asked to pay more in taxes because it's already not fair that he pays more in taxes only to get the same benefit as everyone else. His complaining doesn't even make sense if you don't accept that he's already paying more than his fair share.

The character may have been written differently in other scenes in the series, but that scene is propaganda against progressive tax and for tax cuts for the rich and that's straight out of the Republican/Libertarian handbook.

The fact that his numbers are so bad is also a clear sign that it's a fast-talking scam. Even a basic knowledge of the tax policy makes him look like a dick trying to run a con.

The DBZ Abridged Crew reading 45 minutes of 50 Shades of Gray, in the voices, at various points, DBZ abridged, Mickey Mouse, Gollum, Marlon Brando, Christian Bale Batman, and more.

I now understand complaints about the author's writing style. The narrator refers to her "Inner Goddess"--pretty much a metaphor for her libido, and then keeps saying her "subconscious". As in "My subconscious ran and hid behind the couch."

npc310 wrote:Must you lob insults like a monkey throwing feces? Aren't you better than that? No, I forgot, you're not. You are the one who accused me of being so wreckless that I would shoot my own children.

I'm not better than calling an idiot an idiot. I don't see how not stating a true fact is in some way inherently better than stating it.

Speaking of true facts, you know what isn't a true fact? Your accusation that I said you would recklessly shooting your kids. That was someone else.

If you weren't an idiot, I'd expect you to keep track of who said what, as is, I'm only disappointed, not surprised.

npc310 wrote:Your numbers are so wild that I've got to ask for your source.

For this sort of thing, I use Wikipedia, which generally cites to the IRS for income taxes and payroll taxes, and to the state governments for sales taxes.

Not happy about how I'm not linking specifically to the information and only giving vague "wikipedia" and "irs"? Tough shit, that's what you did.

npc310 wrote:The bottom 50%, earning 20%, would only pay 20% of taxes if we had a flat tax. The bottom 50%, earning 20%, would only pay more sales tax if they spent more money on taxable goods that the top 50% who (according to your numbers) earn 80% of the revenue. How is that even possible?

Through the magic of not spending money, and instead investing it.

See, the thing about poor people is they spend all their money. The thing about rich people is they don't spend all their money, because they have lots of it left over.

npc310 wrote:Speaking of Warren Buffett, his claim that his secretary pays higher income tax than he is a strawman argument. His salary is lower than his secretary's. He pays himself with capital gains. He does this intentionally to evade taxes, then says it is unfair. Nothing is preventing him from being fair. He can pay himself the same amount as his capital gains in a regular salary, like he does his secretary, and pay taxes just like she does. Will he be paying less than her then? I don't think so.

Because he is not an idiot, and he realizes that him choosing to pay more taxes will not force all the other millionaires to do so. Which is why instead he attempts to make it illegal, so that other people besides him will also pay their fair share of taxes.

npc310 wrote:

Kaelik wrote: The bottom 50% of owners not paying 50% of all taxes is not progressive, it also wouldn't be the case if all we had was a single flat tax.

I don't even know what you are saying. Please reword it in a way that an idiot like me can understand.

There are 10 people in the fictional country of Stanlandstan.

Bob the builder, Jim the builder, Sue the builder, Nancy the builder, and Mary the builder, collectively "the Builders" all make $10,000 a year.

Sam the Supervisor and Sal the Supervisor both make $20,000 a year.

Takedo the Board Member and Joan the Board Member both make $40,000 a year.

Fuckstick the CEO makes $2,000,000 a year.

Now, the total income made by residents of Stanlandstan each year is $2,170,000.

If there was a flat tax of 20% as the only tax, then Fuckstick would pay $400,000 a year.

The total taxes across all ten people would be $434,000 a year.

Therefore, Fuckstick, the top 10% of earners would pay 92% of all the taxes.

And that's a flat tax, not even progressive.

The lesson you are supposed to learn from this is that if the Top 50% of income earners earn 97% of the income, then they should pay more than 97% of all taxes in order to have a progressive tax system.

So the top 1% paying 35% of all (income) taxes is not evidence of unfairness when they also receive 25% of all income. It's just a slightly progressive tax system.

Oh, and fuck NPC310 for this bullshit in his signature.

"If you’ve got a business, you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen." -- Pres. Obama, Roanoke, VA, 13 July 2012"

Fucking idiots. Can't even complain about something real, they have to make shit up. Go read the whole transcript, or watch the whole speech you disingenuous, lying, full of shit, fucktard who gives mouth-breathers a bad name.

Here, I'll shove some context up your ass.

Barack Obama wrote:If you’re been successful, you didn’t get there on your own. You didn’t get there on your own. I’m always struck by people who think well, it must be because I was just so smart. There are a lot of smart people out there. It must be because I worked harder than everybody else. Let me tell you something. There are a whole bunch of hard-working people out there. If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business, you didn’t build that.

There's your fucking context that leads up to the quote. He's referring to roads and bridges with "you didn't build that"

Jesus. Fucking Republicans can't even find fault with his actual faults (and boy does he have some!), they have to make up lies to tell idiots who can't be fucked to learn the difference. That is a fucking strawman you twatwaffle, you supercilious waste of a cumstain.

Not to mention, even if you have a business that you, say, carved out and paved the road to.

You have to have employees. You have to have customers. It doesn't do well to look down on the folks who make it all work.

With the economy, we're all in it together in the long run. Even if npc310's daddy wishes he'd pulled out.

Here's the dealio.

A single, no dependents, wage slave living here in PGH, PA working a full time job for minimum wage, with no other sources of income will earn approximately $14,500 in a year. (Assuming a 2000 hour work year)

They will pay:
2% of that in income taxes to the School District
1% of that in income taxes to the City
3.07% of that in income taxes to the State
4.2 % of that in payroll taxes to Social Security (due to the Obama's temporary reduction)
1.45 % of that in payroll taxes to Medicare
a flat $52 in EMS taxes to the city (or other municipality where they work) this works out to just under .0036%
An estimated (as per IRS tables) $214 in PA state sales taxes or approx 1.48% of income
10% federal tax rate on the 4,750 of their income which is taxable for an actual federal rate of 3.28% of gross income

For an all in tax-rate of 16.48%


Someone else living in the same City with exactly the same circumstances who has $100,000 in income entirely from capital gains and qualified dividends will pay:
15% federal taxes on the ~90,250 of that which is taxable income (for an actual federal rate of 13.54% of gross income
3.07% PA state taxes
An estimated (as per IRS tables) $761 in PA state sales taxes (0.761% of income)

For an all-in tax rate of 17.37%

So long as the Obama payroll tax reductions stay in effect, the minimum wage earner does actually pay a lower overall tax rate than the investor - but once social security taxes reverts to their usual rate of 6.2%, that won't be true anymore.

Now the $100,000 investor is more likely to be hit by our crazy property taxes, but conversely the minimum wage dude is more likely to be hit by sin taxes and outright cries at some of our flat-cost user fees.

Hate to break up the regularly-scheduled beatdown of npc310 (at least he's consistent!), but this might just be the greatest music video ever made.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=9bZkp7q19f0

Just as a comparison against the numbers from Josh.
If someone where I live has a wage of 100.000 a year, she'd have to pay 44% of her wages in income tax alone.

And just for fun (I know some Americans like to complain about gasoline prices)
1 gallon of gasoline cost me ~8,1 dollar yesterday at the cheapest gas station in the region.

For denners with kids, they may find extra appreciation for Written by a kid (episode 3=link)

Basically these guys animate stories that kids make up.

I am on my way returning home from a family reunion and got to see my brother who shared various videos. I'm tasking him with emailing me a couple when he gets the time. So then I can share weirder things.

npc310 wrote:You know, like ZiL lanes in the Soviet Union.

I'm calling bullshit on your offtopic. In the Soviet Union, when a party official decided to have a ride, they just blocked traffic. If you were inconvenienced by it, you really had no right to complain because you OWNED A FUCKING PRIVATE CAR.

The dividing lane on the Kutuzovsky hwy (pictured in wikipedia) is supposed to divide the two flows of traffic and also to be used by ambulances and the like if there's a traffic jam (but given that quite a lot of people use it anyway, as a patient in an ambulance you seriously stand a better chance to survive if it's stuck in traffic than if it risks a head-on collision by using that strip of road).

wikipedia wrote:The network was always heavily policed and was off-limits to casual traffic until the late 1960s.

Hahahaha casual traffic in the 1960s my ass.

And here we go. I'll just copy my bro's email. =-)

erikbro wrote:They are two animations made by the artist Cyriak

Here's Welcome to Kitty City

And here's Cycles.

If you liked those, and have a medium to high level of tolerance for disturbing stuff, I recommend checking out some of the rest of his animations on Cyriak's youtube channel

Enjoy!

They might go surprisingly well with their sound turned down and Korgan0's offering of Gangam Style playing in the background.
(I just watched Kitty City again with G.S. in background. Delicious.)

Man, you know that guy in G.S. is the shit when he's got 3 mirror balls on his bus. That's 3 Mirror Balls H.A.M.

Korgan0 wrote:Hate to break up the regularly-scheduled beatdown of npc310 (at least he's consistent!), but this might just be the greatest music video ever made.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=9bZkp7q19f0

Of the three games featured in that video, it's clear that the Dude in the Stetson (0:52-0:53) is the powergamer and everyone else is a scrub who whines about "rollplayers".

I just discovered a pitch perfect parody episode of South Park starring Trey Parker and Matt Stone. The animation and production are so good that after a few minutes I forgot it wasn't a regular episode.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xwqk0ZBR-d0

I laughed, but I couldn't manage to turn it off before I started crying too. MY EARS.

Avoraciopoctules wrote:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xwqk0ZBR-d0

I laughed, but I couldn't manage to turn it off before I started crying too. MY EARS.

I... didn't get it. Other than that it sounded awful.

And what's up with never titling yer links? [url= blaaaah]Horrible King's Quest music[ /url] too much work?

I may just be bitter because I listened to all 2 minutes of it hoping for something to laugh at.

erik wrote:

Avoraciopoctules wrote:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xwqk0ZBR-d0

I laughed, but I couldn't manage to turn it off before I started crying too. MY EARS.

I... didn't get it. Other than that it sounded awful.

The song itself is bad. It's this terrible sort-of happy electronic thing with strange background noises (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L1pCxXrorKM, I'm not shortening it. Just for you.) and you can barely take it. If you know that, you listen to the "remastered" version and it's actually more bearable than the original. And that's kind of funny.

It still hurts my brain.

Both are terrible, which is the joke. It's an exaggeratedly bad version of an already bad song.

Edit: If you'd rather call that torture instead of humor, I'd be hard-pressed to argue.