Why would this be unreasonable?

[Wat_Tyler]

We are marrying Junior off in June.


That said, if I had drawn up some specs on the kid I wanted, I still would have sold myself short.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Best wishes



It is a day that I am not looking forward to.

 

[Wat_Tyler]

A lot can happen between now and then . . . and probably will.


Life has a way of going on, and on, and on . . . .

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Yeah, and the workday always seems to come a bit too early and end a bit too late...

 

[IndieSnob]

I've read quite a bit about praxeology, and it falls flat on its face when looked through an analytic lens. From my philosophical point of view, it has more flaws than I can even count.

The only libertarian thinker I have been able to take seriously that I've read is Nozick, but I'm still not a believer in it.

 

[Wat_Tyler]

https://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/602167_500687726658474_1676322021_n.jpg

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Everyone is entitled to have an opinion.

I get yours. Just remember that many of the people that you find such great flaw in began as Socialist economists who could not defend Socialism nor defeat Capitalism. Between the two of us, I offered an explanation and mechanism by which taxation plays out. All that you have offered is negativity and bluster.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

http://uberhumor.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/8KABF1.jpg

 

[Wat_Tyler]

https://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash4/295686_447254475356789_1324149765_n.jpg

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

https://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash4/295686_447254475356789_1324149765_n.jpg

That describes my work status.

A couple of my fellow managers have learned the hard way that even though they have been there longer, they cannot fuck with me, for my position and title is equal to theirs.

 

[Wat_Tyler]

That's my MO at work, too. I am my own boss, a vendor providing services and an equal to all managers.


And this:

https://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash4/486578_447272888688281_1873766970_n.jpg

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

I just get calm and quiet and tell them, if you're as important as you think you are fire me.

If you cannot fire me, then piss off.

I have work to do...

 

[Wat_Tyler]

https://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-snc7/479895_447312532017650_606317739_n.jpg

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Time to go...

 

[Wat_Tyler]

Yes, it is:

https://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/554944_545798558797975_1236658642_n.jpg

 

[Liar]

Predictable 'say my point then drown thread in spam' tactic is predictable.

 

[rosco rathbone]

http://www.upworthy.com/trying-to-get-richer-heres-why-you-can-pretty-much-give-up-now

I have no doubt there are excellent reasons for it, but I'm terribly uneducated when it comes to economics.

Can somebody explain to me why a 2 percent tax increase on the top 1% would be unreasonable?

Capital gains have a sort of black-magic, sorcerers-apprentice quality. You can't understand the resistance to tax increases on the wealthy until you realize that people are highly motivated to fight anything that would mess with that magical "something for nothing" effect.

It's rationalized as "the rewards of thrift and good investment decisions", but the vehemence of the opposition shows that something in the lizard brain is being tweaked.

 

[Sean]

Predictable 'say my point then drown thread in spam' tactic is predictable.

Yeah, I don't think I'm going to be missing much if I iggy the pair of them.

 

[warrior queen]

Is that with removing all other taxes?

Yes.
There is so much money being moved every single day, that doing something like this would make every other tax redundent.

 

[Squibbs]

I can't believe you guys don't have those 2 fools on iggy already.

I'd rather pull my nose hairs with pliers than read those 2 jerk each other off with their 1930's humour.

 

[hogjack]

It would be even more reasonable for the Federal government to shrink and be more efficient. Inefficiencies are the norm. Redundancies are common.

State governments - most, except for a few poorly run states - are getting more efficient as are counties, cities, and other entities. The "closer" a government is to the people, the more fiscally responsible it becomes because the citizens know the people running it. That goes for services, too. This is how government is supposed to operate. It does not exist for practitioners to build empires. It does exist to provide structure, safety, law, oversight, infrastructure, etc.

The Federal government is obese. More than "2% obese. Washington, D.C. is more distant - more removed from reality - than ever. The President absolutely lives large (as did his predecessors). Congress is no exception to that and neither is a very entrenched bureaucracy buoyed by thousands of lobbyists and law firms.

Citizens are no innocents, either, when it comes to a burden on the size of government. They want "theirs", too, and they rely on programs that - though many with decent intent - are simply unsustainable. And everyone knows it but won't say it for fear of losing precious seats.

Instead of asking how much more money can be taken from citizens a better question is why the Federal government cannot shrink and become more like state governments have been forced to do. There are states considering tax decreases and other measures to unburden the middle class. States [run by both Parties] have reassessed what they do and how they do it. So have cities and counties. Meanwhile, Washington, D.C. is in a building binge with far too many lifetime legislators in the Beltway salivating at more, more, more.

 

[Wrong Element]

Taxes have to go down on the rich, because otherwise they won't work.

Taxes have to go up on the poor and middle class, because otherwise they won't work.

 

[KyleW]

I love you douchebags who spam pictures onto a discussion thread that you don't like. You're no different than tonyclifton/midgetclown/picture alt.

 

[Killswitch]

http://www.upworthy.com/trying-to-get-richer-heres-why-you-can-pretty-much-give-up-now

I have no doubt there are excellent reasons for it, but I'm terribly uneducated when it comes to economics.

Can somebody explain to me why a 2 percent tax increase on the top 1% would be unreasonable?

It wouldn't be. You have to remember though that the majority of the money earned by the top 1% is Capital Gains. I am quite sure that there are ways to make earned income show as a capital gain through some of these offshore money laundering deals the super rich use.

Thats not where the money is though in my opinion.....and or not where it is easily available. The money is in the top 5%.

 

[JohnnySavage]

It would be even more reasonable for the Federal government to shrink and be more efficient. Inefficiencies are the norm. Redundancies are common.

State governments - most, except for a few poorly run states - are getting more efficient as are counties, cities, and other entities. The "closer" a government is to the people, the more fiscally responsible it becomes because the citizens know the people running it. That goes for services, too. This is how government is supposed to operate. It does not exist for practitioners to build empires. It does exist to provide structure, safety, law, oversight, infrastructure, etc.

The Federal government is obese. More than "2% obese. Washington, D.C. is more distant - more removed from reality - than ever. The President absolutely lives large (as did his predecessors). Congress is no exception to that and neither is a very entrenched bureaucracy buoyed by thousands of lobbyists and law firms.

Citizens are no innocents, either, when it comes to a burden on the size of government. They want "theirs", too, and they rely on programs that - though many with decent intent - are simply unsustainable. And everyone knows it but won't say it for fear of losing precious seats.

Instead of asking how much more money can be taken from citizens a better question is why the Federal government cannot shrink and become more like state governments have been forced to do. There are states considering tax decreases and other measures to unburden the middle class. States [run by both Parties] have reassessed what they do and how they do it. So have cities and counties. Meanwhile, Washington, D.C. is in a building binge with far too many lifetime legislators in the Beltway salivating at more, more, more.

You are always spot-on.