For some bizarre reason, "middle class" in Britain means someone who's rich (but below aristocracy).Quote:
Originally Posted by Hazir
Printable View
For some bizarre reason, "middle class" in Britain means someone who's rich (but below aristocracy).Quote:
Originally Posted by Hazir
Aw, does the wittle troll want some food?Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
Stop doing your usual BS of putting words in somebody's mouth, and I'll treat you with dignity.
You said that the middle class pays a higher portion of their income in taxes than the rich. I showed that to be incorrect. Which of those two statements do you disagree with and which of them did I put in your mouth?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
So if we bump up taxes on the rich slightly so that, according to Being's graph, they paid 22% of their income in taxes, we should give them special treatment instead? I don't think that's what you intend, but I can't see what you did intend, and so since it is the inference to take from what you actually said, I'd bet that's what Loki responded to.Quote:
Originally Posted by ']['ear
Ahahah good thing you edited out the "always." Almost caught yourself lying in the "aha you're a liar!" post. :haha:
That's lie one, then there's this:
Until you stop that manipulative and lying shit I will call you on it every time I see it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
But you and aggie brought up a good point about cost of living by region. Part of this exercise (or mental masturbation) came about because of how to tax, the proposals about Bush's cuts, and that $250,000 cut-off. You had that thread about pegging income tax by region, since it's obviously different in Manhattan than Madison. But employers adjust wages or salary to the region.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreadnaught
I'm not sure gauging percentage of income makes sense, even though expensive areas do cost more to live in. Some "wealthy" areas in CA have lower property tax than PA; NYC has rent control; suburban sprawl offered more affordable housing; some choose cheaper housing and some spend too much, etc. There's a difference between life style and income....and different types of income.
Plenty of people who consider themselves middle class by income or lifestyle have a ton of debt and no real savings. Poor people in general have zero net worth. Rich people may have no mortgage on a million dollar property, all sorts of assets, plenty of investments they only pay 15% capital gains tax on, and no payroll income.
That's why Buffet et al were saying raise taxes on the "rich". They generally have more capital gains and dividend income than wages or salary, and don't pay payroll taxes beyond $109,000. Maybe tax needs to be a net worth valuation instead of just income?
I'm just enraged that anybody is even talking about extending ANY of the Bush tax cuts, given the debt we have. Madness.Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy
It's like a game of political chicken. :( I'd rather they all expire, and figure out what to do about extended unemployment and food aid expenses. Today's news says food stamp use has risen 16% in just one year.Quote:
Originally Posted by ']['ear
No, middle or upper middle class. I speak about the really rich. If you earn more than a million a year we can talk again.Quote:
Originally Posted by Veldan Rath
So...EARNING a million a year is just being LUCKY?Quote:
Originally Posted by earthJoker
no using caps-lock stupidQuote:
Originally Posted by Veldan Rath
I'll take that as a no then....or you've decided you can't back your rich = luck crap.
How dare I can say something against the American principle of "if you just work hard enough"!
I try it once more, the difference between the ultra-rich and the upper middle class can hardly be explained by working harder.
Nor can it be all explained with luck.
I also wouldn't call a 1 million a year to be ultra rich.
Oh joy now we are dealing with "Upper Middle Class." Is that 100k? 200K? 500k?Quote:
Originally Posted by earthJoker
Yes, that argument also works for Poker. "It's 60% skill and 40% luck!"Quote:
Originally Posted by Veldan Rath
Yeah, right. Something which is largely defined by luck (and 40% is a large percentage) is still a game of luck. Unlike, for example, chess.
So it's 40% luck?Quote:
Originally Posted by Khendraja'aro
This gets us nowhere. We can both pull numbers out of our asses on how the evil rich get their money.
Still sounds like envy to me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
Everyone's welcome to write down their definitions of what IS middle class, ya know.Quote:
Originally Posted by Veldan Rath
It's basically impossible, as it's all a matter of perspective (locale, COL, blah blah blah)Quote:
Originally Posted by GGT
I would think...for Middle Class...after spending 25% or so on housing, then still being able to pay your bills and have low or none (non-mortgage) debt in relation to your income...but that can apply to any class...
So that is more a definition of living within your means....
The simplest...take the broad range of incomes in the area...top 25% is upper, bottom 25% is lower...and voila!
YMMV.
Semantics aside, it can't be impossible. If you make the quintiles 25% by area, then the argument about disparate COL comes up again. But federal income taxes aren't pegged by region....should they be calculated that way? How would that work in an area like Vegas or Detroit?Quote:
Originally Posted by Veldan Rath
What's YMMV?
Geeze, man, that analogy clearly went over your head. I'll come back when you switch on your brain, okay?Quote:
Originally Posted by Veldan Rath
I got your point, I just found it as useless as the majority of your posts. But you obviously missed mine. Come back when you find a brain.Quote:
Originally Posted by Khendraja'aro
Really? Are you making a statistical argument, or is it impossible to have pro wealth distribution (substitute pinko librl if it helps) views while non-rich without envy being the motive? Also, it seems like a case of the rock and the hard place; if you're not rich and criticize rich people, you're envious, and if you're rich and criticize rich people you're a champagne socialist.Quote:
Originally Posted by Veldan Rath
How is criticizing rich people on the sole ground that they rich any better than attacking poor people for being poor?
The poor aren't sitting on resources, so criticizing them is pointless, you can't squeeze blood from a stone.
So anyone who's rich should promptly give away their money? Or people shouldn't strive to be rich in the first place?Quote:
Originally Posted by Nessus
Loki, Loki, Loki. :(Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
I am not very interested in answering loaded, biased questions you pose in order to create an appearance that your position is correct by virtue of you setting up straw-men for me to pummel. We both know it isn't as simple as that and I don't really see your angle here.
We both know that you're attacking people for purely having wealth. You're not attacking them for misusing that wealth. I'm trying to understand why someone would take that position.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nessus
I must protest; I do not know that. Perhaps you can dissolve some of this infernal opaqueness hindering the flow of conversation?
Loki alt identity? Intentionally distorting somebody's post is pretty dickish, y'know. For exaample:Quote:
Originally Posted by Veldan Rath
Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
No? Luck as in, things you couldn't influence yourself? So it's all just one's own decisions and actions. We have to ask ourselves how much self-decision there is anyway.Quote:
Originally Posted by Veldan Rath
Explain how someone works 10-50 times harder than someone that already is in the upper middle class. (~150% of the median).Quote:
I also wouldn't call a 1 million a year to be ultra rich.
Explain how corporate CEOs in the 50s could make at most 10-20 times the salary of their lowest paid employee, and now can make over a thousand times as much. It's not a matter of due reward for more talent and hard work (50s), but the game being rigged (00s).
Do you ask me? Because it seems that you actually supporting my point...
He is. I think we need red and white badges in this joint.
Well WTF happened to this thread? If you guys are gonna fight about wealth, the least you could do is define THAT.
I think we all agree that poor is going to be anyone that has to financially live day to day and below. Middle class are people that have resources beyond necessity all the way up to gaining special social privileges. Upper class is all VIP's and up. Is that the best definition no... We could go by percentile of left over annual income area by area to determine what percent cuts offs reasonably qualify for each bracket (that's best for tax purposes), if the areas are similar enough we could treat them as one area. How much above you live beyond neccessity is really where we have to determine cut offs.
But that gets in the way of all the emotional arguments from the fucking right; everyone is envious and greedy and if they don't wanna be where they are then WORK or FUCK YOU and so forth. Definitions are for ivory tower elitist lubrl ass-holes. That's nowhere near true Americana!Quote:
Originally Posted by GGT
So this thread was a bad idea, huh. People really wanted to fight about what middle class means, in other threads, but not really define it? :(
Oh jesus...yes there only emotional emotional arguments from the other side that does not agree with you. You are just as an emotional juvenile as those you accuse of being such. And I'm sure you will then retreat to the No One Should Take Ness Seriously posts...if that was the case then why do the fuck do you bother posting in D&D?Quote:
Originally Posted by Nessus
Wealth Redistribution is at it's heart a form of envy (even if only by proxy). A has something, B does not. So either B wants it or C decides he knows best and petitions Government D to take A's stuff. In the name of fairness. Really? And the way they justify this 'logic' is that the wealthy were just lucky, so the should have it anyway. Tear is actually one of sane ones in that he keeps referencing that when he looks at the figures that it appears that they are paying less in percentage than the 'middle class' and that is a rational argument.
I understand that there is a need for taxes, everyone does, no mater how much crazy some posters here want to paint on us for being anarchists.
I tried to...but then got caught up in the other...stuff.Quote:
Originally Posted by GGT