Mark Cuban just became the 2nd most hated rich guy in the USA!

[maxiep]

By and large, 100k is rich in most of the country, which is the whole point.

Nice try at changing the debate, but it won't work with me.

 

[maxiep]

What exactly do you know about my former colon? Give me some details. On the other hand, you have supposedly lived in every city in the United States and most of Europe and love to name drop at any chance. Clear signs of a blowhard.

Lighten up, Francis. My point was that we share different things in here. You've shared your health struggles and your remarkable recovery. Do I call you pompous or a braggart because you managed to transform your body after losing most of your colon? Hell no. I'm impressed. It's a hell of an accomplishment.

Where I've lived and what I've done has all been within the context of a thread conversation. Why do you think living a bunch of different places is somehow being a "blowhard"? Enlighten me; I'm curious.

 

[maxiep]

After a few entanglements with Maxie, I'm starting to think he's a troll.

Yeah, that whole technique of asking you questions which you try to deflect rather than admit you don't know has to be frustrating for you.

 

[MrJayremmie]

Nonsensical tax strategy. Why cut taxes at all in good times? They're supposed to be good for the economy at all times, by generating "Revenue". If that even makes sense.

What do you think people do when taxes become superfluous? They move to other countries, the richest and best corporations bail out. Do some studying on how they affect behavior historically, nobody cares about your random theories until you use objective evidence. Marginal tax rates fluctuate throughout our history, pick up a book or something. This isn't philosophy class.

WTF are you talking about?

You realize the US rich pay extremely low rates. You are saying to put things back to Reagan rates will make people leave the US? Is this really your argument? Where would they go?

And please, show me how extending the tax cuts have helped our economy this past year. All I hear is that the rich employ people, they won't hire. Well... we cut their taxes and they STILL aren't hiring. All the tax cuts have not created a net revenue and we still have an extremely dry economy. I'm not seeing the benefit of keeping them so low in contrast with the benefit of raising them in a time of desperate need for revenue.

I had no problem with any of Bush's tax cuts because for the most part they came in a healthy economic time with a small deficit. It was when we started two unfunded wars, followed by a giant recession that I thought it was time to suspend the breaks. I think a majority of Americans are in favor of raising tax rates as a beginning way to stop this fiscal bleeding.

 

[MrJayremmie]

After a few entanglements with Maxie, I'm starting to think he's a troll.

Max can really get on my (as well as other people's) nerves. But he is hardly a troll. I probably respect his political/economical opinion more than anyone on this board.

While he throws in personal attacks constantly, it isn't near as bad as other "righties" on this board.

Max, I think more people would like you if your first and last sentences weren't a baiting/trolling/attack statement.

Yeah, that whole technique of asking you questions which you try to deflect rather than admit you don't know has to be frustrating for you.

 

[huevonkiller]

WTF are you talking about?

You realize the US rich pay extremely low rates. You are saying to put things back to Reagan rates will make people leave the US? Is this really your argument? Where would they go?

And please, show me how extending the tax cuts have helped our economy this past year. All I hear is that the rich employ people, they won't hire. Well... we cut their taxes and they STILL aren't hiring. All the tax cuts have not created a net revenue and we still have an extremely dry economy. I'm not seeing the benefit of keeping them so low in contrast with the benefit of raising them in a time of desperate need for revenue.

When did I say lowering tax rates, makes people leave? You got it backwards dude.

"What do you think people do when taxes become superfluous? They move to other countries"

I'm only interested in discussing economic metrics not your philosophical nonsense. Your ideology still doesn't make sense, you're never supposed to cut taxes at all since they generate so much "revenue". You don't have a plan.

You are arbitrarily assuming taxes generate revenue, and do not generate revenue at other points. Very confusing and unscientific.

 

[EL PRESIDENTE]

:MARIS61:

 

[EL PRESIDENTE]

I saw your info. You're the one trying to use something as simple as income as a basis to decide who's rich. I have been arguing that it's not that simple. For example, if I make $100K in Fargo, I'm rich. However, if I make $100K in Manhattan, I'm living paycheck to paycheck.

my friend was lamenting that he can't buy a decent house out here in LA and he makes over 200k/year.

 

[MrJayremmie]

When did I say lowering tax rates, makes people leave? You got it backwards dude.

"What do you think people do when taxes become superfluous? They move to other countries"

I'm only interested in discussing economic metrics not your philosophical nonsense. Your ideology still doesn't make sense, you're never supposed to cut taxes at all since they generate so much "revenue". You don't have a plan.

You are arbitrarily assuming taxes generate revenue, and do not generate revenue at other points. Very confusing and unscientific.

Wait... what?

So you are saying that raising taxes during these terrible fiscal times is superfluous?

And why are you putting words in my mouth? I'm in favor of low taxes except during certain times, this being one of them. Did you see the tax rate during WW2?

You are arbitrarily assuming taxes generate revenue,

However, these agencies were often quite successful in achieving their respective, narrower aims. The Department of the Treasury, for instance, was remarkably successful at generating money to pay for the war, including the first general income tax in American history and the famous "war bonds" sold to the public. Beginning in 1940, the government extended the income tax to virtually all Americans and began collecting the tax via the now-familiar method of continuous withholdings from paychecks (rather than lump-sum payments after the fact). The number of Americans required to pay federal taxes rose from 4 million in 1939 to 43 million in 1945. With such a large pool of taxpayers, the American government took in $45 billion in 1945, an enormous increase over the $8.7 billion collected in 1941 but still far short of the $83 billion spent on the war in 1945. Over that same period, federal tax revenue grew from about 8 percent of GDP to more than 20 percent. Americans who earned as little as $500 per year paid income tax at a 23 percent rate, while those who earned more than $1 million per year paid a 94 percent rate. The average income tax rate peaked in 1944 at 20.9 percent ("Fact Sheet: Taxes").

The extra taxes didn't break a fragile economy. In fact, despite the heavier burden that was necessary because of what we had to pay for the New Deal programs and the war, the economy started to do very well.

I'm saying reform entitlement programs, get out of the wars, raise taxes and fix this fiscal shithole.

 

[EL PRESIDENTE]

not true at all

unless you were living beyond your means that is, but the same could be said of 100k in fargo

lets say 150k to be in the middle of the numbers YOU suggested, thats 10k a month after taxes give or take...4k for housing is plenty...that leaves 1k for a porsche and insurance, 4k left...1k a month for new clothes and groceries, gotta stay fly and fed...3k left....health insurance(although i would bet a 150k job would supply that) lets say $600...2400 left for oil changes, brunches, hookers, eating out and a 3 night crack binge...

now if your argument is that this person has a family of 5...maybe they should commute and save a couple grand

$4k for housing is plenty in Manhattan? I guess if you're a single guy who doesn't need a lot of room that'd be fine.

$1k a month for clothes AND groceries? wtf. try twice that minimum.

 

[MrJayremmie]

$4k for housing is plenty in Manhattan? I guess if you're a single guy who doesn't need a lot of room that'd be fine.

$1k a month for clothes AND groceries? wtf. try twice that minimum.

Clothes? I understand groceries and housing, those are essentials. But how does clothes figure into these monthly expenses?

I'm not disagreeing with anything you are saying, BTW.

 

[huevonkiller]

Wait... what?

So you are saying that raising taxes during these terrible fiscal times is superfluous?

And why are you putting words in my mouth? I'm in favor of low taxes except during certain times, this being one of them. Did you see the tax rate during WW2?




The extra taxes didn't break a fragile economy. In fact, despite the heavier burden that was necessary because of what we had to pay for the New Deal programs and the war, the economy started to do very well.

I'm saying reform entitlement programs, get out of the wars, raise taxes and fix this fiscal shithole.

What an awful retort, I'm talking about GDP growth, you're talking about how to pay for government spending.

You assumed taxes are good, let me regurgitate your position:

Dude are you schizo or something? If taxes are never bad, why the heck are you "cutting" them in stable times? You are are going crazy. Everything we do now is supposed to make our economy the *strongest* it can possibly be.

I don't care if you agree with me 95% of the time. Your plan doesn't make sense, since when is generating revenue bad for a "fragile"/ "stable"/"great" economy? I'm trying to understand your double-thinking.

 

[EL PRESIDENTE]

Clothes? I understand groceries and housing, those are essentials. But how does clothes figure into these monthly expenses?

I'm not disagreeing with anything you are saying, BTW.

If you're living in Manhattan, chances are you're more materialistic and therefore spend a lot more money on clothes than most.

 

[huevonkiller]

If you're living in Manhattan, chances are you're more materialistic and therefore spend a lot more money on clothes than most.

This is not the argument you want to make, you're not really acknowledging how good you have it.

How much would I have to pay you, to never use the internet again? (this is an economic question, not a personal attack)

 

[EL PRESIDENTE]

This is not the argument you want to make, you're not really acknowledging how good you have it.

How much would I have to pay you, to never use the internet again?

a billion dollars.

 

[huevonkiller]

a billion dollars.

Exactly, we are a lot richer than we think.

 

[MrJayremmie]

I'm talking about GDP growth, you're talking about how to pay for government spending.

?

You realize you started this conversation by challenging my post, and when I defend a position you say you are talking about something else. If you are, how is this relevant to what I'm saying? Why make a reply rather than a regular post?

Dude are you schizo or something? If taxes are never bad, why the heck are you "cutting" them in stable times? Your are going crazy. Everything we do now is supposed to make our economy the *strongest* it can possibly be.

I don't care if you agree with me 95% of the time. Your plan doesn't make sense, since when is generating revenue bad for a "fragile" economy? I'm trying to understand your double-thinking.

I'm sorry, I don't know how to respond to this. You have no clear point, and your post is all over the place. I'm trying to follow what logic you are using (or sarcasm/attacks/whatever) but I can't.

Who said taxes are never bad? Why do you keep trying to put words in my mouth? Your arguments fail because you simply argue against yourself. I was arguing your point that raising taxes (right now) would be superfluous. I don't know how you are getting this.

Maybe we should keep our conversations to one sentence a piece? IDK man.

Everything we do now is supposed to make our economy the *strongest* it can possibly be.

Maybe in the long run. I mean, a stimulus would make the economy better right now, yet that would cost money we don't have (and is temporary).

The government doing infrastructure projects around the country would help create jobs and help our economy in the long run as well.

If we are talking long run, I think that getting our fiscal house in order is very important to getting the economy as strong as it can possibly be.

Also, correct me if I'm wrong because I'm trying to understand your posts so far in this thread... are you saying that if someone is in favor of raising taxes right now, it is illogical for them to be in favor of every lowering taxes?

If taxes are never bad, why the heck are you "cutting" them in stable times?
you're never supposed to cut taxes at all since they generate so much "revenue".
Why cut taxes at all in good times? They're supposed to be good for the economy at all times, by generating "Revenue".

BTW...

What an awful retort
Dude are you schizo or something?
Your are going crazy
I don't care if you agree with me 95% of the time
Your plan doesn't make sense
I'm trying to understand your double-thinking.

Great mod post (That was just this ONE post).

 

[Natebishop3]

Yeah, that whole technique of asking you questions which you try to deflect rather than admit you don't know has to be frustrating for you.

What question did I dodge exactly?

I said that Cuban doesn't represent the "rich of America" because his billions of dollars put him in the one percentile. I said that most "rich people" probably make around 100-200k. I showed you that the average (50% of America) makes 46k or less. You still maintain that because 200k doesn't go far in NY, that means it doesn't represent a rich person in the rest of the country. Once again you don't pay attention to my points and create some whole other debate that doesn't make any sense.

I didn't change the debate. I monkey stomped you and you are trying to act like I changed the debate to dodge my victory. It's not going to work.

 

[huevonkiller]

I got a better post now:

Tough fucking luck. This is a Libertarian board and I say whatever I want, and I am not a mod in the Blazer forum lol. I used relatively weak language too.

?

You realize you started this conversation by challenging my post, and when I defend a position you say you are talking about something else. If you are, how is this relevant to what I'm saying? Why make a reply rather than a regular post?

Dude you are schizo then. What is the point of raising taxes? To generate what?

I'm sorry, I don't know how to respond to this. You have no clear point, and your post is all over the place. I'm trying to follow what logic you are using (or sarcasm/attacks/whatever) but I can't.

Your position is nonsense and doesn't make sense. That's why you can't follow it. I'm typing up how you framed your argument.

1. Taxes are good for the economy
2. Yet you want to cut them during "good times"
3. Based on what? You are going crazy.

Who said taxes are never bad? Why do you keep trying to put words in my mouth? Your arguments fail because you simply argue against yourself. I was arguing your point that raising taxes (right now) would be superfluous. I don't know how you are getting this.

So taxes are bad sometimes then? Then your argument is BS. Lol it is simple.

Maybe we should keep our conversations to one sentence a piece? IDK man.

Maybe you should explain how taxes are good and bad on a whim.

Maybe in the long run. I mean, a stimulus would make the economy better right now, yet that would cost money we don't have (and is temporary).

The government doing infrastructure projects around the country would help create jobs and help our economy in the long run as well.

If we are talking long run, I think that getting our fiscal house in order is very important to getting the economy as strong as it can possibly be.

Also, correct me if I'm wrong because I'm trying to understand your posts so far in this thread... are you saying that if someone is in favor of raising taxes right now, it is illogical for them to be in favor of every lowering taxes?


BTW...



Great mod post (That was just this ONE post).

Man this sounds like the most random solution I've ever heard. Yes I am trying to make it very clear for you: You have an inconsistent position. And a subjective one.

I'm withholding the advanced metrics so I can ravage you later, I love prolonging this discussion.

 

[huevonkiller]

What question did I dodge exactly?

I said that Cuban doesn't represent the "rich of America" because his billions of dollars put him in the one percentile. I said that most "rich people" probably make around 100-200k. I showed you that the average (50% of America) makes 46k or less. You still maintain that because 200k doesn't go far in NY, that means it doesn't represent a rich person in the rest of the country. Once again you don't pay attention to my points and create some whole other debate that doesn't make any sense.

I didn't change the debate. I monkey stomped you and you are trying to act like I changed the debate to dodge my victory. It's not going to work.

Why stop at 100 K? Because it is a nice round number?

It is the year 2011 now and we live in one of the richest countries in the world. People don't understand what rich means.

 

[Natebishop3]

Why stop at 100 K? Because it is a nice round number?

It is the year 2011 now and we live in one of the richest countries in the world. People don't understand what rich means.

Because I threw out a random number of what I thought would be more indicative of "rich" in America than the billions of dollars that Mark Cuban has.

 

[huevonkiller]

I've read so much about the atrocities in Africa, it is just a little sickening how entitled this country is. Also I'm Hispanic so I know what poverty is really like.

We have it real good and need to stop asking for so much more.

 

[EL PRESIDENTE]

I've read so much about the atrocities in Africa, it is just a little sickening how entitled this country is. Also I'm Hispanic so I know what poverty is really like.

We have it real good and need to stop asking for so much more.

the world isn't fair. there will always be the haves and the have-nots. no matter what you do, its going to be like this. so might as well get yours.

 

[huevonkiller]

the world isn't fair. there will always be the haves and the have-nots. no matter what you do, its going to be like this. so might as well get yours.

Oh yeah I am with you for the most part.

I wasn't trying to attack just the rich, I think the lower and middle class is even more ignorant in these matters. They are just fine compared to the rest of the world.

 

[maxiep]

Max can really get on my (as well as other people's) nerves. But he is hardly a troll. I probably respect his political/economical opinion more than anyone on this board.

While he throws in personal attacks constantly, it isn't near as bad as other "righties" on this board.

Max, I think more people would like you if your first and last sentences weren't a baiting/trolling/attack statement.

Thanks for the advice. I do need to work on my snarkiness; there's no excuse for it.

BTW, I got this message.

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to MrJayremmie again.

 

[maxiep]

If you're living in Manhattan, chances are you're more materialistic and therefore spend a lot more money on clothes than most.

I'd add if you work in finance, a more formal--and more expensive--form of dress is required.

 

[maxiep]

To be fair, I don't think Cuban represents rich people.... how many Americans have billions of dollars? He's probably in the one percentile. I might be wrong, but I would think that "rich Americans" would fall more in the 100k-200k per year range. Not even the millions.

Here is your root post. The idea that you think someone who makes $100K is "rich" is laughable. That's the point I've been trying to make. And when you begin to account for geography, your point is even sillier.

 

[MrJayremmie]

I got a better post now:

Tough fucking luck. This is a Libertarian board and I say whatever I want, and I am not a mod in the Blazer forum lol. I used relatively weak language too.




Dude you are schizo then. What is the point of raising taxes? To generate what?



Your position is nonsense and doesn't make sense. That's why you can't follow it. I'm typing up how you framed your argument.

1. Taxes are good for the economy
2. Yet you want to cut them during "good times"
3. Based on what? You are going crazy.



So taxes are bad sometimes then? Then your argument is BS. Lol it is simple.


Maybe you should explain how taxes are good and bad on a whim.





Man this sounds like the most random solution I've ever heard. Yes I am trying to make it very clear for you: You have an inconsistent position. And a subjective one.

I'm withholding the advanced metrics so I can ravage you later, I love prolonging this discussion.

I'm sorry dude, you are just not getting it. I'm not going to attack you and call you any names and I honestly think this is more of a bait attempt than any lack of intelligence.

My position is plainly stated, you are purposely misrepresenting it. There is no point to even continue. Its almost like arguing with a child.

Tough fucking luck. This is a Libertarian board and I say whatever I want, and I am not a mod in the Blazer forum lol.

What the fuck is a Libertarian board, lol.

 

[maxiep]

What question did I dodge exactly?

I said that Cuban doesn't represent the "rich of America" because his billions of dollars put him in the one percentile. I said that most "rich people" probably make around 100-200k. I showed you that the average (50% of America) makes 46k or less. You still maintain that because 200k doesn't go far in NY, that means it doesn't represent a rich person in the rest of the country. Once again you don't pay attention to my points and create some whole other debate that doesn't make any sense.

I didn't change the debate. I monkey stomped you and you are trying to act like I changed the debate to dodge my victory. It's not going to work.

LOL at the idea of you stating a point, makes it reality.

 

[Natebishop3]

Here is your root post. The idea that you think someone who makes $100K is "rich" is laughable. That's the point I've been trying to make. And when you begin to account for geography, your point is even sillier.

It's over twice the salary of the average American, so yes... I would call that rich. You're quibbling over the semantics of the word, not the point behind it. You haven't been making any point. You have only been fixating on the fact that 100k doesn't go very far in New York, but that doesn't hold any water because New York is probably one of, if not the, most expensive cities in the world.

You have no grasp on reality whatsoever. "200k isn't very much because it doesn't go far in New York City..." You're ridiculous.