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

[huevonkiller]

Yes Mrsname, Government can raise taxes. We all know this.

You've provided zero mathematical arguments aside from: taxes pay for federal programs.

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.

Your position is clearly stated: "I'm contradicting myself". "I don't know what marginal tax rates are", "Blah blah blah a stimulus helps, tax hikes help, but then don't help.... Blah blah. " etc.

This is not a statistical defense, go back to school or something. Until you make an objective and statistical defense your opinion has zero value. We are in this position because Congress has zero background (hyperbole but mostly true) in economics, and you lack a statistical understanding as well.

What the fuck is a Libertarian board, lol.

Libertarian board means we don't like to micromanage. This is counter to the Democrat ideology and other pussies.

Freedom bruh, read a little Locke or something. He's not my favorite politician but his books are widely accessible.

 

[maxiep]

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.

Thanks for your opinion. It's an interesting one. I'll just make this comment: Try living on $100K in Portland, OR with a family of four and tell me how "rich" you feel.

 

[huevonkiller]

Thanks for your opinion. It's an interesting one. I'll just make this comment: Try living on $100K in Portland, OR with a family of four and tell me how "rich" you feel.

Maxie I think you understand politics pretty well, but why have kids if you can't afford them? Just have one, or adopt, etc.

Unless your wife had quadruplets, or some other extreme scenario.

 

[maxiep]

Maxie I think you understand politics pretty well, but why have kids if you can't afford them? Just have one, or adopt, etc.

Unless your wife had quadruplets, or some other extreme scenario.

The point is that $100K makes you "rich" according to Natebishop3, so what's so unusual about having two kids? It shouldn't matter how many kids you have, being "rich" means you can easily afford them.

 

[huevonkiller]

The point is that $100K makes you "rich" according to Natebishop3, so what's so unusual about having two kids? It shouldn't matter how many kids you have, being "rich" means you can easily afford them.

Putting yourself in a tough situation is different. No one told you to have that many kids, or any at all.

Also I think you're quite rich actually. I would think that's a compliment.

 

[Natebishop3]

Thanks for your opinion. It's an interesting one. I'll just make this comment: Try living on $100K in Portland, OR with a family of four and tell me how "rich" you feel.

To more than 50% of America, 100k a year for even a combined household would definitely be considered "rich" and I think you're being insensitive to that demographic. Just because you can't buy your new BMW or eat out at fancy restaurants doesn't make you poor. My family lived comfortably on my dad's 50k a year income, in SW Portland, with three kids, so yeah..... it can be done. Once again you're quibbling over the definition of "rich" and I think you're looking like a real asshole in the process.

 

[maxiep]

To more than 50% of America, 100k a year for even a combined household would definitely be considered "rich" and I think you're being insensitive to that demographic. Just because you can't buy your new BMW or eat out at fancy restaurants doesn't make you poor. My family lived comfortably on my dad's 50k a year income, in SW Portland, with three kids, so yeah..... it can be done. Once again you're quibbling over the definition of "rich" and I think you're looking like a real asshole in the process.

Gee, thanks for your swell opinion on my behavior, Nate. Am I debating that living comfortably in SW Portland on $100K a year can't be done? Of course not. But are you really going to make the argument that making $100K makes you "rich"? Equating the two is frankly bizarre.

Again, my point is that simply defining "rich" by income--which you posited--is foolish. You haven't provided any evidence to contradict my point. You just keep namecalling and changing the debate. I get the game; too bad you don't play it well.

Your turn.

 

[Natebishop3]

Gee, thanks for your swell opinion on my behavior, Nate. Am I debating that living comfortably in SW Portland on $100K a year can't be done? Of course not. But are you really going to make the argument that making $100K makes you "rich"? Equating the two is frankly bizarre.

Again, my point is that simply defining "rich" by income--which you posited--is foolish. You haven't provided any evidence to contradict my point. You just keep namecalling and changing the debate. I get the game; too bad you don't play it well.

Your turn.

Your point is moot because this thread is about Cuban's opinion on taxing the "rich". Taxing the "rich" is based on income. Income is exactly what I've been supporting throughout this thread.

Your turn.

 

[barfo]

Well, no one asked me but...

maxiep is right that the definition of rich should take into account the cost of living
natebishop3 is right that the definition of rich shouldn't be "has more money than maxiep".

I'd add that income is probably not the best definition - after all a billionaire who keeps all his money in the mattress is still rich, even if he has no income. [Edit: I note Nate's point in the prior post about the subject of the thread being income tax. A good point.]

There obviously is no objective definition of rich, and obviously different people have different perceptions of what rich means. Therefore this argument will not end. Carry on...

barfo

 

[Natebishop3]

Well, no one asked me but...

maxiep is right that the definition of rich should take into account the cost of living
natebishop3 is right that the definition of rich shouldn't be "has more money than maxiep".

I'd add that income is probably not the best definition - after all a billionaire who keeps all his money in the mattress is still rich, even if he has no income. [Edit: I note Nate's point in the prior post about the subject of the thread being income tax. A good point.]

There obviously is no objective definition of rich, and obviously different people have different perceptions of what rich means. Therefore this argument will not end. Carry on...

barfo

And if we really wanted to start mucking up the waters, we can begin arguing that someone with a family of four could think themselves rich because they have four wonderful kids, all money aside. My point since the beginning is that someone making 100k a year, looking at the entire United States and not one or two cities, is proven to be in the top 15% of income. That would most likely fall under the federal governments definition of "rich" if they were to implement harsher taxes on the so called "rich".

 

[huevonkiller]

Maxie's right that he might be closer to the middle class, but the middle class in this country is pretty damn decent.

Plus he's being humble, he doesn't like to gloat. :]

 

[barfo]

And if we really wanted to start mucking up the waters, we can begin arguing that someone with a family of four could think themselves rich because they have four wonderful kids, all money aside.

Not necessarily. The kids might be mean snot-nosed little brats and not wonderful at all.

barfo

 

[Natebishop3]

Not necessarily. The kids might be mean snot-nosed little brats and not wonderful at all.

barfo

But the parent might be blinded with love (as most parents are) and still think he's rich, regardless of whether the kids are snot-nosed little brats or not.

 

[barfo]

But the parent might be blinded with love (as most parents are) and still think he's rich, regardless of whether the kids are snot-nosed little brats or not.

Then we should tax him.

barfo

 

[Natebishop3]

Then we should tax him.

barfo

I agree. We need a procreator tax. Anything over two kids and you get taxed to high heaven. The Catholics and Mormons will hate it.

 

[barfo]

I agree. We need a procreator tax. Anything over two kids and you get taxed to high heaven. The Catholics and Mormons will hate it.

So much the better. Also, if you've got more than 2 wives, that's an additional tax.

barfo

 

[Natebishop3]

So much the better. Also, if you've got more than 2 wives, that's an additional tax.

barfo

Two wives does not make you rich. It makes you very, very poor. Poor in income, poor in time, poor in sanity, poor in sexual relations. If anything, polygamists should get an extra tax break for having to deal with more than one wife.

 

[3RA1N1AC]

Link or it didn't happen.

link

 

[maxiep]

link

Didn't happen.

 

[3RA1N1AC]

sorry man, it must be like falling penis first naked into a warm bowl of raw eggs, keep your chin up

 

[maxiep]

sorry man, it must be like falling penis first naked into a warm bowl of raw eggs, keep your chin up

Thanks for describing the way you make an omelette, but I don't swing that way.

 

[Natebishop3]

Thanks for describing the way you make an omelette, but I don't swing that way.

So did you concede victory?

 

[maxiep]

So did you concede victory?

Aw, Nate, you're cute. You know the way you call someone under the Federal Tax Code making over $100K "rich". And when someone tries to tell you that amount hardly makes you "rich" in many metropolitan areas and can be living from paycheck to paycheck in the biggest ones, you then try to change that definition to "comfortable" and then try to change "rich" to mean abundant in love and friends. Now you wish to intercede in a subthread where two posters are trying to outsilly each other.

I've never seen someone twist themselves into such a Gordian Knot just because they don't have the humility to admit they were mistaken. Admit when you're wrong and you'll learn something. If not, spend the rest of your life in blissful ignorance wondering why everyone else is leapfrogging you.

 

[Natebishop3]

Aw, Nate, you're cute. You know the way you call someone under the Federal Tax Code making over $100K "rich". And when someone tries to tell you that amount hardly makes you "rich" in many metropolitan areas and can be living from paycheck to paycheck in the biggest ones, you then try to change that definition to "comfortable" and then try to change "rich" to mean abundant in love and friends. Now you wish to intercede in a subthread where two posters are trying to outsilly each other.

I've never seen someone twist themselves into such a Gordian Knot just because they don't have the humility to admit they were mistaken. Admit when you're wrong and you'll learn something. If not, spend the rest of your life in blissful ignorance wondering why everyone else is leapfrogging you.

Whatever. You ignored my point, which answered your claims.

 

[maxiep]

Whatever. You ignored my point, which answered your claims.

No, I recognized your point. I just dismissed it because it was moronic.

 

[Natebishop3]

No, I recognized your point. I just dismissed it because it was moronic.

hahahahaah.... okay...... you would have failed miserably at parliamentary debate my friend.

 

[maxiep]

hahahahaah.... okay...... you would have failed miserably at parliamentary debate my friend.

And what do you know of parliamentary debate*? Please, enlighten us.

*Hint: This road is not one you wish to travel, lest you be further embarrassed.

 

[Natebishop3]

And what do you know of parliamentary debate*? Please, enlighten us.

*Hint: This road is not one you wish to travel, lest you be further embarrassed.

I debated for a couple years. I know you can't just drop a point because YOU think it's moronic.

 

[3RA1N1AC]

Thanks for describing the way you make an omelette, but I don't swing that way.

if youve ever eaten at a diner, i bet you have, cooks do some gross stuff

and a roast beef omelette might actually be tighter for you at this point, maybe give it a shot

and back to the point, with all the money you would save using old yoplait lite containers for gimlet glasses, and weaving dryer lint into turtleneck sweaters, i would think YOU could live quite comfortably on 150k anywhere in the country....no?

 

[Natebishop3]

my point is that simply defining "rich" by income--which you posited--is foolish. You haven't provided any evidence to contradict my point.

Your point is moot because this thread is about Cuban's opinion on taxing the "rich". Taxing the "rich" is based on income. Income is exactly what I've been supporting throughout this thread.

Your turn.

Moronic?