Topic: Biden is a disgusting loser
Anonymous A started this discussion 2 years ago #112,905
Anonymous B joined in and replied with this 2 years ago, 1 hour later[^] [v] #1,251,012
Yet he's not facing four criminal trials, is he?
Anonymous C joined in and replied with this 2 years ago, 11 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,251,014
@previous (B)
It's almost like the people with entrenched power in government like Biden, and don't like Trump.
That's probably because the rich elites who make all the decisions are benevolent and are just looking out for us common people!
It's almost like the people with entrenched power in government like Biden, and don't like Trump.
That's probably because the rich elites who make all the decisions are benevolent and are just looking out for us common people!
Anonymous B replied with this 2 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,251,018
@previous (C)
Grand juries of citizens decided that there was sufficient evidence for a trial. Biden had nothing to so with it.
Grand juries of citizens decided that there was sufficient evidence for a trial. Biden had nothing to so with it.
Anonymous C replied with this 2 years ago, 56 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,251,019
@previous (B)
Is that how we know when someone is guilty? When they are indicted?
If so, what's the point of even having a trial?
Is that how we know when someone is guilty? When they are indicted?
If so, what's the point of even having a trial?
Anonymous B replied with this 2 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,251,020
@previous (C)
No. All I am saying is that there was sufficient evidence to hold a trial. Dude, he literally has been bragging about everything he did for months on TV.
No. All I am saying is that there was sufficient evidence to hold a trial. Dude, he literally has been bragging about everything he did for months on TV.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 2 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,251,021
Election Interference.
Anonymous C replied with this 2 years ago, 10 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,251,027
@1,251,020 (B)
The democrats believe the government taking half what someone makes isn't enough.
They believe in censorship to stop people from calling out their lies.
They advocate violence against those that do not accept their new definitions of gender.
They want to get rid of due process.
They are against any rhetoric that favors the working class, except very watered down policies that don't keep up with the actual economy.
They're hyperfocused on idpol, blaming everything on cishet white men.
The democrats have been caught in big corruption scandals too, but the media hides it when it happens.
Trump isn't great, but he's the only one who acts likes he's anti-establishment. The democrats could have won that one if they respected the lead Bernie had in the polls, but every leading Dem conspired to back Biden at the same moment and eliminated that advantage.
I'd rather see Trump burn everything down then see hate-filled, antitruth, corrupt lairs keep their power.
You can't vote your way out of oppression.
The democrats believe the government taking half what someone makes isn't enough.
They believe in censorship to stop people from calling out their lies.
They advocate violence against those that do not accept their new definitions of gender.
They want to get rid of due process.
They are against any rhetoric that favors the working class, except very watered down policies that don't keep up with the actual economy.
They're hyperfocused on idpol, blaming everything on cishet white men.
The democrats have been caught in big corruption scandals too, but the media hides it when it happens.
Trump isn't great, but he's the only one who acts likes he's anti-establishment. The democrats could have won that one if they respected the lead Bernie had in the polls, but every leading Dem conspired to back Biden at the same moment and eliminated that advantage.
I'd rather see Trump burn everything down then see hate-filled, antitruth, corrupt lairs keep their power.
You can't vote your way out of oppression.
Anonymous B replied with this 2 years ago, 3 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,251,031
@previous (C)
The only people who pay anywhere near half are billionaires. The average poor sop pays very little in taxes.
The only people who pay anywhere near half are billionaires. The average poor sop pays very little in taxes.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 2 years ago, 49 seconds later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,251,032
Anonymous C replied with this 2 years ago, 5 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,251,039
@1,251,031 (B)
When you include all taxes? federal, state, social security, municipal.
That can be very near half, even if you're making only 40 or 50 a year.
That all comes out before you see your paycheck.
Then you have pay more just to spend it. Sales tax, property tax (passed along to you, even if you rent), capital gains if you invest it, and more depending on where you live and other criteria.
Oh, and when Biden was VP he helped Obama make a new fine for people too poor to afford healthcare.
By the time you count all the pre-paycheck taxes and the taxes you can't avoid if you actually want to spend the money, the you have lost half what you worked for.
Oh, and there's all the hidden taxes. Taxes on business that have to be paid by the consumer/employee because business are not charities, but pass all costs on to the person buying the product.
When you include all taxes? federal, state, social security, municipal.
That can be very near half, even if you're making only 40 or 50 a year.
That all comes out before you see your paycheck.
Then you have pay more just to spend it. Sales tax, property tax (passed along to you, even if you rent), capital gains if you invest it, and more depending on where you live and other criteria.
Oh, and when Biden was VP he helped Obama make a new fine for people too poor to afford healthcare.
By the time you count all the pre-paycheck taxes and the taxes you can't avoid if you actually want to spend the money, the you have lost half what you worked for.
Oh, and there's all the hidden taxes. Taxes on business that have to be paid by the consumer/employee because business are not charities, but pass all costs on to the person buying the product.
(Edited 16 seconds later.)
Anonymous B replied with this 2 years ago, 43 seconds later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,251,040
@previous (C)
Dude, someone making 40k a year is NOT paying half his income in taxes lol. Learn to deduct as well. Most people get a refund.
Dude, someone making 40k a year is NOT paying half his income in taxes lol. Learn to deduct as well. Most people get a refund.
Anonymous C replied with this 2 years ago, 3 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,251,046
@previous (B)
> Dude, someone making 40k a year is NOT paying half his income in taxes lol.
If you include all the tax I mentioned, they are.
> Learn to deduct as well.
Why don't the poor just talk to their accountant? 🤔
> Most people get a refund.
They get some of their own money back, after giving the government an interest free loan.
That makes it worse, you see how that makes it worse right?
> Dude, someone making 40k a year is NOT paying half his income in taxes lol.
If you include all the tax I mentioned, they are.
> Learn to deduct as well.
Why don't the poor just talk to their accountant? 🤔
> Most people get a refund.
They get some of their own money back, after giving the government an interest free loan.
That makes it worse, you see how that makes it worse right?
Anonymous B replied with this 2 years ago, 1 minute later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,251,047
@previous (C)
You can read free library books on how to take tax deductions. Also, Turbotax is free and guides you through everything.
You can read free library books on how to take tax deductions. Also, Turbotax is free and guides you through everything.
Anonymous C replied with this 2 years ago, 5 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,251,049
@previous (B)
Oh, even better, some burnt out worker who wants to rest their limbs and zone out after a long day in the service sector just needs to go to the library instead and teach themselves how to become a tax accountant.
Why does anyone become a professional accountant when it's just that easy?
And deductions don't get you out of social security tax, or sales tax, and most other taxes. Even if you do it right, there's still going to be a big tax liability.
Personal deductions won't help you when the business is passing along tax burdens in prices. It doesn't help when the Fed prints trillions and destroys any cash savings, and guts minimum wage protections as inflation eats away at the value of a dollar either.
Oh, even better, some burnt out worker who wants to rest their limbs and zone out after a long day in the service sector just needs to go to the library instead and teach themselves how to become a tax accountant.
Why does anyone become a professional accountant when it's just that easy?
And deductions don't get you out of social security tax, or sales tax, and most other taxes. Even if you do it right, there's still going to be a big tax liability.
Personal deductions won't help you when the business is passing along tax burdens in prices. It doesn't help when the Fed prints trillions and destroys any cash savings, and guts minimum wage protections as inflation eats away at the value of a dollar either.
(Edited 22 seconds later.)
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU joined in and replied with this 2 years ago, 49 seconds later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,251,050
@1,251,039 (C)
Please look at your paystub before saying dumb shit. I just pulled up mine because I make a little over that range and my withholdings (SS, Federal and State income tax and medicare) are under 20% of gross pay. Even if I lived in a higher tax city in a higher tax state I wouldnt crack 25% let alone 50% lol. If you are paying 50% you must get a like $7000 tax refund or something man.
Please look at your paystub before saying dumb shit. I just pulled up mine because I make a little over that range and my withholdings (SS, Federal and State income tax and medicare) are under 20% of gross pay. Even if I lived in a higher tax city in a higher tax state I wouldnt crack 25% let alone 50% lol. If you are paying 50% you must get a like $7000 tax refund or something man.
(Edited 48 seconds later.)
Anonymous C replied with this 2 years ago, 3 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,251,051
@previous (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
> Please look at your paystub before saying dumb shit.
That's how I realized how much I was losing.
State, federal, and SS were taking up about 40% of what I made.
That's before the nearly 10% sales tax I have to pay to use that money at all.
Then there's the much harder taxes to measure, because they get directly taxed on businesses, and are then passed along obfuscated in the prices.
This is commiefornia.
> Please look at your paystub before saying dumb shit.
That's how I realized how much I was losing.
State, federal, and SS were taking up about 40% of what I made.
That's before the nearly 10% sales tax I have to pay to use that money at all.
Then there's the much harder taxes to measure, because they get directly taxed on businesses, and are then passed along obfuscated in the prices.
This is commiefornia.
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 2 years ago, 2 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,251,052
@previous (C)
There is no universe in which that is true. What percentage specifically do you get when you divide your withholdings over your gross pay? You are probably actually at the 20-25% mark I would guess.
There is no universe in which that is true. What percentage specifically do you get when you divide your withholdings over your gross pay? You are probably actually at the 20-25% mark I would guess.
(Edited 2 minutes later.)
Anonymous C replied with this 2 years ago, 3 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,251,053
@previous (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
It's been years since I've worked for a company that does withholdings, it's just too stupid to justify.
I don't know the exact percentages because my old paystubs are with some other financials in a safe deposit box in Zurich.
I can say that if you look at the official tax rates federally and by state, combined with SS and sales tax you are close to 50.
Sure, just look at federal and assume some deductions and that's closer to 25%. Taxes take many forms, and that's not the full picture.
It's been years since I've worked for a company that does withholdings, it's just too stupid to justify.
I don't know the exact percentages because my old paystubs are with some other financials in a safe deposit box in Zurich.
I can say that if you look at the official tax rates federally and by state, combined with SS and sales tax you are close to 50.
Sure, just look at federal and assume some deductions and that's closer to 25%. Taxes take many forms, and that's not the full picture.
(Edited 14 seconds later.)
Anonymous B replied with this 2 years ago, 5 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,251,056
@previous (C)
I get a refund every year. I literally pay negative taxes. You need to learn to do deductions, man. You are cheating yourself.
I get a refund every year. I literally pay negative taxes. You need to learn to do deductions, man. You are cheating yourself.
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 2 years ago, 2 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,251,058
@1,251,053 (C)
SS tax rate for individuals is 6.20%. Medicare tax rate for individuals is 1.45%. Effective federal income tax rate on $50k is about 8.5%. Effective state and local income tax rate in Los Angeles, CA is about 10%. Assuming no extra deductions or anything else to reduce your tax burden, you're looking at a tax rate of roughly 25%. You just are wrong.
SS tax rate for individuals is 6.20%. Medicare tax rate for individuals is 1.45%. Effective federal income tax rate on $50k is about 8.5%. Effective state and local income tax rate in Los Angeles, CA is about 10%. Assuming no extra deductions or anything else to reduce your tax burden, you're looking at a tax rate of roughly 25%. You just are wrong.
(Edited 2 minutes later.)
Anonymous C replied with this 2 years ago, 4 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,251,061
@previous (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
> SS tax rate for individuals is 6.20%
And the business pays the same, which is considered part of the cost of hiring the employee.
From the businesses perspective, paying the employee or paying the government, to hire the employee is the same.
Meaning the part you can't see gets deducted from what would otherwise be wages.
If you're 1099, you'll be paying both employer and employee SS directly, it doesn't even get hidden.
> Effective federal income tax rate on $50k is about 8.5%. Effective state and local income tax rate in Los Angeles, CA is about 10%.
You've just mentioned 25% already, without counting the employer side SS, and ignoring municipal, and most importantly: ignoring the sales tax.
Add in another 13% for sales + employer SS.
Now it's nearly 40%. The miscellaneous taxes that get passed onto citizens in less visible ways will make up the difference to 50%.
> SS tax rate for individuals is 6.20%
And the business pays the same, which is considered part of the cost of hiring the employee.
From the businesses perspective, paying the employee or paying the government, to hire the employee is the same.
Meaning the part you can't see gets deducted from what would otherwise be wages.
If you're 1099, you'll be paying both employer and employee SS directly, it doesn't even get hidden.
> Effective federal income tax rate on $50k is about 8.5%. Effective state and local income tax rate in Los Angeles, CA is about 10%.
You've just mentioned 25% already, without counting the employer side SS, and ignoring municipal, and most importantly: ignoring the sales tax.
Add in another 13% for sales + employer SS.
Now it's nearly 40%. The miscellaneous taxes that get passed onto citizens in less visible ways will make up the difference to 50%.
(Edited 1 minute later.)
Anonymous B replied with this 2 years ago, 3 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,251,063
Anonymous C replied with this 2 years ago, 3 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,251,064
@previous (B)
Doesn't work for SS/medicare taxes.
Doesn't work for sales tax.
Doesn't work for most taxes actually. The taxes it does work for, it doesn't reduce the overall liability by much.
Doesn't work for SS/medicare taxes.
Doesn't work for sales tax.
Doesn't work for most taxes actually. The taxes it does work for, it doesn't reduce the overall liability by much.
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 2 years ago, 15 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,251,065
@1,251,061 (C)
> From the businesses perspective, paying the employee or paying the government, to hire the employee is the same.
Yes, but as an employee it's only 1:1 lost wages for you if you assume the business would pass on the savings 100% to the employee, which they wouldn't. And you are also assuming that the cost of paying for the services that those taxes fund would be as universal and affordable on the private market, which is probably not true. Just look at the cost employers have to pay for health insurance lol. Why aren't you yelling at Cigna or BCBS for taking $500-$1000 out of your pocket every month too (more if you're older or have kids)? Services cost money. There is no magical world where you get to keep 100% of your gross pay. If you could wave a magic wand and there were no taxes you'd just have to pay the private fire company and the private road company and the private police company and the private military company, and the private unemployment insurance company and the private FDA, the private SEC, the private FDIC, and so on, ad infinitum. And that's making extremely generous assumptions about the stability and feasibility of that world.
> Now it's nearly 40%. The miscellaneous taxes that get passed onto citizens in less visible ways will make up the difference to 50%.
Ok but a post above you said "official tax rates federally and by state, combined with SS and sales tax you are close to 50." and now we are down to below 40% with some handwaving that gets us up to 50. If you keep shedding 10% per post pretty soon you'll be paying negative taxes!
> From the businesses perspective, paying the employee or paying the government, to hire the employee is the same.
Yes, but as an employee it's only 1:1 lost wages for you if you assume the business would pass on the savings 100% to the employee, which they wouldn't. And you are also assuming that the cost of paying for the services that those taxes fund would be as universal and affordable on the private market, which is probably not true. Just look at the cost employers have to pay for health insurance lol. Why aren't you yelling at Cigna or BCBS for taking $500-$1000 out of your pocket every month too (more if you're older or have kids)? Services cost money. There is no magical world where you get to keep 100% of your gross pay. If you could wave a magic wand and there were no taxes you'd just have to pay the private fire company and the private road company and the private police company and the private military company, and the private unemployment insurance company and the private FDA, the private SEC, the private FDIC, and so on, ad infinitum. And that's making extremely generous assumptions about the stability and feasibility of that world.
> Now it's nearly 40%. The miscellaneous taxes that get passed onto citizens in less visible ways will make up the difference to 50%.
Ok but a post above you said "official tax rates federally and by state, combined with SS and sales tax you are close to 50." and now we are down to below 40% with some handwaving that gets us up to 50. If you keep shedding 10% per post pretty soon you'll be paying negative taxes!
Anonymous C replied with this 2 years ago, 31 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,251,073
@previous (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
> Yes, but as an employee it's only 1:1 lost wages for you if you assume the business would pass on the savings 100% to the employee, which they wouldn't.
Of course it's 1:1
Why would they tolerate paying that money to the government, but not to the employee?
If anything they'd be more willing to spend money the employee acknowledges and appreciates.
> And you are also assuming that the cost of paying for the services that those taxes fund would be as universal and affordable on the private market, which is probably not true.
Tying healthcare to employers is terrible for employees, and was invented to bond desperate people to the capitalist that owns them in even more insidious ways.
Group insurance is great. Hobby organizations, universities, and many nonprofits offer it. Employers aren't the only ones who can offer that benefit.
> Why aren't you yelling at Cigna or BCBS for taking $500-$1000 out of your pocket every month too (more if you're older or have kids)?
Get on group insurance, that's cheaper.
Those companies pay the claims, which is going to get passed on to me obviously.
A white coat drug dealer price gouging with the help of the police killing off colored affordable competition is bad.
Insurance companies normalizing medical prices isn't the problem.
> There is no magical world where you get to keep 100% of your gross pay.
Of course, but taking half and failing at providing the most important services is why America is full of people that don't trust the government.
Paying for roads through public taxes is never what people are actually criticizing when they say the tax system is broken.
> Ok but a post above you said "official tax rates federally and by state, combined with SS and sales tax you are close to 50."
When I said SS I meant the 1099 rate that is easy to measure. Even w2 are paying for this, whether they see it or not.
I also meant to include sales tax, but may have left that off.
> Yes, but as an employee it's only 1:1 lost wages for you if you assume the business would pass on the savings 100% to the employee, which they wouldn't.
Of course it's 1:1
Why would they tolerate paying that money to the government, but not to the employee?
If anything they'd be more willing to spend money the employee acknowledges and appreciates.
> And you are also assuming that the cost of paying for the services that those taxes fund would be as universal and affordable on the private market, which is probably not true.
Tying healthcare to employers is terrible for employees, and was invented to bond desperate people to the capitalist that owns them in even more insidious ways.
Group insurance is great. Hobby organizations, universities, and many nonprofits offer it. Employers aren't the only ones who can offer that benefit.
> Why aren't you yelling at Cigna or BCBS for taking $500-$1000 out of your pocket every month too (more if you're older or have kids)?
Get on group insurance, that's cheaper.
Those companies pay the claims, which is going to get passed on to me obviously.
A white coat drug dealer price gouging with the help of the police killing off colored affordable competition is bad.
Insurance companies normalizing medical prices isn't the problem.
> There is no magical world where you get to keep 100% of your gross pay.
Of course, but taking half and failing at providing the most important services is why America is full of people that don't trust the government.
Paying for roads through public taxes is never what people are actually criticizing when they say the tax system is broken.
> Ok but a post above you said "official tax rates federally and by state, combined with SS and sales tax you are close to 50."
When I said SS I meant the 1099 rate that is easy to measure. Even w2 are paying for this, whether they see it or not.
I also meant to include sales tax, but may have left that off.
(Edited 5 minutes later.)
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 2 years ago, 13 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,251,075
@previous (C)
> Of course it's 1:1. Why would they tolerate paying that money to the government, but not to the employee? If anything they'd be more willing to spend money the employee acknowledges and appreciates.
Because companies exist to make a profit. It's the same reason why if a company manages to permanently cut costs by $X per employee, there is not always an immediate corresponding company-wide salary increase of $X per employee.
> Get on group insurance, that's cheaper. Those companies pay the claims, which is going to get passed on to me obviously. A white coat drug dealer price gouging with the help of the police killing of colored affordable competition is bad. Insurance companies normalizing medical prices isn't the problem.
Lots of things are cheaper if you pay as a group. This is true of health insurance and of anything else. But try finding a private health insurance plan for the elderly that has benefits and coverage as good as Medicare at its price point. Try finding a guaranteed income provider for retired people that has the same monthly pay-in and payout as SS. You'll be looking a while.
> Of course, but taking half and failing at providing the most important services is why America is full of people that don't trust the government. Paying for roads through public taxes is never what people are actually criticizing when they say the tax system is broken.
I agree that American social programs are insufficiently robust, but you aren't going to get better ones by paying less in taxes.
> When I said SS I meant the 1099 rate that is easy to measure. Even w2 are paying for this, whether they see it or not. I also meant to include sales tax, but may have left that off.
Yeah we may just have to agree to disagree here.
> Of course it's 1:1. Why would they tolerate paying that money to the government, but not to the employee? If anything they'd be more willing to spend money the employee acknowledges and appreciates.
Because companies exist to make a profit. It's the same reason why if a company manages to permanently cut costs by $X per employee, there is not always an immediate corresponding company-wide salary increase of $X per employee.
> Get on group insurance, that's cheaper. Those companies pay the claims, which is going to get passed on to me obviously. A white coat drug dealer price gouging with the help of the police killing of colored affordable competition is bad. Insurance companies normalizing medical prices isn't the problem.
Lots of things are cheaper if you pay as a group. This is true of health insurance and of anything else. But try finding a private health insurance plan for the elderly that has benefits and coverage as good as Medicare at its price point. Try finding a guaranteed income provider for retired people that has the same monthly pay-in and payout as SS. You'll be looking a while.
> Of course, but taking half and failing at providing the most important services is why America is full of people that don't trust the government. Paying for roads through public taxes is never what people are actually criticizing when they say the tax system is broken.
I agree that American social programs are insufficiently robust, but you aren't going to get better ones by paying less in taxes.
> When I said SS I meant the 1099 rate that is easy to measure. Even w2 are paying for this, whether they see it or not. I also meant to include sales tax, but may have left that off.
Yeah we may just have to agree to disagree here.
(Edited 1 minute later.)
Anonymous C replied with this 2 years ago, 5 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,251,076
@previous (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
The libtake here is that all these costs come from investors, and not employees/customers but is there really any evidence for that?
The rate of return on capital didn't drop when these programs were implemented, but real wages and purchasing power did.
Welfare programs and their associated taxes make mutually beneficial arrangements unprofitable after themafia democratic state takes its cut.
The libtake here is that all these costs come from investors, and not employees/customers but is there really any evidence for that?
The rate of return on capital didn't drop when these programs were implemented, but real wages and purchasing power did.
Welfare programs and their associated taxes make mutually beneficial arrangements unprofitable after the
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 2 years ago, 9 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,251,078
@previous (C)
> The libtake here is that all these costs come from investors, and not employees/customers but is there really any evidence for that?
I am a lib but I have no idea what that means.
> The rate of return on capital didn't drop when these programs were implemented, but real wages and purchasing power did.
I don't know the exact amount and you can look it up, but real wages and purchasing power in the U.S. are higher today than the 1960s.
> Welfare programs and their associated taxes make mutually beneficial arrangements unprofitable after the mafia democratic state takes its cut.
The reason they exist is before they came into being, for the first 99% of human history, old people would routinely outlive their savings, become impoverished, then die of preventable diseases (usually TB). Any mutually beneficial arrangements that existed were piecemeal and dependent on the financial stability of whatever close friends and family they still had. Now if you're old, as long as there's a U.S. government backed by the U.S. military, the elderly will have reliable income and affordable health insurance. You can look up the rates of uninsurance and rates of poverty for the elderly in the 1950s and before. It's really not a pretty picture.
> The libtake here is that all these costs come from investors, and not employees/customers but is there really any evidence for that?
I am a lib but I have no idea what that means.
> The rate of return on capital didn't drop when these programs were implemented, but real wages and purchasing power did.
I don't know the exact amount and you can look it up, but real wages and purchasing power in the U.S. are higher today than the 1960s.
> Welfare programs and their associated taxes make mutually beneficial arrangements unprofitable after the mafia democratic state takes its cut.
The reason they exist is before they came into being, for the first 99% of human history, old people would routinely outlive their savings, become impoverished, then die of preventable diseases (usually TB). Any mutually beneficial arrangements that existed were piecemeal and dependent on the financial stability of whatever close friends and family they still had. Now if you're old, as long as there's a U.S. government backed by the U.S. military, the elderly will have reliable income and affordable health insurance. You can look up the rates of uninsurance and rates of poverty for the elderly in the 1950s and before. It's really not a pretty picture.
(Edited 54 seconds later.)
Anonymous C replied with this 2 years ago, 6 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,251,080
@previous (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
> >The libtake here is that all these costs come from investors, and not employees/customers but is there really any evidence for that?
> I am a lib but I have no idea what that means.
You are saying that if employer-side taxes like SS are eliminated, it's not going to wages, right?
Then who gets the money? If it's investors/owners, then that cost was always coming at their expense.
These taxes don't sound so bad if that's the case, some corporation pays for them, not me. Except, corporations take all expenses and pass them to the customer, or don't pay it out to employees.
>
> >The rate of return on capital didn't drop when these programs were implemented, but real wages and purchasing power did.
> I don't know the exact amount and you can look it up, but real wages and purchasing power in the U.S. are higher today than the 1960s.
Marginally. GDP per capital has quadrupled since then, and it didn't all go to workers.
>
> >Welfare programs and their associated taxes make mutually beneficial arrangements unprofitable after the mafia democratic state takes its cut.
> The reason they exist is before they came into being, for the first 99% of human history, old people would routinely outlive their savings, become impoverished, then die of preventable diseases (usually TB). Any mutually beneficial arrangements that existed were piecemeal and dependent on the financial stability of whatever close friends and family they still had. Now if you're old, as long as there's a U.S. government backed by the U.S. military, the elderly will have reliable income and affordable health insurance. You can look up the rates of uninsurance and rates of poverty for the elderly in the 1950s and before. It's really not a pretty picture.
They should rely on their own savings, instead of stealing from the youth who are too immature to realize how they are being stolen from.
> >The libtake here is that all these costs come from investors, and not employees/customers but is there really any evidence for that?
> I am a lib but I have no idea what that means.
You are saying that if employer-side taxes like SS are eliminated, it's not going to wages, right?
Then who gets the money? If it's investors/owners, then that cost was always coming at their expense.
These taxes don't sound so bad if that's the case, some corporation pays for them, not me. Except, corporations take all expenses and pass them to the customer, or don't pay it out to employees.
>
> >The rate of return on capital didn't drop when these programs were implemented, but real wages and purchasing power did.
> I don't know the exact amount and you can look it up, but real wages and purchasing power in the U.S. are higher today than the 1960s.
Marginally. GDP per capital has quadrupled since then, and it didn't all go to workers.
>
> >Welfare programs and their associated taxes make mutually beneficial arrangements unprofitable after the mafia democratic state takes its cut.
> The reason they exist is before they came into being, for the first 99% of human history, old people would routinely outlive their savings, become impoverished, then die of preventable diseases (usually TB). Any mutually beneficial arrangements that existed were piecemeal and dependent on the financial stability of whatever close friends and family they still had. Now if you're old, as long as there's a U.S. government backed by the U.S. military, the elderly will have reliable income and affordable health insurance. You can look up the rates of uninsurance and rates of poverty for the elderly in the 1950s and before. It's really not a pretty picture.
They should rely on their own savings, instead of stealing from the youth who are too immature to realize how they are being stolen from.
Anonymous E joined in and replied with this 2 years ago, 5 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,251,081
Biden is a weird way to spell Bert @op
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 2 years ago, 18 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,251,082
@1,251,080 (C)
> You are saying that if employer-side taxes like SS are eliminated, it's not going to wages, right? Then who gets the money? If it's investors/owners, then that cost was always coming at their expense. These taxes don't sound so bad if that's the case, some corporation pays for them, not me. Except, corporations take all expenses and pass them to the customer, or don't pay it out to employees.
Some of it might, but if a company for some reason didn't have to spend any money on taxes and employees could magically get those services the taxes fund for free, why would the owners take that money and give it to their employees? Why not pocket it for themselves as extra profit, or invest in additional storefronts, larger purchase orders, etc.? Obviously higher costs for companies translates to higher costs for consumers in a vacuum. Conceptually though, it's pretty hard to equate Widget Inc. cutting costs by 20% through ordinary business means, and Widget Inc. cutting costs 20% because the entirety of the U.S. federal government has vanished and all services it used to provide will continue to be provided in perpetuity for free.
> Marginally. GDP per capital has quadrupled since then, and it didn't all go to workers.
Yes and it also didn't all go to the government.
> They should rely on their own savings, instead of stealing from the youth who are too immature to realize how they are being stolen from.
They did rely on their own savings, and then they died in poverty from preventable diseases by the millions. This is not a question of one or two people being dumb with their money. It is a systemic issue. Either you have taxes that pay for the care and dignity of the elderly, or you have a lot of poor dead old people. There is unfortunately not a third way around it where everything works out for everyone at no cost.
> You are saying that if employer-side taxes like SS are eliminated, it's not going to wages, right? Then who gets the money? If it's investors/owners, then that cost was always coming at their expense. These taxes don't sound so bad if that's the case, some corporation pays for them, not me. Except, corporations take all expenses and pass them to the customer, or don't pay it out to employees.
Some of it might, but if a company for some reason didn't have to spend any money on taxes and employees could magically get those services the taxes fund for free, why would the owners take that money and give it to their employees? Why not pocket it for themselves as extra profit, or invest in additional storefronts, larger purchase orders, etc.? Obviously higher costs for companies translates to higher costs for consumers in a vacuum. Conceptually though, it's pretty hard to equate Widget Inc. cutting costs by 20% through ordinary business means, and Widget Inc. cutting costs 20% because the entirety of the U.S. federal government has vanished and all services it used to provide will continue to be provided in perpetuity for free.
> Marginally. GDP per capital has quadrupled since then, and it didn't all go to workers.
Yes and it also didn't all go to the government.
> They should rely on their own savings, instead of stealing from the youth who are too immature to realize how they are being stolen from.
They did rely on their own savings, and then they died in poverty from preventable diseases by the millions. This is not a question of one or two people being dumb with their money. It is a systemic issue. Either you have taxes that pay for the care and dignity of the elderly, or you have a lot of poor dead old people. There is unfortunately not a third way around it where everything works out for everyone at no cost.
(Edited 27 seconds later.)
Anonymous C replied with this 2 years ago, 19 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,251,083
@previous (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
Maybe people have no money in adulthood because when they were young and trying to build a foundation for life the elderly of their time had a parasitic relationship with them too.
Extending a seniors life for a few more painful years tends to come at a price that could go far in investing in the youth. That pays dividends later when they are are better fed and have businesses of their own.
Taking those 67+ up to a mountain and leaving them there would lead to an economic boom and a better standard of living for the half of kids that live below the poverty line.
Unfortunately all those geezers vote, which also shouldn't be allowed. Contributors should get a say in how politics is conducted.
Maybe people have no money in adulthood because when they were young and trying to build a foundation for life the elderly of their time had a parasitic relationship with them too.
Extending a seniors life for a few more painful years tends to come at a price that could go far in investing in the youth. That pays dividends later when they are are better fed and have businesses of their own.
Taking those 67+ up to a mountain and leaving them there would lead to an economic boom and a better standard of living for the half of kids that live below the poverty line.
Unfortunately all those geezers vote, which also shouldn't be allowed. Contributors should get a say in how politics is conducted.
Anonymous F joined in and replied with this 2 years ago, 2 hours later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,251,106
You aren't getting taxed on anything, don't lie.
(Edited 9 seconds later.)
Anonymous C replied with this 2 years ago, 20 minutes later, 8 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,251,107
@previous (F)
Like I said:
> It's been years since I've worked for a company that does withholdings, it's just too stupid to justify.
Like I said:
> It's been years since I've worked for a company that does withholdings, it's just too stupid to justify.
Anonymous F replied with this 2 years ago, 17 minutes later, 8 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,251,108
@previous (C)
Great. I'm glad you agree that you're a lying piece of shit that doesn't understand anything about taxes
Great. I'm glad you agree that you're a lying piece of shit that doesn't understand anything about taxes
Anonymous C replied with this 2 years ago, 25 seconds later, 8 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,251,109
Anonymous F replied with this 2 years ago, 1 minute later, 8 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,251,110
Anonymous C replied with this 2 years ago, 2 minutes later, 8 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,251,111
@previous (F)
Wrong, I have a lucrative business that would be gutted by the government if they knew about it.
Wrong, I have a lucrative business that would be gutted by the government if they knew about it.
Anonymous F replied with this 2 years ago, 52 seconds later, 8 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,251,112
Anonymous C replied with this 2 years ago, 1 minute later, 8 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,251,113
@previous (F)
Do you think everyone discloses all their income, just because that's what you do?
There is a vast black market full of people who protect what's theirs. Sorry if that's hard for you to grasp not sorry
Do you think everyone discloses all their income, just because that's what you do?
There is a vast black market full of people who protect what's theirs. Sorry if that's hard for you to grasp not sorry
Anonymous F replied with this 2 years ago, 3 minutes later, 8 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,251,118
@previous (C)
Wow, then I guess the people aren't being taxed at least 50% since they can just not report their income.
Wow, then I guess the people aren't being taxed at least 50% since they can just not report their income.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 2 years ago, 39 seconds later, 8 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,251,119
Anonymous C replied with this 2 years ago, 6 seconds later, 8 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,251,120
Anonymous F replied with this 2 years ago, 57 seconds later, 8 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,251,122
@previous (C)
Not everywhere. If you're smart enough to avoid income tax why aren't you living in a sales tax free state?
Not everywhere. If you're smart enough to avoid income tax why aren't you living in a sales tax free state?
Anonymous C replied with this 2 years ago, 1 minute later, 8 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,251,123
Anonymous F replied with this 2 years ago, 1 minute later, 8 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,251,124
@previous (C)
You don't own real estate, fucktard. That would bring down the IRS on your "lucrative business" that is "evading taxes".
You don't own real estate, fucktard. That would bring down the IRS on your "lucrative business" that is "evading taxes".
Anonymous C replied with this 2 years ago, 1 minute later, 8 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,251,125
@previous (F)
Once again, you clearly haven't read the previous posts.
Property taxes get passed onto tenants (for residential taxes) and to customers (for retail properties).
There is no avoiding it unless you're squatting.
Once again, you clearly haven't read the previous posts.
Property taxes get passed onto tenants (for residential taxes) and to customers (for retail properties).
There is no avoiding it unless you're squatting.
Anonymous F replied with this 2 years ago, 1 minute later, 8 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,251,126
@previous (C)
No it doesn't. Products and services are provided at a price the market will bear. Even if you truly believe everything you've written, you're still throwing away money by not avoiding sales tax alongside the income tax you're "evading"
No it doesn't. Products and services are provided at a price the market will bear. Even if you truly believe everything you've written, you're still throwing away money by not avoiding sales tax alongside the income tax you're "evading"
(Edited 2 minutes later.)
Anonymous B replied with this 2 years ago, 13 seconds later, 8 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,251,127
Anonymous C replied with this 2 years ago, 2 minutes later, 8 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,251,129
@1,251,126 (F)
"What the market will bear" is the result of a few factors.
One of which is what price other businesses can undercut you at.
If all businesses in an area have a higher cost of doing business, that will get passed onto customers. They won't go somewhere else, because every business must make up that money, and all their income comes from their clients.
Ergo, all increased business costs come from the customer.
Many businesses are on slim margins, so either the market bears it or that business fails.
"What the market will bear" is the result of a few factors.
One of which is what price other businesses can undercut you at.
If all businesses in an area have a higher cost of doing business, that will get passed onto customers. They won't go somewhere else, because every business must make up that money, and all their income comes from their clients.
Ergo, all increased business costs come from the customer.
Many businesses are on slim margins, so either the market bears it or that business fails.
Anonymous F replied with this 2 years ago, 1 minute later, 8 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,251,130
@previous (C)
You're shit at avoiding and/or evading taxes. Since you claim to be evading income tax you should move to a state that has income tax but no sales tax, those areas tax property at a lower rate.
You're shit at avoiding and/or evading taxes. Since you claim to be evading income tax you should move to a state that has income tax but no sales tax, those areas tax property at a lower rate.
Anonymous C replied with this 2 years ago, 32 seconds later, 8 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,251,131
@1,251,127 (B)
I'm not too good for it, but you can't sell clients on a big project if you're office is in a derelict building.
I'd be giving up more money than I'd be saving in taxes, so the government wins that one.
I'm not too good for it, but you can't sell clients on a big project if you're office is in a derelict building.
I'd be giving up more money than I'd be saving in taxes, so the government wins that one.
Anonymous C double-posted this 2 years ago, 42 seconds later, 8 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,251,133
Anonymous F replied with this 2 years ago, 2 minutes later, 8 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,251,134
@1,251,131 (C)
Oh, now your lucrative tax evasion business is renting a nice office in an expensive building? With every post your story becomes less believable
Oh, now your lucrative tax evasion business is renting a nice office in an expensive building? With every post your story becomes less believable
(Edited 16 seconds later.)
Anonymous F double-posted this 2 years ago, 7 minutes later, 9 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,251,135
@1,251,065 (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
> Ok but a post above you said "official tax rates federally and by state, combined with SS and sales tax you are close to 50." and now we are down to below 40% with some handwaving that gets us up to 50. If you keep shedding 10% per post pretty soon you'll be paying negative taxes!
Hey you were right!
> Ok but a post above you said "official tax rates federally and by state, combined with SS and sales tax you are close to 50." and now we are down to below 40% with some handwaving that gets us up to 50. If you keep shedding 10% per post pretty soon you'll be paying negative taxes!
Hey you were right!
Anonymous C replied with this 2 years ago, 38 minutes later, 9 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,251,137
@1,251,134 (F)
Don't be dense.
Everyone knows a place nearby is supplying drugs, and no one cares.
The Sinodiner that's always crowded reuses disposed oil.
A mattress shop stiffed their landlord and hasn't been evicted because the sheriff has too much on his plate.
My story is much more mundane than most of the business in the suburban mall where I operate my cobblery.
Don't be dense.
Everyone knows a place nearby is supplying drugs, and no one cares.
The Sinodiner that's always crowded reuses disposed oil.
A mattress shop stiffed their landlord and hasn't been evicted because the sheriff has too much on his plate.
My story is much more mundane than most of the business in the suburban mall where I operate my cobblery.