$250k = Rich. $172k = "Modest"

[OCinBuffalo]

i was going to rebut you but that lowers me to your level and makes a silly competition over earnings. so i'll just ask: if i made 150k a year would that make me less of a doctor to you? don't answer, i really don't care. do you think i was forced to go into a lower paying specialty? that i couldn't set up a concierge practice in an affluent area (i don't believe it would be fair or compassionate- whether you believe in altruism or not)? don't answer you'd be wrong.

(So I wasn't wrong, was I? Sure as hell he'd try to say it's not about $$$)

 

No, this has nothing to do with compassion.

 

Doctor Birddog: you cannot rebut me. I know what you make. It is not more than $172k, and certainly not more than $250k. You have done your talking and my point remains as it has been.

 

You are projecting your "Doesn't affect me, so I don't care" attitude onto others. The fact is, no matter what I, or anyone else, makes, it is completely ridiculous to charge one working person or another more or less for the right of being an American.

 

Everyone should pay in equally based on % of the total revenue of their household. If you want to charge higher %s for people that don't do any work all day that could be doing something, I am fine with that.

 

I am not fine with setting phony, subjective income #s up and saying "people over this line are RICH!, get 'em!". Only a moron would call that practice "compassionate".

Edited January 14, 2011 by OCinBuffalo

[birdog1960]

(So I wasn't wrong, was I? Sure as hell he'd try to say it's not about $$$)

 

No, this has nothing to do with compassion.

 

Doctor Birddog: you cannot rebut me. I know what you make. It is not more than $172k, and certainly not more than $250k. You have done your talking and my point remains as it has been.

 

You are projecting your "Doesn't affect me, so I don't care" attitude onto others. The fact is, no matter what I, or anyone else, makes, it is completely ridiculous to charge one working person or another more or less for the right of being an American.

 

Everyone should pay in equally based on % of the total revenue of their household. If you want to charge higher %s for people that don't do any work all day that could be doing something, I am fine with that.

 

I am not fine with setting phony, subjective income #s up and saying "people over this line are RICH!, get 'em!". Only a moron would call that practice "compassionate".

it does affect me. i'm over the threshold for family and individual income for the highest bracket and have benefited much more from the continuation of the bush tax cuts (which i opposed) than i ever will benefit from "obamacare" changes. I suspect that you frequently draw conclusions from insufficient data as you have here. i feel sorry for your employers if that's truly the case.

[Chef Jim]

That being said, I'm not quite sure that this is the analogy that you want to be makinge here. Clearly, the secretaries, janitors & other support staff lost more. Which is why (the thinking goes) that those I-Banking guys making tons of dough SHOULD have been paying more (as a percentage) in taxes to help those people who lost their jobs get back on their feet, right?

 

 

But why. Why does it have to be a higher precentage? They would still be putting a lot into the system to take care of those that take care of themselves. I'm talking flat tax zero deductions. I look at tax returns all day long. It's amazing what people are deducting that they shouldn't be. I know people making six figure incomes and reducing that down to zero. I would bet you go with a flat tax with no deductions the tax receipts would increase.

[OCinBuffalo]

it does affect me. i'm over the threshold for family and individual income for the highest bracket and have benefited much more from the continuation of the bush tax cuts (which i opposed) than i ever will benefit from "obamacare" changes. I suspect that you frequently draw conclusions from insufficient data as you have here. i feel sorry for your employers if that's truly the case.

Not with 85% Medicare/Medicaid patients. Nope. Not unless you are the type of doctor that sends an ambulance to get a patient from the Skilled Nursing facility that is 200 feet away. Not unless you are the type of doctor who I keep catching over-billing my clients.

 

So, you were either lying then, or, you are lying now. And really, none of this has any bearing on the original point:

 

You said that people who make less/more, that support the Tax Rates staying where they are, only do so for personal gain.

 

In fact, it is those who want taxes raised that do so for personal gain, because by and large, raising these income taxes does not effect the left personally.

 

Again, there is nothing "compassionate" about screwing over other people because you don't make as much money as they do. Then start believing your own BS: that you are actually "entitled" to that money....because that's "compassionate". Moronic.

Edited January 14, 2011 by OCinBuffalo

[birdog1960]

Not with 85% Medicare/Medicaid patients. Nope. Not unless you are the type of doctor that sends an ambulance to get a patient from the Skilled Nursing facility that is 200 feet away. Not unless you are the type of doctor who I keep catching over-billing my clients.

 

So, you were either lying then, or, you are lying now. And really, none of this has any bearing on the original point:

 

You said that people who make less/more, that support the Tax Rates staying where they are, only do so for personal gain.

 

In fact, it is those who want taxes raised that do so for personal gain, because by and large, raising these income taxes does not effect the left personally.

 

Again, there is nothing "compassionate" about screwing over other people because you don't make as much money as they do. Then start believing your own BS: that you are actually "entitled" to that money....because that's "compassionate". Moronic.

you really aren't very bright, are you?

[OCinBuffalo]

you really aren't very bright, are you?

Another way of saying: you can't argue with me.

 

I'm not the one advocating for:

money being taken arbitrarily from people I don't know because they have some,

handing that money over to a bloated and ineffective government agency whose focus shifted long ago from it's primary duty to the need to feed itself,

degrading the people the government agency distributes the money it doesn't consume to by forcing them to waste countless hours standing in line, filling out forms, and having pointless meetings with yet even more government employees, managed and regulated by even more legions of government employees,

all in a vainglorious attempt to treat everybody the same, when that is the exact opposite of what is required,

...as a definition of "compassion".

 

Your addled brain does even know the true definition of compassion anymore, does it?

 

Compassion is a personal decision, to personally help another human being, over and above expectation, and not because it's your job to take care of people, there Doc. That's like me calling myself "compassionate" for advising clients.

 

Ex: letting a homeless person spend a few nights in your corporate apartment, and making sure they eat something decent in the morning. I did that consistently for 5 years on the road, all by my wittle self, without the help of the 120k employees at HHS, risking being fired for it every time. Amazing!

 

Compassion is not Steal from the Rich, Feed 120k employees, then give to the poor.

 

Compassion is not supporting the making or the entire process of helping others as IMPERSONAL as possible, MORON!

[jjamie12]

Another way of saying: you can't argue with me.

 

OR

 

You don't know everything there is to know in the world and his wife is an I-Banker who makes $1.2 Million / year.

 

it does affect me. i'm over the threshold for family and individual income for the highest bracket

[jjamie12]

But why. Why does it have to be a higher precentage? They would still be putting a lot into the system to take care of those that take care of themselves. I'm talking flat tax zero deductions. I look at tax returns all day long. It's amazing what people are deducting that they shouldn't be. I know people making six figure incomes and reducing that down to zero. I would bet you go with a flat tax with no deductions the tax receipts would increase.

I don't necessarily disagree, Chef; maybe it *would* increase tax receipts, maybe it wouldn't (I tend to think that it would, depending on the level). There are pros and cons to each system. Personally, I *think* I'm in favor of a consumption tax, but I'm not married to it -- Either way, no proposals that limit Congressional intervention are going to be enacted any time soon. Too much power in giving away tax breaks to your friends.

Edited January 15, 2011 by jjamie12

[jjamie12]

You're framing the argument as if they're making the same monetary contribution. But in effect the banker pays more because his income is higher.

I don't think I am, but I'm willing to listen as to how I'm framing the argument that way? I *think* what I'm saying is that the I-Banker has benefitted from all of the policy decisions that have been made to get to a point where people who are capable of being I-Bankers get paid a lot more money (rightly so, I might add) than people who are janitors. I freely admit that they aren't making the same monetary contributions back into the system. (Wait-- are you talking about a 'monetary contribution' in the sense that the I-Banker is allocating capital efficiently which helps to create jobs so that the janitor actually has a job? And that the I-Banker should get some sort of 'credit' on his side of the ledger for that?)

 

Let's attack it in reverse. Is it fair for the banker to pay 5 times the amount of taxes if he makes 2 times the salary of the janitor? That's the practical effect of progressive taxation.

Let me be very clear about this: I do NOT believe that Progressive Taxes is 'fair'. It is, quite obviously, 'unfair'.

 

Remember the goal is to maximize the dollars that need to go into the system, not brag about the high tax rates.

Agreed, but we should also remember that 'maximizing' the dollars going into the system may not mean 'fair' for everyone.

[ExiledInIllinois]

I know peopole here won't agree. Both the banker and janitor have to eat, that is where they stop being equal.

 

~Adam Smith, The Weath of Nations:

 

The necessaries of life occasion the great expense of the poor. They find it difficult to get food, and the greater part of their little revenue is spent in getting it. The luxuries and vanities of life occasion the principal expense of the rich, and a magnificent house embellishes and sets off to the best advantage all the other luxuries and vanities which they possess. A tax upon house-rents, therefore, would in general fall heaviest upon the rich; and in this sort of inequality there would not, perhaps, be anything very unreasonable. It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.

[OCinBuffalo]

OR

 

You don't know everything there is to know in the world and his wife is an I-Banker who makes $1.2 Million / year.

That has 0 effect on whether Obamacare effects a doctor, who has described his patients as 85% Medicare/Medicaid, positively. Or, whether that doctor seems to think that it's ok if other doctors get screwed, since he personally benefits.

 

That is the point being discussed. That, and whether he is projecting his views onto conservatives.

 

Your information doesn't surprise me in the slightest, since it's awfully easy to make the "compassionate" choices when your wife is hauling it in now isn't it?

 

Was your post supposed to help? You have FAILED.

Edited January 15, 2011 by OCinBuffalo

[jjamie12]

That has 0 effect on whether Obamacare effects a doctor, who has described his patients as 85% Medicare/Medicaid, positively. Or, whether that doctor seems to think that it's ok if other doctors get screwed, since he personally benefits.

 

That is the point being discussed. That, and whether he is projecting his views onto conservatives.

Actually, this thread is discussing levels of taxation. Specifically, we're discussing whether or not income over $250K should be taxed at a higher rate. Perhaps you've missed one of the 300 Obamacare threads? (birddogwhatever never mentioned anything about Obamacare--everything he talked about was in reference to income levels and whether or not he was going to be over the income threshold. You, of course, brought Obamacare into this, claiming to *know* that he doesn't make over the threshold "...so of course he's for taxing people more because it doesn't affect him!"

Your information doesn't surprise me in the slightest, since it's awfully easy to make the "compassionate" choices when your wife is hauling it in now isn't it?

It's not 'information', OC. I have no idea what his wife makes, and neither do you.

Was your post supposed to help? You have FAILED.

Of course, once again: The only person in this thread talking about Obamacare is you. Everyone else is talking about income levels. You seem fixated on whether or not birddog is going to be over the $250K threshold. You say there's no way he is because you *know* how much he makes based on % of Medicare patients seen. Of course, in all of your arrogance (assuming that you're right about him making less than whatever $ amount) you forgot to take into account the fact that he may be married to someone that would put them above the $ threshold. Whoops.

 

Let me end by saying this: You MUST be a pretty intelligent dude, you went to West Point and now run a consulting group, right? I think that's fantastic. Good job by you. I just don't understand how you can be SO sure that birddog won't be affected by higher tax rates over $250K. West Point and your consulting firm don't have any good data on that.

 

And seriously: What the hell is the matter with us that we're posting on message boards on Friday nights?!? I'm married with kids -- can't you go have some fun or something for the both of us!?!?

Edited January 15, 2011 by jjamie12

[GG]

I don't think I am, but I'm willing to listen as to how I'm framing the argument that way? I *think* what I'm saying is that the I-Banker has benefitted from all of the policy decisions that have been made to get to a point where people who are capable of being I-Bankers get paid a lot more money (rightly so, I might add) than people who are janitors. I freely admit that they aren't making the same monetary contributions back into the system. (Wait-- are you talking about a 'monetary contribution' in the sense that the I-Banker is allocating capital efficiently which helps to create jobs so that the janitor actually has a job? And that the I-Banker should get some sort of 'credit' on his side of the ledger for that?)

 

The investment banker "chose" his profession because he knows that's where the money is. Capital is like a gas that will fill any open space. If you constrain the flow of capital, the smart people will find a way around it, just like the gas will find an opening to move. If you bottle up that gas, it's only inevitable that you will cause an explosion from all the build up of that gas.

 

So getting back to fair taxation and who benefits more - everyone benefits the same from the infrastructure. The difference is how people chose to utilize that infrastructure for their needs. Unfortunately, there's a segment of the population that feels that the more successful users of that infrastructure should pay a greater proportion of their income/wealth simply because hey made wiser decisions in their lives. So, yes, my argument is that the wealthy are being penalized twice - their entrepreneurial spirit creates the jobs and then their success is penalized.

 

The issue is that the successful types are usually insufferable human beings and that gives fodder to penalize them - case in point, OC.

 

But is that the right policy?

[Booster4324]

The investment banker "chose" his profession because he knows that's where the money is. Capital is like a gas that will fill any open space. If you constrain the flow of capital, the smart people will find a way around it, just like the gas will find an opening to move. If you bottle up that gas, it's only inevitable that you will cause an explosion from all the build up of that gas.

 

So getting back to fair taxation and who benefits more - everyone benefits the same from the infrastructure. The difference is how people chose to utilize that infrastructure for their needs. Unfortunately, there's a segment of the population that feels that the more successful users of that infrastructure should pay a greater proportion of their income/wealth simply because hey made wiser decisions in their lives. So, yes, my argument is that the wealthy are being penalized twice - their entrepreneurial spirit creates the jobs and then their success is penalized.

 

The issue is that the successful types are usually insufferable human beings and that gives fodder to penalize them - case in point, OC.

 

But is that the right policy?

 

[OCinBuffalo]

You said this.

You don't know everything there is to know in the world and his wife is an I-Banker who makes $1.2 Million / year.

Then you said this.

It's not 'information', OC. I have no idea what his wife makes, and neither do you.

WTF?

Actually, this thread is discussing levels of taxation. Specifically, we're discussing whether or not income over $250K should be taxed at a higher rate. Perhaps you've missed one of the 300 Obamacare threads? (birddogwhatever never mentioned anything about Obamacare--everything he talked about was in reference to income levels and whether or not he was going to be over the income threshold. You, of course, brought Obamacare into this, claiming to *know* that he doesn't make over the threshold "...so of course he's for taxing people more because it doesn't affect him!"

 

Of course, once again: The only person in this thread talking about Obamacare is you. Everyone else is talking about income levels. You seem fixated on whether or not birddog is going to be over the $250K threshold. You say there's no way he is because you *know* how much he makes based on % of Medicare patients seen. Of course, in all of your arrogance (assuming that you're right about him making less than whatever $ amount) you forgot to take into account the fact that he may be married to someone that would put them above the $ threshold. Whoops.

No, this is about the phoniness of liberals who love to talk in terms of compassion, fairness, etc....provided it doesn't cost them personally.

 

This guy doesn't make $250k on his own, so he can spare us the "I am willing to make the sacrifice because I am so compassionate" crap.

Let me end by saying this: You MUST be a pretty intelligent dude, you went to West Point and now run a consulting group, right? I think that's fantastic. Good job by you. I just don't understand how you can be SO sure that birddog won't be affected by higher tax rates over $250K. West Point and your consulting firm don't have any good data on that.

 

And seriously: What the hell is the matter with us that we're posting on message boards on Friday nights?!? I'm married with kids -- can't you go have some fun or something for the both of us!?!?

1. If you really want me to do the math for you, I will. Send me a PM. I will show you exactly how the CMS reimbursement works. After 3 hours, you will leave feeling angry as hell, because you will learn just how badly you are being ripped off by all involved with the scams that are Medicare and Medicaid.

-or-

you can STFU and take my word for it: your choice.

 

2. I note that you chose to involve my personal life. This notation is for the tools. I'd rather be arrogant than stupid, afraid, or unable.

 

The issue is that the successful types are usually insufferable human beings and that gives fodder to penalize them - case in point, OC.

Nah, we've already established:

1. You hate IT people, and creative people in general

2. Without people like me, you wouldn't have a job, or, there would be a lot less of you, and you wouldn't make much, therefore, you resent people like me

3. You want to tax people like me, because it bothers you that we don't care/need your approval to run our businesses the way we want, and we haven't paid any of the "dues" you think we should have paid

4. You are quite literally the kid the teacher left in charge of the class, all grown up

5. You love to think that you are superior to people like me, but you know that will never be true

...years ago.

 

The fact is I don't suffer fools. What good does that do anybody? Honestly? Also, I don't suffer fools because: unlike you, it's not part of my job requirements <--Another reason you resent people like me. Sorry, just telling the truth again.

Oh, look, Booster is contributing the only thing he can to the thread: an emoticon.

 

What a shocker! Booster, are you going to tell us you "agree" without being able to tell us why, again?

 

Tell us your legal and/or historical analysis of the basis for progressive taxation. <-- Who am I kidding?

Edited January 16, 2011 by OCinBuffalo

[GG]

 

1. You hate IT people, and creative people in general

 

 

I love our IT people. I just wish I could speak better Hindi or Mandarin to better converse with them..

[/dev/null]

1. You hate IT people

 

My people are a proud people!

 

I love our IT people. I just wish I could speak better Hindi or Mandarin to better converse with them..

The disconnect doesn't stem from your inability to speak their language, they don't speak your language. It's much easier to learn Hindi, Mandarin, or English than it is to learn Stupid

 

[ExiledInIllinois]

My people are a proud people!

 

Is it like this:

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hw6zrInbtQE

[GG]

 

The disconnect doesn't stem from your inability to speak their language, they don't speak your language. It's much easier to learn Hindi, Mandarin, or English than it is to learn Stupid

 

 

There would be no need to act stupid if your types focused more energy on getting computers to work than wondering how the next Captain will get the Enterprise to fly again.

[/dev/null]

There would be no need to act stupid if your types focused more energy on getting computers to work than wondering how the next Captain will get the Enterprise to fly again.

 

The computers are working. And we don't worry about the next Captain of the Enterprise, just Picard and Kirk (btw, Picard > Kirk)

 

Working in IT is a PICNIC

 

Problem

In

Chair

Not

In

Computer