That seemed like a cheesy assed simple minded show. Maybe I didn't give it enough of a chance, but two or three episodes was all the chance I was willing to give.You should check out The Good Place, if you haven’t already.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
That seemed like a cheesy assed simple minded show. Maybe I didn't give it enough of a chance, but two or three episodes was all the chance I was willing to give.You should check out The Good Place, if you haven’t already.
Which is pretty ridiculous considering all the crap Trump has been talking about cutting Medicare and SS, two things that demographic would benefit from.Not disagreeing with you. However, the only age group which the Pubs won was over 65. Most those people don't work and thus aren't making over $50k a year in income. The median income for Seniors is $10k below the national average. Can I be smart again?
Its actually based in several different schools of moral philosophy. Some of the humor is basic, but what they're dealing with existentially isn't.That seemed like a cheesy assed simple minded show. Maybe I didn't give it enough of a chance, but two or three episodes was all the chance I was willing to give.
That's not what I asked. How much.... do they earn.... in comparison to the bottom 90%?The top 1% paid an effective tax rate of 27.1%. The bottom half of taxpayers paid a 3.5% tax rate. (These are people who actually paid taxes). The bottom 90% paid an average effective rate of less than 10%.
The top 50% of taxpayers paid over 97% of all income taxes.
That's not what I asked. How much.... do they earn.... in comparison to the bottom 90%?
I don't doubt they address several different schools of moral philosophy. With the subject matter the show's premise it wouldn't be hard to come up against some of those schools of thought accidentally. I just didn't see them addressed in depth or with any sense of wry wit, or with any cogent sensibilities. But like I said, I only gave the show a 2 or 3 episode run before I gave up on it. I might give it another chance on your recommendation. But if I do, and it still fails in my book, i'm coming looking for you in New Me-xi-coco, armed with my vocab of the word soft. :scream:Its actually based in several different schools of moral philosophy. Some of the humor is basic, but what they're dealing with existentially isn't.
Lots of moral dilemmas that are interesting.
My advice would to be watch through the first season. The first couple episodes are more to get the general public hooked. The tail end of the season gets smarter and the first season finale is really good.I don't doubt they address several different schools of moral philosophy. With the subject matter the show's premise it wouldn't be hard to come up against some of those schools of thought accidentally. I just didn't see them addressed in depth or with any sense of wry wit, or with any cogent sensibilities. But like I said, I only gave the show a 2 or 3 episode run before I gave up on it. I might give it another chance on your recommendation. But if I do, and it still fails in my book, i'm coming looking for you in New Me-xi-coco, armed with my vocab of the word soft. :scream:
Might I ask where you got those numbers?I have a hard time keeping track of my zeros when numbers get this big but even if I'm off one space the ratio is correct.
Top 1% $1,006,272,000,000
Bottom 90% $4,689,187,000,000
Might I ask where you got those numbers?
Your ignorance on the matter keeps shining through.I voted for non-socialist candidates.
Ocasio-cortez...how are you going to pay for it? "We just will because we'll save so much!" As she giggles...and people voted for her.Your ignorance on the matter keeps shining through.
Stop with the socialist crap. No one on either side, and not even Bernie Sanders, is promoting a socialist economy at all. We've already had this argument and you clearly do not understand anything about what Sanders or Ocasio or Beto O'Rourke stand for.
Without the community the other people wouldn't have money in the first place. They owe the community. No one's going to buy Bill Gates' computers if we don't have all the infrastructure, protection, social safety nets, education, etc... to be able to construct, purchase, or operate them.This conversation about who can be less selfish with other people’s money has been fascinating.
Are you saying taxes are other peoples money, or charity donations?This conversation about who can be less selfish with other people’s money has been fascinating.
Without the community the other people wouldn't have money in the first place. They owe the community. No one's going to buy Bill Gates' computers if we don't have all the infrastructure, protection, social safety nets, education, etc... to be able to construct, purchase, or operate them.
No one's going to need a real estate agent in Oklahoma if the Federal Government hadn't bought the land from France and made it safe and secure for people to live on and provided them a means to own and equally divide the land and the community (government). The houses they buy might just blow away in a tornado without some forms of regulation on construction codes. And even if the houses still blow away the people of the community can use the services of emergency rescue groups, or things like FEMA.
Are you saying taxes are other peoples money, or charity donations?
I'm assuming you are not talking about all tax dollars, just the ones going towards social safety nets?I’m saying some people on here believe taxes are charity donations.
I'm assuming you are not talking about all tax dollars, just the ones going towards social safety nets?
Only because the federal governments of the colonial powers subsidized colonization by giving land away for nothing, protecting their colonists from native populations, and developed an industrial system that allowed the building of towns and houses by funding railroads, powerlines, telephones, etc...I’m pretty sure someone would live in Oklahoma and need a real estate agent, regardless of which colonial power controlled it.
I'm assuming by 'some' you are referring to yourself?Some people think all tax dollars are charity donations.
Without the community the other people wouldn't have money in the first place. They owe the community. No one's going to buy Bill Gates' computers if we don't have all the infrastructure, protection, social safety nets, education, etc... to be able to construct, purchase, or operate them.
The only thing I've agreed with Bernie on is healthcare. It should be a one payer system. It's insane that our health (and moreso our illnesses) is exploited for profit by insurance companies that hold all the power.
Ocasio-cortez...how are you going to pay for it? "We just will because we'll save so much!" As she giggles...and people voted for her.
I'm saying that income taxation (both state and federal) can not be considered "being selfish with other people's money" because there would be no "other people's money" without the society that income taxation as well as general government subsidies provided.Is your argument here that because someone benefits more (earns more $$$) from the community, they owe the community more because of the items you mention that are made for everybody?
Or are you just giving an example of how taxes are not charity?
And, this isn't directed at you aston, I'm not sure who here the taxes are charity statement was directed toward but I do not have that POV.
Why do I feel most of us on this board would be better capable of running a government than the idiots we elect?I wouldn't be dead set against paying the tuition at a community college for those who want to go (we could even do it on a need basis). Cost would be around $2500 per year. Tuition grant would be in the form of a loan which is would be forgiven upon graduation. If the student fails to graduate withing say a 4 year period then they shall be obligated to repay said loan similar to current student loan programs.
That's not to say the employees of Anadarko and it's executive staff haven't added value to their company with hard work. They absolutely have and they should be rewarded as such, but requiring a stringent tax policy for them and the corporation itself (as well as other corporations and civilians) is not theft as it's sometimes made out to be. It's paying back into the system so others can benefit in future generations just as they benefited.I'm saying that income taxation (both state and federal) can not be considered "being selfish with other people's money" because there would be no "other people's money" without the society that income taxation as well as general government subsidies provided.
Look at a company like Anadarko Petroleum. The majority of their acreage holding these days comes from the purchase of the assets of the UP railway which included hundreds of thousands of acres in surface and mineral ownership. They were gifted that ownership in perpetuity for constructing the UP railroad. Not only did UP get to benefit from their railroad monopoly for decades, they also got mineral and surface ownership for centuries which they profit from to this day. Saying the CEO of a company like Anadarko, is having "his money" spent by other people is a bit disingenuous since his company wouldn't exist in the same fashion it does now without the absolutely massive subsidies the federal government allowed it.
That also brings us to the point that some people tend to profit off the activities of government to a much greater degree than others.
In the end, the tax breaks probably don't benefit the workers as much as they do the CEOs and shareholders. How often do we see companies that rake in a record profits for a year pass it on to the workers that made the company excel? They may get a little bonus but I would bet if you asked all of them if they'd rather have a $2000 bonus or better health and dental benefits (that the company paid for with said record revenue) with a better retirement option, they'd almost always choose the latter. we saw this with all the little bonuses companies passed out to workers...some of whom were laid off shortly thereafter as said companies moved operations elsewhere.That's not to say the employees of Anadarko and it's executive staff haven't added value to their company with hard work. They absolutely have and they should be rewarded as such, but requiring a stringent tax policy for them and the corporation itself (as well as other corporations and civilians) is not theft as it's sometimes made out to be. It's paying back into the system so others can benefit in future generations just as they benefited.
That's not to say the employees of Anadarko and it's executive staff haven't added value to their company with hard work. They absolutely have and they should be rewarded as such, but requiring a stringent tax policy for them and the corporation itself (as well as other corporations and civilians) is not theft as it's sometimes made out to be. It's paying back into the system so others can benefit in future generations just as they benefited.
I think the tax code needs to differentiate between small and large businesses a little bit better. When Republicans say, "We have some of the highest corporate tax rates in the world!", they are not wrong. But it is also rife with loopholes and credits for various industries that take the effective tax rate way down, and you get guys like GE paying zero taxes. The problem is that the small business operator that has a half dozen employees and runs a local bike shop, just as an example, can't hire the high-powered CPAs to figure out if he qualifies for any of those breaks or not, and ends up paying the higher rates. We punish small businesses, and subsidize large ones.I'm not anyone would classify taxes as theft. I do think the left at times forgets that those individuals who start and run the businesses in this country fund those social programs which they hold near and dear to their hearts as well as most other government functions. I have no issues with this setup mind you but an occasional acknowledgement as to where the state and federal government gets their tax revenue is important. Especially when you seek to demonize those individuals....and yes, the people they employ and pay do play an important role.
I think the tax code needs to differentiate between small and large businesses a little bit better. When Republicans say, "We have some of the highest corporate tax rates in the world!", they are not wrong. But it is also rife with loopholes and credits for various industries that take the effective tax rate way down, and you get guys like GE paying zero taxes. The problem is that the small business operator that has a half dozen employees and runs a local bike shop, just as an example, can't hire the high-powered CPAs to figure out if he qualifies for any of those breaks or not, and ends up paying the higher rates. We punish small businesses, and subsidize large ones.
So start unifying. Maybe call it the national small business union. Only problem is... some people aren't going to like that name very much.Totally agree. Tax credits, loopholes, etc...should only be in place to encourage investment we find beneficial to the community or nation as a whole (green energy, R&D, etc...) Too many are in place due to lobbyist and money spent. The tax code isn't written with my small business in mind. It's written with Amazon, Wal-Mart, GE, etc... in mind because they have the money to get into the pockets of those who write the code. Small business simply doesn't have a unified voice or the money not to mention the common interest to influence the code like the giant corporations.
So start unifying. Maybe call it the national small business union. Only problem is... some people aren't going to like that name very much.
In the end, the tax breaks probably don't benefit the workers as much as they do the CEOs and shareholders.
So... if I’m reading this right, all wealth belongs to / originated with the government?