• Announcements

    • UnderDawg

      A Few Simple Rules   05/22/2017

      Sailing Anarchy is a very lightly moderated site. This is by design, to afford a more free atmosphere for discussion. There are plenty of sailing forums you can go to where swearing isn't allowed, confrontation is squelched and, and you can have a moderator finger-wag at you for your attitude. SA tries to avoid that and allow for more adult behavior without moderators editing your posts and whacking knuckles with rulers. We don't have a long list of published "thou shalt nots" either, and this is by design. Too many absolute rules paints us into too many corners. So check the Terms of Service - there IS language there about certain types of behavior that is not permitted. We interpret that lightly and permit a lot of latitude, but we DO reserve the right to take action when something is too extreme to tolerate (too racist, graphic, violent, misogynistic, etc.). Yes, that is subjective, but it allows us discretion. Avoiding a laundry list of rules allows for freedom; don't abuse it. However there ARE a few basic rules that will earn you a suspension, and apparently a brief refresher is in order. 1) Allegations of pedophilia - there is no tolerance for this. So if you make allegations, jokes, innuendo or suggestions about child molestation, child pornography, abuse or inappropriate behavior with minors etc. about someone on this board you will get a time out. This is pretty much automatic; this behavior can have real world effect and is not acceptable. Obviously the subject is not banned when discussion of it is apropos, e.g. talking about an item in the news for instance. But allegations or references directed at or about another poster is verboten. 2) Outing people - providing real world identifiable information about users on the forums who prefer to remain anonymous. Yes, some of us post with our real names - not a problem to use them. However many do NOT, and if you find out someone's name keep it to yourself, first or last. This also goes for other identifying information too - employer information etc. You don't need too many pieces of data to figure out who someone really is these days. Depending on severity you might get anything from a scolding to a suspension - so don't do it. I know it can be confusing sometimes for newcomers, as SA has been around almost twenty years and there are some people that throw their real names around and their current Display Name may not match the name they have out in the public. But if in doubt, you don't want to accidentally out some one so use caution, even if it's a personal friend of yours in real life. 3) Posting While Suspended - If you've earned a timeout (these are fairly rare and hard to get), please observe the suspension. If you create a new account (a "Sock Puppet") and return to the forums to post with it before your suspension is up you WILL get more time added to your original suspension and lose your Socks. This behavior may result a permanent ban, since it shows you have zero respect for the few rules we have and the moderating team that is tasked with supporting them. Check the Terms of Service you agreed to; they apply to the individual agreeing, not the account you created, so don't try to Sea Lawyer us if you get caught. Just don't do it. Those are the three that will almost certainly get you into some trouble. IF YOU SEE SOMEONE DO ONE OF THESE THINGS, please do the following: Refrain from quoting the offending text, it makes the thread cleanup a pain in the rear Press the Report button; it is by far the best way to notify Admins as we will get e-mails. Calling out for Admins in the middle of threads, sending us PM's, etc. - there is no guarantee we will get those in a timely fashion. There are multiple Moderators in multiple time zones around the world, and anyone one of us can handle the Report and all of us will be notified about it. But if you PM one Mod directly and he's off line, the problem will get dealt with much more slowly. Other behaviors that you might want to think twice before doing include: Intentionally disrupting threads and discussions repeatedly. Off topic/content free trolling in threads to disrupt dialog Stalking users around the forums with the intent to disrupt content and discussion Repeated posting of overly graphic or scatological porn content. There are plenty web sites for you to get your freak on, don't do it here. And a brief note to Newbies... No, we will not ban people or censor them for dropping F-bombs on you, using foul language, etc. so please don't report it when one of our members gives you a greeting you may find shocking. We do our best not to censor content here and playing swearword police is not in our job descriptions. Sailing Anarchy is more like a bar than a classroom, so handle it like you would meeting someone a little coarse - don't look for the teacher. Thanks.

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Clove Hitch

Convservatives= "low effort thinkers"

115 posts in this topic

Thanks for setting me straight on that. I really do appreciate it.

 

And now that you're done with me, start schooling some others on the subject. May I suggest you start with the Congressional Budget Office and the Wa

 

MK-BS052_CORPTA_NS_20120202184803.jpg

 

http://online.wsj.co...2233215330.html

 

Man, are they going to be embarrassed or what? I know I am.

 

Ben

 

I would be willing to bet that you are looking at what these companies are paying vs. profit for that year. Losses can be carried. That's how enormous companies lower their rate - by offsetting gains with losses, often across years. Not unlike your taxes.

If you have a capital loss, it offsets a capital gain. You only pay when you're above net net. And, in many cases, you too can use things like depreciation, losses, gains, credits etc ahead or behind for favorable rate. But in neither case does that imply that the rate is actually lower, just the base the rate is charged against.

Let's stop thinking about these things like its a goddamn lemonade stand. More taxes is harder for business when you hold all else equal. Always. Unless you show that raising taxes benefits a companies bottom line, it's a hard argument to make. Certainly education is a common good which companies later employ, but the argument of course is that at the margin, raising taxes would be basically throwing good money (profits) after programs well into depreciating marginal returns (pick your least favorite government program here. Wars, handouts of some nature, whatever). The first billion on education we know are good and provide good outcome. But your umpteenth trillion at the same issue just isn't going to get you the same bang for your buck.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1334121678[/url]' post='3667331']
1334120260[/url]' post='3667322']
1334112757[/url]' post='3667261']
1334102308[/url]' post='3667068']

If only it was that simple. Let me ask you and everyone else here an honest question. Is The American Dream a "Zero Sum Game"?

 

Democrats and Obama, more often than not, act and talk like they think it is and that is the real reason this country is so fouled up.

 

"The rich get richer while the poor get poorer"

"The wealthy need to pay their fair share"

 

I reject the concept of "zero sum game". Yet I agree with those two quotes.

 

The first is a factual statement, and the second seems entirely reasonable. Are you suggesting that the wealthy need not pay their fair share?

 

Ben

 

If you will stop arguing dishonestly I would be more inclined to engage with you. We both know and you are being silly to feign innocence, that when a Democrats says "The wealthy need to pay their fair share" they actually mean "The wealthy are not paying their fair share"

 

 

Recently another poster tried repeatedly to get someone, anyone, including you to state what exactly is a fair share. To the best of my knowledge all he got was silence.

 

Let's do a real example a NYC doctor with an income of $500 K (numbers are rounded off to nearest $k)

 

fed income tax 29% $145,000

state income tax 6.85% $25,000

NYC income tax 3.6% $12,000

Property tax on a condo worth $2,000,000 $22,000

 

taxes paid $204,000 (effective rate 41%)

 

sales tax on everything else 8.875% $27,000

 

Total tax burden 46%

 

Add in other costs associated with taxes eg accountants, energy taxes etc and lets call it 50%

 

That's pretty close for a high income earner.

 

Now, if 50% is not fair tell us what is fair.

 

Maybe it's the definition of "wealthy" that we differ on. How about the people who don't work 9-5? Those who the majority of their income is derived from capital gains?

 

Ben

 

Like the elderly? I can't believe you want grandma to starve out alone in the cold.

 

Better get her a social program.... Where to find the money.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

GE pays a negative tax rate.

 

http://thehill.com/b...ctive-tax-rates

 

You make a fine argument for eliminating corporate taxation. See my previous post.

Seriously. You got elimination of corporate taxes out of that.

That isn't Low Effort Thinking on your part. That's Negative Effort Thinking on your part.

 

In what stupid universe should corporations pay no taxes? The USSR?

 

I think you lack the requisite intellectual or educational development for you to understand the explanation and I know I lack the patience to try.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

GE pays a negative tax rate.

 

http://thehill.com/b...ctive-tax-rates

 

You make a fine argument for eliminating corporate taxation. See my previous post.

Seriously. You got elimination of corporate taxes out of that.

That isn't Low Effort Thinking on your part. That's Negative Effort Thinking on your part.

 

In what stupid universe should corporations pay no taxes? The USSR?

 

I think you lack the requisite intellectual or educational development for you to understand the explanation and I know I lack the patience to try.

You got all the right words, just not in the correct order.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Thanks for setting me straight on that. I really do appreciate it.

 

And now that you're done with me, start schooling some others on the subject. May I suggest you start with the Congressional Budget Office and the Wall Street Journal?

 

MK-BS052_CORPTA_NS_20120202184803.jpg

 

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204662204577199492233215330.html

 

Man, are they going to be embarrassed or what? I know I am.

 

Ben

 

I was explaining why Mitt Romney's tax rate was ~14% and why that rate does not constitute some sort of Rich Guy rip off of the working class and for the media and obama to make that argument is both insecure and deceptive. If you are conceding my point and not being sarcastic then fine we can move to a different topic. If you are changing the subject to avoid my point then my attitude is "There he goes again".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

GE pays a negative tax rate.

 

http://thehill.com/b...ctive-tax-rates

 

You make a fine argument for eliminating corporate taxation. See my previous post.

Seriously. You got elimination of corporate taxes out of that.

That isn't Low Effort Thinking on your part. That's Negative Effort Thinking on your part.

 

In what stupid universe should corporations pay no taxes? The USSR?

 

I think you lack the requisite intellectual or educational development for you to understand the explanation and I know I lack the patience to try.

You got all the right words, just not in the correct order.

Yeah, dysgraphia.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who actually pays corporate taxes? The consumer pays them with the corporation being an intermediary. So say you wanted to bring manufacturing jobs back to the US or companies that have left the US to set up shop where the tax structure might be more favorable. Why wouldn't you cut corporate rates?

You guys really amaze me sometimes with your myopia.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who actually pays corporate taxes? The consumer pays them with the corporation being an intermediary. So say you wanted to bring manufacturing jobs back to the US or companies that have left the US to set up shop where the tax structure might be more favorable. Why wouldn't you cut corporate rates?

You guys really amaze me sometimes with your myopia.

So let us get this straight.

 

Mitt shouldn't pay his Fair Share because the Corporations he invests in have already paid Corporate taxes on their profits. And Corporations shouldn't pay taxes at all because the consumer pays taxes.

 

Mind if we don't join you on that race to the bottom?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Thanks for setting me straight on that. I really do appreciate it.

 

And now that you're done with me, start schooling some others on the subject. May I suggest you start with the Congressional Budget Office and the Wall Street Journal?

 

MK-BS052_CORPTA_NS_20120202184803.jpg

 

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204662204577199492233215330.html

 

Man, are they going to be embarrassed or what? I know I am.

 

Ben

 

I was explaining why Mitt Romney's tax rate was ~14% and why that rate does not constitute some sort of Rich Guy rip off of the working class and for the media and obama to make that argument is both insecure and deceptive. If you are conceding my point and not being sarcastic then fine we can move to a different topic. If you are changing the subject to avoid my point then my attitude is "There he goes again".

 

You and I were arguing corporate tax rates specfically. Apparently, it was not considered a detraction until you lost the argument. If it helps you save face, then sure: "There I go again."

 

Ben

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Perhaps not enough genetic variety to pollinate properly? When hemp flowers properly it makes delicious seeds, nutty and filling, way more delicious than sunflower. There is radiated hemp in birdseed, the budgies seem to go for that first. If they get millet hemp they'll only eat that until there is none left before going into the regular seed.

 

The hemp you have on your farm, does it make big heads full of seed? If not, it's perhaps not germinating properly?

 

 

Oh, they seed like crazy. That's what makes it impossible to get rid of them.

I think it's just too fibrous to be appetizing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

have left the US to set up shop where the tax structure might be more favorable. Why wouldn't you cut corporate rates?

You guys really amaze me sometimes with your myopia.

 

It's usually not the tax structure - more likely the wages are low, you can dump shit into the water and air and some of the markets are over there also.......

 

Also, Americans don't like dirty work - which is why immigrants do meatpacking, picking veggies, construction, domestic and yard work, etc......

 

The answer, at this point, is not taking America back to the smokestack age.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites