I'm so tired of this "equality" BS

[schneiderguy]

it's schneiderguy. He still can't get over the fact that he's a manlet.

I still :wub: him, though.

If I was a manlet I would support mandatory leg-chopping to make everyone the same height. That would make me a librul.

Thankfully I am not a manlet. D:

 

[schneiderguy]

Cutting taxes on the richest 1% who are parasites on the 99% so that their share of income shoots up from 8% to 24% while the first generation in US history is worse off than the previous generation is what's detestable. Cutting the incomes, wealth, rights, freedom of the 99% for the benefit of the 1% who increasingly need to reduce democracy to protect their having such a huge share of wealth is what's detestable.

The people that pay a shitton of taxes so that a large part of the "99%" can sit on their asses and do nothing productive are the parasites now?

You so silly Craig

 

[Veliko]

The people that pay a shitton of taxes so that a large part of the "99%" can sit on their asses and do nothing productive are the parasites now?

You so silly Craig

The richest people are making themselves richer at everyone elses' expense.

How else do you explain the fact that they make people redundant, inflict pa yfreezes on their employees yet give themselves large payrises and bonuses?

 

[PeshakJang]

You know what I find disgusting? A guy like you from a state like Arkansas. Did you know your sorry ass little welfare state takes $1.53 from the federal government for every $1 you pay into the tax system? Your state the 10th on the list.

How does that make you feel? Failure comes to mind. You should cut off your face.

It's funny how many times this point is brought up, and how many times I destroy any liberal argument about it, and how many times those liberals run away and ignore me when I do.

Two simple questions for you:

Why is it that in general, some 'blue' states pay more than they get, and 'red' states get more than they pay?

Question two, do you think this is fair or not? Do you think it needs to be fixed? If so, how do you fix it?

Thanks

 

[JSt0rm]

It's funny how many times this point is brought up, and how many times I destroy any liberal argument about it, and how many times those liberals run away and ignore me when I do.

Two simple questions for you:

Why is it that in general, some 'blue' states pay more than they get, and 'red' states get more than they pay?

Question two, do you think this is fair or not? Do you think it needs to be fixed? If so, how do you fix it?

Thanks

I dont think we have ever discussed this issue before. For your first question I would assume the blue states have more corporations and financial companies that pay more. Also blue states have more people. But I dont really know why and I'm sure its a complex issue.

I'm not worried about fair. We are stuck with the red states and so we have to live with it. I just find it amusing that someone from one of these welfare states who is probably directly benifiting from the disparity is critical of people on welfare. As if thats the biggest problem facing our country.

also checking here we see

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_income

AK is in 48 for personal income so they obviously dont pay as much taxes as say California who is in 9th.

The real question is "why is AK 48th for personal income?" Why are they not competitive down there? What is it about the people there that makes them worth so little?

 

[JSt0rm]

look at the bottom 5 on that list.

46 Alabama $40,489 $42,666 $40,554 $38,473 47 Kentucky $40,072 $41,538 $40,267 $38,466 48 Arkansas $37,823 $38,815 $38,134 $37,420 49 West Virginia $37,435 $37,989 $37,060 $37,227 50 Mississippi $36,646 $37,790 $36,338 $35,261

what is it about the people in the southern states that makes them worth so little?

 

[CallMeJoe]

AK is in 48 for personal income so they obviously dont pay as much taxes as say California who is in 9th...

FWIW, AK is the standard abbreviation for Alaska. Arkansas is AR.

 

[JSt0rm]

FWIW, AK is the standard abbreviation for Alaska. Arkansas is AR.

My bad. I stand corrected.

 

[JSt0rm]

Also lets look here...

http://www.google.com/publicdata/explore?ds=kf7tgg1uo9ude_&met_y=population&idim=state:06000&dl=en&hl=en&q=ca+population#!ctype=l&strail=false&bcs=d&nselm=h&met_y=population&scale_y=lin&ind_y=false&rdim=country&idim=state:06000:05000&ifdim=country&hl=en&dl=en

We see the population of AR hasnt gorwn in over 20 years! Why is that?

Compared to California whos population has grown from 24 million to around 37 million.

I think I understand that there are smart people in AR but I think they probably leave because of the income "problem" in the state.

No wonder these are right to work states and hostile to unions. The workers there aren't worth very much and if they had to compete union to union with a blue state they would lose.

 

[JSt0rm]

It's funny how many times this point is brought up, and how many times I destroy any liberal argument about it, and how many times those liberals run away and ignore me when I do.

you havent been doing much "destroying" and I'm going to go to a french cafe with my girlfriend. Please dont assume me going to eat is me running off.

 

[fskimospy]

It's funny how many times this point is brought up, and how many times I destroy any liberal argument about it, and how many times those liberals run away and ignore me when I do.

Two simple questions for you:

Why is it that in general, some 'blue' states pay more than they get, and 'red' states get more than they pay?

Question two, do you think this is fair or not? Do you think it needs to be fixed? If so, how do you fix it?

Thanks

As other people mentioned, it's not a problem from a policy perspective. As a general rule, red states tend to be poorer than blue ones. The entire idea of a federal nation is that the more successful states help the less successful ones.

It's just amusing and somewhat sad that those states who so generously benefit from our system are the same ones crying about how mean and unfair it is. Pretty impressive cognitive dissonance.

 

[PeshakJang]

I dont think we have ever discussed this issue before. For your first question I would assume the blue states have more corporations and financial companies that pay more. Also blue states have more people. But I dont really know why and I'm sure its a complex issue.

I'm not worried about fair. We are stuck with the red states and so we have to live with it. I just find it amusing that someone from one of these welfare states who is probably directly benifiting from the disparity is critical of people on welfare. As if thats the biggest problem facing our country.

Yes, the blue states have more of the 1% living and paying taxes in their states. On the other side, government spending goes to where the government needs it. Military bases, roads, etc., which is more evenly distributed based on geography, not population... With military basing being more common in 'red' states.

If you are concerned about blue states paying for red states, perhaps you should advocate for lower federal taxes, and less federal spending, allowing states to keep more of their money and spend it on their own citizens.

also checking here we see

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_income

AK is in 48 for personal income so they obviously dont pay as much taxes as say California who is in 9th.

Actually, Arkansas pays about $1,000 more in taxes per capita than California.

Cost of living is much lower in Arkansas as a function of the number of people that want to live there. Are you really questioning the many reasons why somebody would want to live in California more than Arkansas... And is it anything other than painfully obvious why things would cost much, much less there, including labor?

Maybe I am getting a little too complicated...

 

[PeshakJang]

As other people mentioned, it's not a problem from a policy perspective. As a general rule, red states tend to be poorer than blue ones. The entire idea of a federal nation is that the more successful states help the less successful ones.

It's just amusing and somewhat sad that those states who so generously benefit from our system are the same ones crying about how mean and unfair it is. Pretty impressive cognitive dissonance.

The cognitive dissonance is in the fact that it's not the 'blue' paying for the 'red', it's the 1% paying for the 99%. Living within the border of a state that has a high concentration of wealthy people and corporations which pay the vast majority of the taxes in the nation does not mean that somehow that state is losing money. If the Feds collect $1 from every rich person in your state, then give you $.50 cents of that, the only metric by which your receipt is lowered is by the number of non-paying citizens present. As was evidenced by what I just posted, a state like California has a large concentration of the 1%, but also a large number of recipients, so a state like Arkansas winds up paying MORE per capita in taxes, while a state like California winds up receiving LESS per capita in receipts.

It's simple math. Feel free to try and break the argument.

 

[Jhhnn]

Actually, Arkansas pays about $1,000 more in taxes per capita than California.

Source?

 

[Craig234]

The people that pay a shitton of taxes so that a large part of the "99%" can sit on their asses and do nothing productive are the parasites now?

You so silly Craig

Yes. The drug lords who pay for roads and hospitals and schools in their home towns in Latin America are the parasites now?

You don't understand something - the more of a parasite you are taking from others, the more you can afford to 'give back'. It's when you take a lot more than you give...

As the 1% have increased the amount they take from 8% to 24%, they give a bit more.

 

[Craig234]

If I was a manlet I would support mandatory leg-chopping to make everyone the same height. That would make me a librul.

Thankfully I am not a manlet. D:

95% of what's said here about liberals is wrong or lies. I can't remember the other 5%.

If you were a liberal, you'd make it illegal not to hire the manlet for jobs he could do.

If you were a conservative, you'd scream and demand the right for the 'free market' to let ignorant prejudice discriminate.

What!? Now Nanny state liberals want to ban manlet tossing!? Hitler!!!!

 

[Craig234]

Source?

To my surprise, here's a chart for 2007 showing Arkansas paying $1,100 more per capita in federal taxes than California:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_tax_revenue_by_state

That demands an explanation.

 

[JSt0rm]

Yes, the blue states have more of the 1% living and paying taxes in their states. On the other side, government spending goes to where the government needs it. Military bases, roads, etc., which is more evenly distributed based on geography, not population... With military basing being more common in 'red' states.

If you are concerned about blue states paying for red states, perhaps you should advocate for lower federal taxes, and less federal spending, allowing states to keep more of their money and spend it on their own citizens.



Actually, Arkansas pays about $1,000 more in taxes per capita than California.

Cost of living is much lower in Arkansas as a function of the number of people that want to live there. Are you really questioning the many reasons why somebody would want to live in California more than Arkansas... And is it anything other than painfully obvious why things would cost much, much less there, including labor?

Maybe I am getting a little too complicated...

You drop a lot of "knowledge" but you lack links to back any of it up.

 

[JSt0rm]

To my surprise, here's a chart for 2007 showing Arkansas paying $1,100 more per capita in federal taxes than California:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_tax_revenue_by_state

That demands an explanation.

Yes why is that?

 

[JSt0rm]

I think I know why. "The figure includes all individual and corporate income taxes, estate taxes, gift taxes, and excise taxes."

With all of that being split evenly among the population you get those numbers. That doesnt mean shit though because of how few people are actually there.

 

[PeshakJang]

I think I know why. "The figure includes all individual and corporate income taxes, estate taxes, gift taxes, and excise taxes."

With all of that being split evenly among the population you get those numbers. That doesnt mean shit though because of how few people are actually there.

You mean similar to how receipts paid to California doesn't
Mean shit because of the massive number of people living there?

 

[JSt0rm]

Receipts paid to California don't mean shit?

I'm not understanding you.

 

[JSt0rm]

All your numbers show is exactly how bad the people of AR are being screwed over. They all make next to nothing and yet somehow the corporations there pull the taxes up a bit. The state still takes in more then they pay and it probably feeds those same corporations.

 

[Infohawk]

And I'm tired of people overstating the differences between people. Attributes fall follow a normal distribution. If people spoke of heights like they talk about intelligence, they would be saying they were 12' tall while others were only 6'. No most people are in the 5 or 6 range. And unfortunately, many people have big egos.

 

[JSt0rm]

And I'm tired of people overstating the differences between people. Attributes fall follow a normal distribution. If people spoke of heights like they talk about intelligence, they would be saying they were 12' tall while others were only 6'. No most people are in the 5 or 6 range. And unfortunately, many people have big egos.

what are you talking about?