The Scourge of America with Integrity (On Topic Only Please)

[Integrity]

Well, according to statistics if my net worth is over $1 million I’m in the top 5% so I guess I am absurdly wealthy?

It’s pretty much pointless to argue with you because your argument is the way you feel with no actually facts at all. Your utopia sounds nice, but it isn’t reality my friend.

I would hope that a reasonable person would not view a fake idea created for discussion on the BC as anywhere near reality.

Personally I would not view 1 million as an absurd accumulation of wealth.

 

[Thebrownblob]

I would hope that a reasonable person would not view a fake idea created for discussion on the BC as anywhere near reality.

Personally I would not view 1 million as an absurd accumulation of wealth.

Well, it’s top 5%

 

[Integrity]

Yes, and I was well aware it was unreasonable.

The question you asked, I will ask you if you thought it was unreasonable then why did you do it.

 

[vantexan]

I would hope that a reasonable person would not view a fake idea created for discussion on the BC as anywhere near reality.

Personally I would not view 1 million as an absurd accumulation of wealth.

But would you view a million a year in income as absurd and take 91% of it?

 

[Integrity]

Again, go to a developing nation. They are very reasonable people, and they think you're rich.

I used to research living in the Philippines. Saw on a forum a guy say that to most Filipinos if you stand in front of a machine, punch in some numbers, and it spits money at you then you're a very wealthy man.

The topic is about American society not other countries.

 

[vantexan]

The topic is about American society not other countries.

Doesn't matter. You are materially blessed but don't think you are. You, sir, are envious. Thou shalt not covet.

 

[Integrity]

Well, it’s top 5%

Top 5% of the US?

The topic was about income tax. Not tax on assets.

 

[Integrity]

Doesn't matter. You are materially blessed but don't think you are. You, sir, are envious. Thou shalt not covet.

None of this matters to the topic.

 

[vantexan]

Top 5% of the US?

The topic was about income tax. Not tax on assets.

So what is the amount of annual income you would take 91% of?

 

[Integrity]

But would you view a million a year in income as absurd and take 91% of it?

I think 1 million might be too low

 

[Thebrownblob]

Top 5% of the US?

The topic was about income tax. Not tax on assets.

Only 15.5% of Americans earn between $100,000 and $149,999 per year

 

[Integrity]

So what is the amount of annual income you would take 91% of?

Not sure.

 

[vantexan]

None of this matters to the topic.

Sure it does. You want to take away from the wealthy because you aren't and it's absurd that they have so much more than you.

 

[Integrity]

Only 15.5% of Americans earn between $100,000 and $149,999 per year

And?

 

[Integrity]

Sure it does. You want to take away from the wealthy because you aren't and it's absurd that they have so much more than you.

Not true.

 

[Thebrownblob]

And?

My household makes more than that. So, where is absurd?

 

[Thebrownblob]

Not true.

I’m sorry, but that’s exactly what you’re saying you want to take their money because they have an absurd amount in your opinion. And distribute it to those who don’t have what you feel is an absurd amount.

It’s not even deniable that’s what you’re saying. You can at least own that if you feel that way.

 

[vantexan]

Not sure.

Oh no no no, you want to take from the rich because their wealth and the resulting influence that gives them is the scourge of America. So have the courage of your convictions and set an amount. Otherwise this is the usual Integrity dodgeball. To which you'll now tell us you don't see it that way.

 

[vantexan]

Except we've already established that you would have people either pay 0% in income tax or 91% of their income in tax, depending on their income. In 1960 the progressive income tax had a top bracket of 91% at $200,000 or higher for singles, $400,000 for couples.

That doesn't mean that they paid 91% of all their income, just 91% above those numbers. Their income below those amounts were taxed at lower rates that grew progressively higher. If you were poor you paid little.

But wait there's more. In today's dollars it takes more than 10 times more dollars to have the equivalent to those amounts in 1960. So if you thought you were going to take 91% of $200,000+ in income, or $400,000+ depending on if single or a couple, from everyone today making that kind of money you would be wrong.

This is all academic anyways. It appears the scourge of America is our school system.

I'm Batman.

@Integrity

 

[Thebrownblob]

Oh no no no, you want to take from the rich because their wealth and the resulting influence that gives them is the scourge of America. So have the courage of your convictions and set an amount. Otherwise this is the usual Integrity dodgeball. To which you'll now tell us you don't see it that way.

And if you go back and read his opening statement, he was also concerned with the absurd amount of power. And in his scenario he would only be guaranteeing, and even more absurd amount of power given to the government. Which they would use to decide what the absurd amount of money is, which would eventually filter down to just about everybody.