Occupy a bathtub already

I'm going going to speculate he was referencing the over-protective mantra that society abides by now day. Bike helmets were the turning point for using protection for things most could do when growing up, I don't think he believes bicycle helmets are a bad idea. Just the "over-protective mother" who makes her kids wear helmets, knee and elbow pads for playing in the yard.

 

In regard to minimum wage, as it climbs so does the cost of things in a nutshell. He may be eluding to people should be paid biased on their merits, not because they are breathing.

 

Gotcha. I'm all for bike helmets. And a basic minimum wage. But I get the over-parenting thing. I had to urban dictionary 'helicopter parents' - I thought maybe it was kids whose parents drove them around in choppers!

 

 

yes on bike helmets.

yes on bike helmets.

 

While I believe people should generally be left to their own devices, I'm not against a bike/skateboard helmet law for kids under 18. They are young, foolish, and it's generally for their own good. It saves kids lives. I actually had a classmate my soph year of HS killed from hitting his head falling off his skateboard. Helmet would have saved his life.

 

Over 18, if you want to ride your motorcycle on the freeway w/o a helmet and rear end a big rig, so be it, you made that choice.

...

I'm sure there's a good response to this...but I don't know how to articulate it. What would be a good counter-argument to this picture?

 

It's not take or give. It's take AND give. Counter points are: Bills, taxes, time, diligence..

he pays for the freedoms afforded by his government through taxes like Rawr said (thanks high tax rate!). Not to mention that whole cartoon basically says you dont do a fcuking thing yourself(thanks puppet masters of the universe!). Whoever drew that should off themselves (Thanks colt 45!).

Anybody bitching. And moaning about the U.S. Should spend a little time living in another country. That does wonders for your perspective.

I'm sure there's a good response to this...but I don't know how to articulate it. What would be a good counter-argument to this picture?

The hospital workers, coffee producers, restaurant owners, and IT guys all receive payment in exchange for their duties. These payments enrich their lives and enable their own success. That is, you could make another comic strip that says "Thank you successful businessman for hiring my IT firm/eating at my restaurant/buying my coffee and helping me succeed." If they feel their work is worth more, they can charge more--though possibly risk losing business. The hiring manager doesn't just bring on workers out of the goodness of his heart or "give a chance" to anyone, he receives specific labor and intelligence in exchange for paying a wage to the worker at a rate that he feels balances what the worker contributes to his business-- he can fire his worker or lower their wages, at the risk of losing productivity, if he feels the worker isn't worth it. In such a transaction, the business and worker both benefit-- the business can accomplish more, the worker enriches himself. Assuming these are all exchanges between willing parties, everyone benefits. It's pretty basic economics.

 

Government doesn't grant freedom. Born into a world without government, you'd be as free as possible; the advent of government and a ruling class led to people becoming less free. Does government protect us from threats to our freedom? Sure, and most people are willing to pay for that basic service. But the idea that you should compensate a government for NOT violating freedoms is kind of ridiculous. Should I compensate a burglar for NOT stealing my car?

 

The trouble is, if the premise that one's success is directly attributable to the efforts of others, you could go back in time and make the same argument over and over again, that the worker achieving success can be made to apply to the hospital worker, restaurant owner, IT guy, and business owner... that they all "owe" something to other people before them for their success. Eventually you reach the beginning of the line and then what? To whom does that first person owe his success? The idea that the success of people "just happens" due to the efforts of others is pretty ignorant.

Anybody bitching. And moaning about the U.S. Should spend a little time living in another country. That does wonders for your perspective.

 

My point is, you don't like our corporate structure-LEAVE.

 

It is very simple.

 

Go move to Cuba if you don't like corporations, and have a blast!

 

My point is, you don't like our corporate structure-LEAVE.

 

It is very simple.

 

Go move to Cuba if you don't like corporations, and have a blast!

 

 

The hospital workers, coffee producers, restaurant owners, and IT guys all receive payment in exchange for their duties. These payments enrich their lives and enable their own success. That is, you could make another comic strip that says "Thank you successful businessman for hiring my IT firm/eating at my restaurant/buying my coffee and helping me succeed." If they feel their work is worth more, they can charge more--though possibly risk losing business. The hiring manager doesn't just bring on workers out of the goodness of his heart or "give a chance" to anyone, he receives specific labor and intelligence in exchange for paying a wage to the worker at a rate that he feels balances what the worker contributes to his business-- he can fire his worker or lower their wages, at the risk of losing productivity, if he feels the worker isn't worth it. In such a transaction, the business and worker both benefit-- the business can accomplish more, the worker enriches himself. Assuming these are all exchanges between willing parties, everyone benefits. It's pretty basic economics.

 

Government doesn't grant freedom. Born into a world without government, you'd be as free as possible; the advent of government and a ruling class led to people becoming less free. Does government protect us from threats to our freedom? Sure, and most people are willing to pay for that basic service. But the idea that you should compensate a government for NOT violating freedoms is kind of ridiculous. Should I compensate a burglar for NOT stealing my car?

 

The trouble is, if the premise that one's success is directly attributable to the efforts of others, you could go back in time and make the same argument over and over again, that the worker achieving success can be made to apply to the hospital worker, restaurant owner, IT guy, and business owner... that they all "owe" something to other people before them for their success. Eventually you reach the beginning of the line and then what? To whom does that first person owe his success? The idea that the success of people "just happens" due to the efforts of others is pretty ignorant.

I think that this comic strip was referring to giving back not in a charitable way, but rather by paying taxes. Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't one of Occupy Wall Street's demands that the top 1% need to start paying proper taxes and stop taking advantage of loopholes or getting bailouts (corporations)?

 

So really, aren't they saying: Hey look, we get it. You worked your ass off. That's great. Some invention you made became successful. Congratulations! But, you've gotta admit, you were helped along on your way there. And now, when it comes time to pay your fair share of taxes (which pay for education, roads, etc), you dodge around and try to find every loophole possible?

 

I don't think the comic is saying that 100% of a successful person's success is due to other people; rather, I think it's saying that 100% of their success ISN'T due to just themselves. They had some help. They couldn't have gotten there without other people. So pay your proper taxes.

 

I think that this comic strip was referring to giving back not in a charitable way, but rather by paying taxes. Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't one of Occupy Wall Street's demands that the top 1% need to start paying proper taxes and stop taking advantage of loopholes or getting bailouts (corporations)?

 

 

Please DEFINE "proper" taxes.

 

 

The top 1% pay 40% of the taxes in this country.

 

Let me put that another way. That awful 1% are picking up the bill for half of the country.

 

Now how much money puts a person in that 1%- Tens of MILLIONS right?

 

 

WRONG. $380,000/yr. Guess what- A couple, making a combined 380,000 a year are not rolling around in limousines or flying in private jets. Especially if they have a few kids to put through college.

 

Further. That 1% tend to NOT be in the top 1% very long. They have the highest amount of Income fluctuation, meaning, they have good years and bad years. Som years there in the top 1%... Some years they dont make ANY money.

 

So... What WOULD BE "FAIR"? Give me the number. Theyre already paying almost half the taxes. What do you want that number to be? 75%? 100%? Whats "PROPER" in your mind?

 

 

Which brings up an entirely different issue. I think they are paying TOO MUCH, and not because "They cant afford it." But because 47% of this country ARENT paying taxes, and SHOULD BE.

 

"BUT THEYRE POOR! THEY CANT AFFORD IT"

 

There is a fairly accepted sociological theory that people who dont PAY for something, dont feel a sense of ownership over it. Take a look at public housing. It is, without exception, a PIT. Rundown, unkempt, uncared for. And it isnt because the people who live there cant afford to keep it up. ITS NOT THEIRS. So they dont. Take a look at the homes of older middle class retired people, many living off the same amount of money. They're usually showcases.

 

If you dont have a stake in the system, YOU DONT TAKE CARE OF IT. There is no honor in getting a free ride.

 

When this country was founded, ONLY landowners could vote- Why? Because the country was founded by rich farmers who wanted to keep the poor down?

 

No.... Because LANDOWNERS had a STAKE IN THE SYSTEM. They had SKIN IN THE GAME. They were the ones paying the bills (we had no income tax in 1800. The government was funded through tariffs on commerce, and local governments were paid through property taxes.) And if you arent paying the bill, you shouldnt have a say in what happens.

 

 

We have too many people MAKING DECISIONS about the direction the ship is going, who HAVENT PAID THE BILL.

Please DEFINE "proper" taxes.

 

 

The top 1% pay 40% of the taxes in this country.

 

Let me put that another way. That awful 1% are picking up the bill for half of the country.

 

Now how much money puts a person in that 1%- Tens of MILLIONS right?

 

 

WRONG. $380,000/yr. Guess what- A couple, making a combined 380,000 a year are not rolling around in limousines or flying in private jets. Especially if they have a few kids to put through college.

 

Further. That 1% tend to NOT be in the top 1% very long. They have the highest amount of Income fluctuation, meaning, they have good years and bad years. Som years there in the top 1%... Some years they dont make ANY money.

 

So... What WOULD BE "FAIR"? Give me the number. Theyre already paying almost half the taxes. What do you want that number to be? 75%? 100%? Whats "PROPER" in your mind?

 

Could you please explain this to Bill Maher?? He repeatedly has stated that the rich don't pay enough taxes, despite his own self admittance to being one of them!!

 

He seems like a smart guy......I can't see how he doesn't get it, unless it's just the more popular thing to do to pander to a liberal audience.

Could you please explain this to Bill Maher?? He repeatedly has stated that the rich don't pay enough taxes, despite his own self admittance to being one of them!!

 

He seems like a smart guy......I can't see how he doesn't get it, unless it's just the more popular thing to do to pander to a liberal audience.

 

Bil Maher is a fcuking inbred. He just says what he says to be controversial and make his show popular. I watch that shit for 5 minutes and am ready to go on a homocidal rampage after.

Bil Maher is a fcuking inbred. He just says what he says to be controversial and make his show popular. I watch that shit for 5 minutes and am ready to go on a homocidal rampage after.

mistake is thinking someone on TV is then going to give you a level opinion, its very rare because it doesn't generate as much publicity.

 

And @RD i was going to write a similar response. It really bothers me that just under half of the population pays no income tax and still complain about the top 1%, which as you pointed out aren't what most people think of super wealthy.

Please DEFINE "proper" taxes.

 

 

The top 1% pay 40% of the taxes in this country.

 

Let me put that another way. That awful 1% are picking up the bill for half of the country.

 

Now how much money puts a person in that 1%- Tens of MILLIONS right?

 

 

WRONG. $380,000/yr. Guess what- A couple, making a combined 380,000 a year are not rolling around in limousines or flying in private jets. Especially if they have a few kids to put through college.

 

Further. That 1% tend to NOT be in the top 1% very long. They have the highest amount of Income fluctuation, meaning, they have good years and bad years. Som years there in the top 1%... Some years they dont make ANY money.

 

So... What WOULD BE "FAIR"? Give me the number. Theyre already paying almost half the taxes. What do you want that number to be? 75%? 100%? Whats "PROPER" in your mind?

 

 

Which brings up an entirely different issue. I think they are paying TOO MUCH, and not because "They cant afford it." But because 47% of this country ARENT paying taxes, and SHOULD BE.

 

"BUT THEYRE POOR! THEY CANT AFFORD IT"

 

There is a fairly accepted sociological theory that people who dont PAY for something, dont feel a sense of ownership over it. Take a look at public housing. It is, without exception, a PIT. Rundown, unkempt, uncared for. And it isnt because the people who live there cant afford to keep it up. ITS NOT THEIRS. So they dont. Take a look at the homes of older middle class retired people, many living off the same amount of money. They're usually showcases.

 

If you dont have a stake in the system, YOU DONT TAKE CARE OF IT. There is no honor in getting a free ride.

 

When this country was founded, ONLY landowners could vote- Why? Because the country was founded by rich farmers who wanted to keep the poor down?

 

No.... Because LANDOWNERS had a STAKE IN THE SYSTEM. They had SKIN IN THE GAME. They were the ones paying the bills (we had no income tax in 1800. The government was funded through tariffs on commerce, and local governments were paid through property taxes.) And if you arent paying the bill, you shouldnt have a say in what happens.

 

 

We have too many people MAKING DECISIONS about the direction the ship is going, who HAVENT PAID THE BILL.

 

Seriously, when you run for public office give me a ring. I'll contribute to your war chest.

Seriously, when you run for public office give me a ring. I'll contribute to your war chest.

 

 

If I were to run for public office, the first thing I would have to do is delete every post on Lambo Power where I say "fcuk" "Shit" "Crap" and "Gay"... And then Id have nothing to run on.

Could you please explain this to Bill Maher?? He repeatedly has stated that the rich don't pay enough taxes, despite his own self admittance to being one of them!!

 

He seems like a smart guy......I can't see how he doesn't get it, unless it's just the more popular thing to do to pander to a liberal audience.

 

Youre still listening to him? I thought everybody had seen through that schtick 10 years ago....

 

Hes a self loathing blowhard.

 

Bil Maher is a fcuking inbred. He just says what he says to be controversial and make his show popular.

 

 

Close... It isnt to make his "show Popular". Maher's motivation is to make HIMSELF popular.... Specifically with the left leaning hollywood types at the parties he goes to ALL THE fcuking TIME... MORE SPECIFICALLY, with the left leaning hollywood types with VAGINAS, at the parties he goes to ALL THE fcuking TIME.... The guy would say whatever he thinks will make it easy for him to get poon.

Youre still listening to him? I thought everybody had seen through that schtick 10 years ago....

 

Hes a self loathing blowhard.

 

 

 

 

Close... It isnt to make his "show Popular". Maher's motivation is to make HIMSELF popular.... Specifically with the left leaning hollywood types at the parties he goes to ALL THE fcuking TIME... MORE SPECIFICALLY, with the left leaning hollywood types with VAGINAS, at the parties he goes to ALL THE fcuking TIME.... The guy would say whatever he thinks will make it easy for him to get poon.

 

LOL!

 

A lot of truth here...Bill Maher is one massive overachiever in this respect!

 

As far as his show, I watch it occasionally if it's on the same way I watch Top Gear....for the entertainment value only. I just can't help hearing some of the anti-conservative nonsense that is repeated time and time again....which is why I almost never watch it compared to several years ago when I watched it each week.

 

 

noone can even agree on what 1% is.... the number ranges from $300,000 to $565,000

could anyone post a link to how taxes are broken down in the US by state and federal?

could anyone post a link to how taxes are broken down in the US by state and federal?

Here is federal income tax rates. State income tax depends on the state.

 

http://www.bargaineering.com/articles/fede...x-brackets.html

 

Here is the best I could find that has the states rates.

 

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/di...t.cfm?Docid=406

 

noone can even agree on what 1% is.... the number ranges from $300,000 to $565,000

according to census.gov 200k+ household income represents 3.9%, and thats as highest income bracket i found on their reports

When this country was founded, ONLY landowners could vote- Why? Because the country was founded by rich farmers who wanted to keep the poor down?

 

No.... Because LANDOWNERS had a STAKE IN THE SYSTEM. They had SKIN IN THE GAME. They were the ones paying the bills (we had no income tax in 1800. The government was funded through tariffs on commerce, and local governments were paid through property taxes.) And if you arent paying the bill, you shouldnt have a say in what happens.

 

 

We have too many people MAKING DECISIONS about the direction the ship is going, who HAVENT PAID THE BILL.

 

Can we get back to that please? Land-owners being the only ones who can vote? I' be happy with that.