The 80s fucking suck though. Don't you remember the recession? Of course not, fucking stupid kids.

The 90s were great.

Strawman, disingenuous or politically unaware

because of this, and if you don't understand it, then you won't know that you are making nonsense.

>>751553

People still act like raising taxes 4% would be the end of the world when it actually would dramatically reduce our deficit.

Billionaires spent decades teaching the proles to advocate tax cuts for billionaires. The idiot masses don't even know why they support billionaire tax cuts anymore. But they are fanatical in their brainwashed devotion to the idea.

Propaganda. The Republican base eats that shit up, the same way the Democratic base swallows "Hope and Change."

>>751582
Long term, it is a worthless "solution." The "deficit" is not the only problem, unless you believe government growth should always expand as a % of GDP.

propaganda

>>751609
You are off, and full of bloviations, because increasing the marginal tax rates to Clinton's would not solve the problem you perceive.

>>751537

because they're raising it to cover their asses for spending 14 trillion fucking dollars more than we have, you dumb cunt

>>751623

I don't think it's the only problem.

But it's better to raise taxes slightly and reduce some unnecessary spending as opposed to cutting all the programs that help out the middle class.

According to Bachman and similar lunatics the deficit isn't going to be cured by raising taxes on multimillionaires and billionaires back to sensible levels, but rather by raising them on people who make $10,000 a year. It's about time the free ride was cut off for these scumbags, living high off the hog on their fancy noodles imported from Japan, shopping for clothes at the same upscale thrift shops like Goodwill and the Salvation Army that hipsters patronize. Gravy train's over folks, time for you to stop oppressing your fabulously wealthy countrymen and pay your fair share.

>>751578
Despite your graph we're still below the average for the developed world in taxation in relation to GDP.

The average is around 35-40%, I know this because England usually likes to stay around the average.

>>751651
But the democrats didnt spend most of that money......................

>>751662
But as a % of GDP, what you are saying simply isn't true. When you include state level taxes, marginal brackets can reach 50% already, depending on the state.

My conservative vs liberal thread is saged and this gets discussion or is considered mature? No

>>751651
If the debt is so bad then why isn't their more inflation?

>he doesn't know that the FED not only creates debt but also lends money, and actually has a surplus of 2 trillion.

It's propaganda, the people who own the republicans also own the media, they can push a narrative that most idiots will believe (because they have been told to trust authority since birth). These are the same people who ACTUALLY BELIEVE that 47% of Americans pay no taxes.

Only in America would pushing for a conservative tax policy be branded radical.

>>751651

Then why did no one moan about the deficit while Bush increased it by 5 trillion? And he managed that without being in a recession the entire time.

>>751672
That's true for most OECD countries, and those countries you mention get it from two main sources: taxing consumption, ESPECIALLY gasoline/diesel more highly, and having a broader, more steep tax structure, meaning the middle class end up paying more as a % of labor costs.

>The top tax rate in 1979 was 70%. No one called it socialism.

Fighting Communists

>The top tax rate in 1985 was 50%. No one called it socialism.

Fighting Communists

>The top tax rate in 1999 was 39%. No one called it socialism.

Dot-com bubble

>wanting to increase taxes from 35% back to 39% on the top 1%

Fighting a recession that "ended" last year. Government spending is through the roof. And raising taxes on a small subset of the population, no matter how wealthy, will not solve the debt crisis and will more than likely be exploited as a way to expand the government even further.

>>751702
There is a study, called, 'does it pay at the margin, to work and save," and net total taxes occur for every dollar above roughly grand a year. This is not a matter of belief, it is tax data.

>>751553
I remember the 80's quite well...they were fucking awesome.


Were you or your family actually poor in the 80's? Lol if so, whoever invests in your family missed some huge motherfucking boats.

>>751703

We were actually on track towards debt recovery under Bush. Then Obama went full nig and made it rain on Wall Street

>>751710
The only developed country that the US is lower in terms of taxation to GDP is Ireland.

I loved in 2008 when McCain was making the argument that US should lower it's income tax even more because we would be losing all our business to Ireland. He actually said these things, as Ireland was imploding.

>>751730
I mean 22 thousand dollars, not a "grand."

>>751735
lol the unemployment rate in the 80s was higher than any time in the past 5 years. Do you know anything about the economic crisis back then?

>>751721

Government spending was way up before the recession during the Bush years as well. Him lowering taxes to 35% contributed a great deal more to the deficit then. And I don't recall unemployment drastically reducing as a result of that tax cut back then either.

I know there are several other factors to consider, but I guarantee you increasing taxes 4% is not going to suddenly cause the country to come to a standstill.

>>751743
Since we're talking lower incomes and middle incomes, Ireland, Chile, New Zealand, Switzerland, and Israel too are included in your low tax structure

>>751739

You're joking right?

Bush is the one who bailed out the banks.

>>751756
Long term, what you are proposing is useless, since when you include state taxes, marginal rates can reach 50% depending on the state.

>>751739
>We were actually on track towards debt recovery under Bush.

That is so fucking wrong. Clinton balanced the budget. Bush unbalanced it and added $7 trillion to the debt, more than all other presidents before him combined.

>>751739
Liar.
Bush didnt even put the wars or his tax cut or his medicare entitlement on budget. Obama did.

And Obama's bailouts were a continuation of Bush's.

Progressive taxation is the best.


Which taxation would Murray Rothbard prefer the most (besides no tax) he totally destroyed flat tax.

>>751691

I'll have to look into this further and see what you're talking about for myself.

Regardless, the top 1% control 40% of the nation's wealth at the moment, so I don't think an increase back to 39% will suddenly cripple their lives.

The rich have traditionally held up centralized governments through out human history. In feudal society the rich afford their tithes and taxes by either enforcing serfdom type labor on their land or taxing their own peasantry. But they are the ones who have to end up paying the central government, and usually quite heavily. The times in human history where the rich no longer had to carry the weight of society usually ended up in that society being destroyed by internal and external forces. This obsession with being "fair" to the rich is a bizarre anomaly of our modern period.

>>751795
It's not about "crippling" anyones' lives, it's about maximizing economic growth in the private sector and understanding tax revenue as a % of GDP is most important.

>>751553
>The 90's were great

We had another recession in the early 90's you fool. This was one of the reasons NAFTA was being pushed so fast.

>>751790
Poll tax

High income inequality is necessary to keep America strong

>>751809

If that's true though, then why have any taxes on the top income owners at all? Why not reduce taxes to zero?

They'd have more money to invest and expand significantly under that logic supposedly.

>>751770
I would rank Chile and New Zealand as emerging economies and the Swiss have higher taxes than the US. Not by much but they are higher in relation to GDP. They've admitted it's hurt their industry, their money is actually so overvalued hurting exports tremendously.

They recently just had to artificially devalue their currency in relation to the EURO to make sure their domestic industries don't go bankrupt.

>>751827
Didn't he say head tax.
Taxation even the poorest can pay, this wouldn't get much money but that was his idea.

>>751847
>>751827
My excuse.
Was't aware they were the same.
Sorry

>>751782

Then let the rich people move to the dirty south if it bothers them that fucking badly. Otherwise they'll prove that it really doesn't matter by staying put and functioning the same as they are now

>>751730
>hurp durr state and local taxes, payroll taxes, and excise taxes do not exist.
HURR DURR 47% OF THE COUNTRY ARE FREELOADERS.

Because the modern republican party exists on marketing itself via vague ideological talking points. Sad but true.
Ever since the co-option of the evangelicals, the republican party has been freed of accountability as long as they pay lip service to being against abortion.

This frees them up to spend the rest of their time further polarizing their base with rhetoric, they will never be called on it by their base as long as they have their handy Judas goat.

Which is why you'll never actually see any changes towards abortion in this country, they would never actually undercut their own platform.

>>751836
Obviously, there is a limit to tax policy as well as government spending.

>>751866
Well, what tends to happen with highly progressive systems is that they encourage offshoring. Not only that, you are taking money out of private capital and bond markets.

>>751839
New Zealand is NOT an "emerging" economy and Chile is considered "developed" while Switzerland does have low wage taxes, but some consumption taxes are higher, but compared to the OECD, it is low.

>>The top tax rate in 1979 was 70%. No one called it socialism.

>being born in 1993
>telling us what people thought and said in 1979

Nice try, faggot.

>>751873
Stop bloviating!

>>751553
>>The 80s fucking suck though. Don't you remember the recession? Of course not, fucking stupid kids.

Apparently YOU don't remember it, given that the 80s extended past 1982.

>>751904
>born in 1993
Grow some chin hairs and then come back sport.

Right, so are we all in agreement that a 4% tax increase back to 39% is not suddenly socialism?

>>752694

socialism is the REASON for the tax increase, you stupid retarded cunt

>>752714

So back when our tax rate was above 50%, we were a socialist country?

>>752714
RIGHT THERES SOMETHING MORE IMPORTANT HERE THAN SOCIAL ENGINEERING. IT JUST SO HAPPENS WE'RE IN 15 FUCKING TRILLION DOLLARS OF DEBT.

>The top tax rate in 1979 was 70%. No one called it socialism.
>The top tax rate in 1985 was 50%. No one called it socialism.
>The top tax rate in 1999 was 39%. No one called it socialism.

Actually op, think about that.

-The highest tax rate was 70% in 1979.
-People called it socialism/communism
-The tax rate was reduced to 50% in 1985
-People called it socialism/communism
-The tax rate was reduced to 39% in 1999 (btw i am just assuming your data is accurate)
- People called it socialism/communism.


So actually op, they did complain, and that's why it's lower today.

socialism is spending

taxes can pay for socialism, but the U.S. just invents money

its because hes black

>>752765

Inflation is a tax.

The government gains money to spend while your money becomes worth less. This is no different than if I actually just took x% of your money from you, and didn't inflate it, except that the inflation method is more sinister.

When the government inflates the money supply someone will pay for it, you and me, with increased cost of living.

>>752762

The Democrats as socialists/communists rhetoric was practically invented in the 90s by Gingrich and the Republican party, you know. While it was bandied about, it wasn't used to dismiss ideas anywhere near as frequently as it is today before that.

Which is funny considering by that point the Soviet Union already collapse.

>>752796

When will this effect show, though? Because so far they've tripled the money supply without a visible effect.

>>752823

Tic tacs cost .34 cents 8 months ago. Go to the store and see how much they cost now.

Hint of things to come.

btw the price is (coincidentally) tripled (tripled the money supply).

>>752838

My tic tacs were definitely not 33 cents a year ago...ever since I was a kid I remember them being 79/80 cents.

I went to look up the accuracy of this, fairly accurate, give or take. After the great depression they made the tax rate 81.1 for income over 5,000,000, by 1944 it was 94% per 200,000. I remember hearing about this awhile ago that they did this specifically to combat the effects of the depression, and it worked. By 1969 our economy was the strongest it would ever be and shortly after that in the 1970's and early 80's they start giving corporations more voice in government and lower their tax rates. Soon after this we start having repeated recessions every so many years, progressively getting worse until now. The Euro is about to fail, soon after or before the US will, it's an economic domino effect. The social repercussions of this event will cause mass die out. During the depression many poorer people, especially in rural areas would grow and raise their own food, or help their neighbors survive, but now we don't have that option, our garden is the grocery store, in fact having a non GMO garden might become illegal with in a short period of time. My point is when hyperinflation hits people won't be able to feed themselves and famine will result. One study I read projected if food supplies are cut that 9 out of 10 American will die.

>>751537


No one paid those high of taxes, and plenty of people have called it socialism...your thread is invalid.

Also, the government does not earn your money it takes it. Taxation is theft. Stealing from the poor is wrong, but stealing from everyone else is ok.

But the fact is, the government steals from everybody.

>>753094

And yet without some form of government we'd have no roads, hospitals, fire fighters, police, or airports.

That money DOES go towards things we use every day. Too much government can be bad, but no government is just as shitty if not shittier.

well aparently it was once 90% and your country did very well.

It is a major victory for the propaganda machines of the opulent.

>>752694
>>Right, so are we all in agreement that a 4% tax increase back to 39% is not suddenly socialism?

All taxation is socialism by definition. We're simply arguing over the effect.

>>753567
>implying roads never existed before government
>implying private and volunteer fire brigades don't exist and work to this day
>implying police are there to protect citizens
>implying private and state run airports don't exist

>>753690
>>well aparently it was once 90% and your country did very well.

That's because nobody paid it. Rich people don't derive their riches from reviving paychecks.

Steve Jobs' salary was $1/yr.

The debt is not going to disappear if Obama raises taxes on the wealthy to 39%. This much I know.

What people should be concerned with are the 50% of Americans that don't pay federal income tax AT ALL. If steps were taken toward getting these people to pay a small federal tax, then we would be on the right track.
Unfortunately, no candidate will ever win an election or stay ahead in the polls by mentioning a tax increase. Not just a tax increase on the wealthy, but on anyone.

Damned if you do, Damned if you don't

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/19/opinion/dont-tax-the-rich-tax-inequality-itself.html

Over the last three decades, income inequality has again soared to the sort of levels that alarmed Brandeis. In 1980, the wealthiest 1 percent of Americans made 9.1 percent of our nation’s pre-tax income; by 2006 that share had risen to 18.8 percent — slightly higher than when Brandeis joined the Supreme Court in 1916.

Congress might have countered this increased concentration but, instead, tax changes have exacerbated the trend: in after-tax dollars, our wealthiest 1 percent over this same period went from receiving 7.7 percent to 16.3 percent of our nation’s income.

What we call the Brandeis Ratio — the ratio of the average income of the nation’s richest 1 percent to the median household income — has skyrocketed since Ronald Reagan took office. In 1980 the average 1-percenter made 12.5 times the median income, but in 2006 (the latest year for which data is available) the average income of our richest 1 percent was a whopping 36 times greater than that of the median household.

>>753748

The government could raise $700 billion by either taking half of everything earned by the bottom 50% or by raising the marginal tax rate on the top two percent.

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-august-18-2011/world-of-class-warfare---the-poor-s-free-ride-i
s-over

>>753783
>>The progressive reformer and eminent jurist

>>753735
Well if nobody is gonna pay 95%, why not raise it to 95%? Maybe they'll pay 35% instead, which they're not paying now either.

>>753838
>>The Daily Show

*flush*

Nobody paid 90% of their income, because the system was loaded with loopholes. Millionares today would love to use the 1950's system, because most of them would end up paying less. Regan did lower rates, but also closed many of the loopholes.

>>754052
>>Well if nobody is gonna pay 95%, why not raise it to 95%?

Because a) that would be stupid and pointless, and b) it would have a negative psychological effect on the economy.

>>Maybe they'll pay 35% instead, which they're not paying now either.

This is just derp.

>>751670
that doesn't mean, raising taxes wouldn't help.

>>754081
That is possibly one of the most misleading graphs I've ever seen.

That small decrease around 2000 represents TRILLIONS of dollars in lost tax revenue, from which we still have not recovered, and may never recover.

Post good graphs or none at all, that shit is like Fox news graphics.

>>753567
>And yet without some form of government we'd have no roads, hospitals, fire fighters, police, or airports.

Ok but none of those things are paid for by the federal income tax

>>754124

I wasn't talking bout the bush tax cuts, i was talking bout the cuts in the 80's

" but none of those things are paid for by the federal income tax"

You really need to do a great deal of reading sonny.

>>754124
>Revenue as a percentage of GDP.

How is this misleading? That small dip just means that tax revenue as a % of GDP just went down to the level it was at when the top income tax rate was 90%. Except in the 50's, the poor contributed more to taxes then the do today.

>>754068

It doesn't matter what the source is if the facts it presents are correct. Just watch it, I'm sure you'll survive.

>>751702
>republicans
>owning the media

srsly, watch this and the following vid: http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-august-18-2011/world-of-class-warfare---warren-buffett-vs--wea
lthy-conservatives

restoring 1990s taxes on the richest 2% would raise as much money as taking HALF of the entire possessions of the lower 50% of Americans.

Murrka, you disgust me.

>>754235

It's impossible for many conservatives to swallow that clip with Sean Hannity's dick in their mouths.

>>754235
why doesn't warren buffet just donate 75% of his money to the government of he cares so much?

When did compassion get redefined as "forcing other people do do things I want"

>>754277
Because we need billions/trillions not millions.

>>754303

Then cut spending

>>754320

Why don't we raise some taxes AND cut some unnecessary spending?

Why does it always have to be one way or the other?

And again, multimillionaires can afford to have their taxes raised by 4% without it changing their way of life in the slightest.

>>754359

"it's ok to steal from people, their lives wont change much"

pfft warren buffet doesn't even pay his fucking taxes

>>754359 unnecessary spending?

the SuperCommittee couldn't even cut 2% from the budget. It seems everything they have in place is "Necessary."

Throw all the Establishment out and have fresh eyes look at things.

>>754381

So then you'd prefer to take half of everything the bottom 50% have to make the same savings a slight tax increase would accomplish on the very wealthy?

We need to resseruct Murray Rothbard to save the planet.
Best socialist ever.

>>754441

I would prefer to not take anything from anyone.

>>751582

cut government spending instead so the money stays in the private sector where it can be used for creating jobs and growing the economy.

>>754441
Greed is an illogical affliction.

>>754441
Cut spending.
Cut taxes.

>>751537

'Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard.'

-H.L. Mencken, 1916.

>>754450

Me too. But if you go for deficit reduction PURELY by cutting programs that help out those without as much money, then you're going to cause a lot of damage to over half the people in the country.

>>754558

So therefore stealing is justified?

>>754567

If it's ALWAYS stealing no matter what then lets all pay zero taxes.

Let's see how that works out.

>>754593

We did for a long time

>>754593
Let's do it

It's not how much taxes they take in that makes it socialism.

It's what they do with taxes that make it socialism.

>>754593
I dunno, America was pretty bangin from 1776 to 1913

Funny how fast things have deteriorated since then

>>754746
>>754619
>>754602

No taxes it is then! No more roads, airports, firefighters, police, prisons, public schools, military, national weather service, national guard, and hospitals.

And all the people on wall street can screw over whoever they want without regulations or any consequence!

>>754887

herp de derp herp de derp

the guy who runs obama's facebook page makes over 100k per year

obama gave half a billion to a company with no chance of survival

the list is long, and has nothing to do with the private companies the government hires to build roads, etc

you think those construction guys are federal employees?

you must be a fucking chick

>>754935

I think all of that stuff is retarded too, what do I win?

They should certainly cut stupid bullshit like that. Or at least be more mindful of what they're spending their money on before just throwing it at people.

>>754887

"i like all those things, so therefore stealing is justified"

>>754887
>roads,
Paid for with gas taxes. I am fine with this, I pay based on how much I use them
>airports,
Good riddance. If the airlines couldn't survive without federal bailouts we obviously don't need them
>firefighters,
Municipal taxes, generally property taxes. I'd prefer it to be a voluntary insurance payment, but you can make valid arguments that property tax is not theft
>police,
see above
>prisons,
See above. Federal prisons are unnecessary and unconstitutional
>public schools,
See above. Public schools are a travesty anyway, and the money the federal DoE spends doesn't even I to the schools now. It's a joke
>military,
Oh look you found a valid function of the federal government, maybe they can use part of the 2/3 of their budget that doesn't come from income tax
>national weather service,
boohoo
>national guard,
see military
>and hospitals.
Only like 20% of the hospitals in the country are government hospitals. They also happen to be the worst 20% in the country. Good riddance

Income tax is theft. Period.

>>755252

Did you write all that, or did you have to dictate it to someone?

I bet you think girls are stealing your money when you don't settle up after a date.

>>755252

It sounds like you want no government at all then. You can have that if you want.

That's called an anarchy.

What's wrong with a flat tax you faggots?

>10% on someone making $5,000 a year
>10% on someone making $5,000,000 a year
>10% on a business making $50,000,000,000 a year

>>755418
Because cost of living isn't a flat percentage of income.

>>755386
No because buying a girl dinner or whatever is a voluntary uncoerced choice I make. Income tax is the threat of force and imprisonment for not surrendering the fruits of my labor.
>>755393
>It sounds like you want no government at all then.

I'd suggest you learn to read then

>>755476

You want absolutely nothing but a military then, sorry.

>>754887

see also: Blackwater USA

>>755525
keep trying

>>755456

This. Good lord people, where are your brains with this flat tax shit?

if America was okay with the marginal tax rate at 39% under Clinton, but NOT okay with the same marginal tax rate under Obama, then you know it's not about politics, but about race.

inb4 durr race card pulling librul. I'm a lolbertarian

Because the dollar amount is higher on them because they have more of the money, so it's a lot more money today.

Apparently the government can only spend what money was worth in the 70's. Which could buy you a bag of chips and a pop for 5 cents.

>>755551
I don't see how any other tax is fair, except no income tax on individuals.

>>755564
nah man it's the fact that we are in a bad economic situation with a govt that spends too much and doesn't make everyone pay their fair share.

>>755564

I doubt it's about race, it's more about conservatives in general have just gone way, waaay off the deep end in the last decade.

Ronald Reagan would probably be considered borderline liberal if he were still around right now.

I don't know how raising taxes on poor people would help. They don't make a whole lot of money, and constitute maybe 20% of the GDP. It's like trying to get lime juice from dried limes, and saying you can't juice the fresh limes because then the lime tree won't grow.

>>755632
Ronald Reagan was considered border line liberal when he was elected, hence the idea of "big tent" conservatism.

Because nobody actually payed those rates. Herpity, Derpity.

>>755418
http://mises.org/rothbard/flattax.pdf
I'm so sorry for Mises.org but it is a book written by Rothbard so it is ok.

>>755252
People like Rothbard are refuted this.

>>751537

> the original top rate was 7 percent
> "todays rate are lower than they have ever been"

Suppose you have two people.

The first one makes $10,000 a year.
How much of that do you think gets spent on cost of living? Probably all of it, or at least very close to all of it.

The second makes $100,000 a year.
How much of that do you think is spent on cost of living? Definitely not all of it.

Will a 10% income tax harm both equally? No, it won't. It will do more harm to the person who earns 10k a year who needed all of it just to get by. We ought to minimize harm when possible. This means that we should not tax them both at the same rate, as that would generate more harm per dollar of revenue than taxing the person earning 10k a year at a lower rate than the person earning 100k a year.

>>755832
Or you can tell the person earning less to get off his ass. If he does, good for him. If he doesn't, then he deserves what he gets.

You fall behind, you get left behind. The sooner you liberals get that through your heads, the sooner we can solve this debt mess.

>>755832
>The second makes $100,000 a year.
>How much of that do you think is spent on cost of living? Definitely not all of it.
But a lot of it DOES get spent on living. The person with more income can afford to buy more shit, helping the economy. Maybe the $10,000 earner pays a few thousand a year in rent, while the $100,000 earner pays off a $500k mortgage. The $100,000 earner does save more, allowing banks to give out more loans.

Does the $100,000 earner use more government services than the $10,000 earner?

The system would be more fair to everyone without income taxes.

>>755476
Leaving the country or walking off into the woods to 'find yourself' is also a voluntary decision. At least you could stop paying for roads, schools, cops, firefighters, hospitals, and all that other pointless crap nobody cares about.

>>755669

Are you serious? Reagan was the 'you don't have to sell your house to filthy minorities if you don't want to' candidate.

>>755951

You're such an idiot. Really.

I don't want to blow your mind, but unfortunately hard work does not always = insta-success and piles of money these days. Being poor does not mean you're suddenly a lazy slacker. Some people making less than $50k work 60-80 hours a week for what they earn. And some may be raising a family at the same time. Would you tell someone like that to their face that they've been too lazy? Get a grip.

>>756318
>Making less than $50k/yr
>implying these people don't have a decent amount of money to play with.

Hoooooly fuck.

>>756361
>>756361

Yeah, they might be able to afford a refrigerator or a television and a car even! Even if they're raising a family, they must be really living the high life!

The average executive's pay is 35 times that of the average worker. Our country was fucked by these same GREEDY OVERPAID THIEVES.

>>756431
It's painfully obvious you have never stepped foot outside of your parents' house.

>>756041
sure I could walk off into the woods(as if there's any non claimed land left in the woods anymore) or voluntarily live on property and pay the property tax that I already said is not theft.

Income tax, however, is theft. Nobody here has even attempted to refute this statement.

Wow the people who think taxation is theft literally know nothing. The father of capitalism advocated progressive taxes, the constitution clearly states that we are allowed to lay taxes to pay for the welfare of people and we've had taxes since the colonial era. The rich agreeing to the social contract by staying here. If they really hate taxes, they can go to shitty asian country tax havens.

>>756546
I think he was being facetious. Unless you already knew that and are implying that poor people live the high life, in which case, I think it's pretty clear you've never left your white suburb.

>>756591
I've gone from bottom 10%, to middle-class, to top 1%, back down to middle-class, and currently at 'upper' middle-class.

I know how it works.
Learn how to manage money, properly position yourself at work, develop your career, etc.
It's not hard. Poor people lack motivation.

>>756644
Exactly, most of the "poor" stay poor because they cun't manage money.

>get some extra money
>choose between saving it or spending it on consumer electronics or shit they don't really need
>spend it
>HURRR EVIL CEOS ARE KEEPING ME DOWN

Considering that the wealthy don't actually earn their money and instead just siphon excess value from their workers, I see no problem with taxing them.

>$50k a year
>poor
What...

>>756644
>>756782
Yeah, because no one is ever fucked over by circumstance in a free market. The market will solve all problems and everything will be sunshine and rainbows. You people sicken me. I hope you slip in the shower, break your necks, and drown in just enough water that it takes hours for you to die.

>>756892
I hope you get ass cancer when you're 85 and your government death panel won't pay for treatment and decides to treat an illegal immigrant instead.

>>756892
Circumstances don't exist, only choices and consequences.

If you don't believe it, you are most likely delusional or simply ignorant.

>>756892
And we hope you're able to raise your socio-economic standing through hard work and honest trade.

>>756892

>>756644

I work about 60-hour weeks on average animating for a television studio. I make about $30k a year and spend about $20k on living expenses such as food, rent, gas, car repairs, phone, etc.

How much money should I be making so I can stop looking so darn lazy and unmotivated to you?

>>756946
>I work about 60-hour weeks on average animating for a television studio.
>I make about $30k a year

I could go sell cars/furniture/appliances and make $15-20k more than you working less than 40 hours a week.
The choices we make...

>>756922
Yeah, I guess no one is ever born into poverty in a society where the capital is already held in the hands of a tiny portion of the population, no siree. Now go break your neck in the shower, it will be less painful than what is going to happen to people like you in the next 30 years.

>>756911
If I get cancer when I'm fucking 85, I'd been fine with someone else (legal or illegal) getting the chance to live that long as well instead of all of those resources going to keeping me alive for another couple of years. I'd rather bow out as painlessly as possible and give others the chance to live their lives.

>furniture/appliances salesman
>50k/year

>>756967

So do you think I'm unmotivated then? Because I worked my ass off to earn just this job so I wouldn't have to be some cunt selling used cars and appliances to people all day.