And the rich get richer... by Niki2

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
I have been asking for a set of rules that treat people equally.

Yeah, and I'm in favor of cute puppies.

Come on Tony. You're smarter than that. No one here is against equality, everyone is very much in favor of it. What we differ on is the definition.

I believe that equality is about everyone partaking in the economic success of a nation, which is only possible when the nation is actually successful.

I believe that everybody should pay no taxes on a very low income, little taxes on a middle income, and higher taxes on a really high income. That's equal; it applies to everyone. A hedge fund schmoe on Wall Street pays the same taxes on their 2.8 million dollar income as the pro baseball player who makes the same amount.

Where's the inequality in that?

I think equal rates for all income levels is a false equality. Taking away 30% from someone who can't pay their heating bills is nothing at all the same as taking 30% from someone who'll have to hold back on buying the bigger yacht. Not THAT's inequality.

And, you skip over the part where it's just bad for the economy. Buying a new yacht profits one specialty business, but putting the cost of that yacht into the hands of thousands leads to spending at several places of business, leading to many more jobs created. Fair or not: one way leads to an economy that crashes and burns, one way leads to success that benefits everyone, CEOs included.

Or is it only me who sees the obvious connection between concentrated Wall Street wealth and the drying up of small businesses? REAL small businesses, not this crap that huge companies try to sell themselves as to get a tax break.

-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 26, 2010 6:41 AM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hello Mal,

I actually don't advocate taking taxes from people who are struggling to survive. This is why I propose a base income forgiveness for all citizens. That base to be determined as the point where survival is no longer in jeopardy.

This would be something like 25k for each individual, adjusted yearly for inflationary pressure.

Everything past this point would be taxed at the same equal rate. That's equality. Everyone gets the same untaxed amount. Everyone is taxed equally past that amount.

--Anthony

Assured by friends that the signal-to-noise ratio has improved on this forum, I have disabled web filtering.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 26, 2010 6:49 AM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

What I find interesting is that the only person discussing something NEW is SignyM. That means that the rest are coming here with old ideas they are so wedded to that new thoughts will not happen.

I could write this discussion with my eyes closed. Give me the name and I'll write out the position.

Boring.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 26, 2010 6:59 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
I actually don't advocate taking taxes from people who are struggling to survive. This is why I propose a base income forgiveness for all citizens. That base to be determined as the point where survival is no longer in jeopardy.

This would be something like 25k for each individual, adjusted yearly for inflationary pressure.

Everything past this point would be taxed at the same equal rate. That's equality. Everyone gets the same untaxed amount. Everyone is taxed equally past that amount.

I don't believe that's equal, nor do I believe it's in the best interest of the economy.

I also think we're past the point of drawing a line for "survival", and seeing all the rest as all the same. What is "survival" in our society? Not dying? That's all? What about the American ideal of having the opportunity of improving yourself? What about the HUGE benefit to our society of having a middle class who can buy stuff?

And how you handle the hard cut between someone earning $24990 and someone earning $25010? How is that fair? Can you imagine the nightmares that would ensue? If I'm earning 24.9K, I don't want a raise unless it's enough to cover the huge tax burden that will fall on me like a fucking hammer...

We need a graduated scale. Under some "survival" line there should be no taxes. But it should come on gradually after that. And it should be the same for all forms of income.

And yes, I believe that for insanely high incomes the rate should sky-rocket. It is no good for any economy to have those insanely wealthy few. It gives them too much power, and it furthers the process we've seen again and again in history. (Signym brought up the 1900s - no, we obviously didn't learn from that.) At some point--and I'm talking billionaires here--added profit should go back into society. You want to get a million more in profit out of that factory? OK you pocket $100K, 900K goes to the support system for those workers.

That's fair.

-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 26, 2010 6:59 AM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hello Kiki,

I am sorry to be boring. I would love to see you state Signy's position. I've never been able to get to the end of how everything should work.

--Anthony

Assured by friends that the signal-to-noise ratio has improved on this forum, I have disabled web filtering.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 26, 2010 7:00 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
What I find interesting is that the only person discussing something NEW is SignyM. That means that the rest are coming here with old ideas they are so wedded to that new thoughts will not happen.

I could write this discussion with my eyes closed. Give me the name and I'll write out the position.

Boring.

And a warm and Happy Thanksgiving to you too.

If you went somewhere else and wrote your own threads, you'd never be bored again.

-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 26, 2010 7:04 AM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

"I don't want a raise unless it's enough to cover the huge tax burden that will fall on me like a fucking hammer..."

Hello,

What is the huge tax burden that falls like a hammer? Earning 100 dollars past the line of demarcation would mean that you owe, say, 10 dollars if the tax rate is 10%.

Would you refuse a raise because you'd now have to pay taxes on the small portion that passes the magic line?

And with a graduated tax system, you are advocating the very burden you imagine. That suddenly someone can reach a rate of income and see their tax burden skyrocket.

Fair's fair. What's fair for the poor is also fair for the middle class and also the rich.

--Anthony

Assured by friends that the signal-to-noise ratio has improved on this forum, I have disabled web filtering.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 26, 2010 7:38 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Mal speaks for me. Sorry to leave you holding the bag, Mal, but this debate has become what seems to me one of black and white, with no middle ground, no compromises, and, as you said, ignores history. After reading all the way down since I was last here, I'm really glad to see you here and stating good point, but came down with my husband's cold yesterday and am not up to continuing to flail away uselessly. Good luck, but I think you're pissing into the wind.

Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 26, 2010 7:39 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
"I don't want a raise unless it's enough to cover the huge tax burden that will fall on me like a fucking hammer..."

Hello,

What is the huge tax burden that falls like a hammer? Earning 100 dollars past the line of demarcation would mean that you owe, say, 10 dollars if the tax rate is 10%.

Ah - I see. You only tax the portion past the limit. Yes, this should have been obvious to me. And yet, if it's as inconsequential as you say, how come so many people stress over going into higher tax brackets? And if you think this 10% step in rate should be no big deal to poor people, how is it such a huge unfair tragedy for the rich to have their rate step up?

Quote:
And with a graduated tax system, you are advocating the very burden you imagine. That suddenly someone can reach a rate of income and see their tax burden skyrocket.

Fair's fair. What's fair for the poor is also fair for the middle class and also the rich.

What you are missing is that the poor, middle class, and rich are not at all in any kind of fair situation. An equal rate is equal, all else being equal. But all else is most certainly not equal.

Indeed, fair should be fair: You would draw a line of increasing rate only for the poor, and not the rich. The line between survival and non-survival may be all that is important to you, but is not all that matters in the big picture.

If you can go to 10% after 25K, why not go to 11% above 50K, 12% above 100K, etc... How tiny are those steps? And how equal is that: we still all get that first $25K for free. Nothing unequal about it. If you want to go over the 500K line, you pay the same as everyone else who does.

And, to not let this get away: the good of the economy as a whole is the most important point. If that suffers, and we all suffer, as we have seen in the past 2 years. We need the wealth to be less focused.

-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 26, 2010 7:44 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:
Mal speaks for me. Sorry to leave you holding the bag, Mal, but this debate has become what seems to me one of black and white, with no middle ground, no compromises, and, as you said, ignores history. After reading all the way down since I was last here, I'm really glad to see you here and stating good point, but came down with my husband's cold yesterday and am not up to continuing to flail away uselessly. Good luck, but I think you're pissing into the wind.

Ah, but pissing into the wind is the most entertaining thing I have to do at the moment. I'm staying at a friend's, waiting for them to get back from half day's work so we can hang, and there's no interesting news to read. And I must resist resist resist the TV! Evil TV. I've been free from it at home for months now.

Besides, a debate with the opinionated yet intelligent, well-spoken, and rational Anthony is a savory delight seldom experienced here in RWED.

(I'm not being sarcastic. I'd been reading "literature" lately and the language stays with me.

)

-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 26, 2010 7:50 AM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hello,

Are you advocating a graduated system that only taxes income within individual brackets?

i.e. You pay nothing if you earn 25k.
You pay nothing on 25k and 10% on 25k if you earn 50k.
You pay nothing on 25k and 10% on 25k and 11% on 50k if you earn 100k.

Like that? This would be acceptable to me. I do not enjoy graduated tax tables that tax the entire amount of earnings based on the bracket. (So that rich people pay 50% on all of their income, while middle class people pay 30% on all their income, or whatever.)

The current system does punish people for getting raises, because your bracket decides taxes on all your income, and not just the part that exceeds a threshold.

If each bracket is isolated to the income within its bracket, I would consider this fair.

--Anthony

Assured by friends that the signal-to-noise ratio has improved on this forum, I have disabled web filtering.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 26, 2010 7:50 AM

CANTTAKESKY

Both sides here are talking about how to tweak the tax system to make it more egalitarian. Of course, no one agrees on what egalitarian means.

Just read this article. I thought it quite germaine to this discussion.

http://www.justfortheloveofit.org/blog-3854~in-your-name?

Quote:

Please stop paying lip-service about equality if you continue to reinforce an economic model that can only serve to make inequality more extreme. It is a model in which, by its nature, the poor can only get poorer, and the rich...

These statistics are just a tiny selection, a glimpse at a world where millions of years of evolution are being wiped out by humanity; 50,000 species a year, and that's just the ones we know about.

So do we now say 'Not in my name anymore', or do we continue content in the knowledge we're doing our bit?

We say we don't want these things, yet how many of us are prepared to change our lives enough to end the complicity, and to actively work towards a new localised economic model, where friendships and knowledge of the local economy come to replace this inadequate tool - money - as our primary source of security again.

This economic model can never be equal, truly sustainable or just, by its very nature. It can be improved a little bit, but that's about as good as it will get folks.

The Question is: What are you going to do about? Continue with Business as Usual? Or dare to imagine something completely different, and be the change you want to see.

I guess I'm asking if you want the blue pill, or the red pill? If the latter, drop me a line. If the former, stop reading and get back to work, your economy needs you.

I started a new thread to discuss "Living ethically" based on this author's assertions/ideas.

http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.asp?b=18&t=46437

--Can't Take (my gorram) Sky

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 26, 2010 7:55 AM

New thought: I would compare it to this Anthony. I've been involved with a few department reviews - one a state college, one an elite private high school. In these reviews, one does not compare oneself with every school out there. Peer institutions are chosen as comparisons, schools with similar budgets and goals.

What you are doing is equating the budgetary needs and goals of Phillips Exeter, with a billion dollar endowment for 1000 students (plus 30-40K/student tuition!), to some public school on the outskirts of Omaha that has barely any budget. You cannot treat these two situations as if they are financial equivalents.

Saying that someone earning 30K can give up the same percentage of their income as someone earning $30M, and that this is fair, is simply ridiculous. 10% of 30K is nothing like 10% of $30M. It has an entirely different meaning in terms of their quality of life as well as the impact on the economy as a whole.

-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 26, 2010 8:03 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Are you advocating a graduated system that only taxes income within individual brackets?

i.e. You pay nothing if you earn 25k.
You pay nothing on 25k and 10% on 25k if you earn 50k.
You pay nothing on 25k and 10% on 25k and 11% on 50k if you earn 100k.

Like that? This would be acceptable to me.

Yay! That's exactly what I mean. I could probably have streamlined this whole thing by learning the language. And doubly shame on me, since my mom is a CPA so if I'd ever actually listened to her financial advice I'd know the lingo.

Quote:
I do not enjoy graduated tax tables that tax the entire amount of earnings based on the bracket. (So that rich people pay 50% on all of their income, while middle class people pay 30% on all their income, or whatever.)

The current system does punish people for getting raises, because your bracket decides taxes on all your income, and not just the part that exceeds a threshold.

Yes, I agree. I'm embarrassed to admit it, but I didn't know our system didn't do this. I assumed it did, since it makes so much sense. I'm new to having any real income myself, so I've never sorted it out. Well, and as soon as I got a real job I got a tax specialist to handle it for me.

Yeah, I see your disagreement. The higher rates should not apply to the whole income. Do they really? That's so silly.

Another silly thing: tax shelters for some kinds of income. Was it signym who brought that up before? Or Niki? It's just wrong wrong wrong. Income is income.

-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 26, 2010 8:10 AM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

"If you went somewhere else and wrote your own threads, you'd never be bored again."

I have, and many people found them interesting - and said so.

My view is that ANY economy is an artificial construct, from hunter-gatherer to feudal to virtual, and yes, even capitalism. But people here are proposing and defending the exact same ideas they discussed 5 years ago. The discussion is running in very small, very well-worn circular ruts. It leads me to believe that people are invested in their ideas AS IF those ideas were facts of nature, even though they aren't.

Economies don't need to be anything at all if you don't care about long-term. Not free, not regulated, not taxed, not ... anything.

As an example, entire cultures flourished by forceful acquisition and expansion, like the Roman Empire and the Mongols. They used up local resources, used up surrounding cultures as raw resources, and did very well - until of course they hit the limits of their natural and human environment.

To be pedantic, if you want to take the long view, and plan for a long future, you need to look at the entire range of history and economies and see which lasted, and which fell, and why. To analyze old data and THINK NEW THOUGHTS.

That's what missing here. Of course, IMHO.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 26, 2010 8:18 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
Fair's fair. What's fair for the poor is also fair for the middle class and also the rich.

You speak as if everyone really were equal, as if hands were shaken over contracts and backs slapped. As if employees were never killed for trying to stand up for their rights, small businesses were never driven out of existence, the wealthy never slipped a few hundred million to their favorite politicians nor were able to make their opinions heard above and beyond the average person (Think Hearst, who managed to start a war all by himself.)

Honestly, Tony, your viewpoint- as ethically consistent and equitable as you try to be- is uniformed by even a shred of reality. Try reading some of the muckrakers from the early 1900's- Upton Sinclair for example. Nothing happening now is new.

Mondragon owes its success to the fact that it operates it own bank. I know someone who started several cooperatives, and he told me that credit is impossible to come by, even if you have a sound business plan and a good chance of success. Regular commercial (capitalist) banks know which side their bread is buttered on! They will not loan to a business which threatens their own business model! That's why Microsoft and Apple are so dead set against free* (*as in freedom, not beer) software, and have done everything in their power to obliterate it.

The wealthy have no delusion that they are being fair or equitable, and they will use whatever advantages they can create for themselves on their behalf. All they want is to get rich.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 26, 2010 8:20 AM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

"Another silly thing: tax shelters for some kinds of income. Was it signym who brought that up before? Or Niki? It's just wrong wrong wrong. Income is income."

Hello,

I will agree with this as well. Income is income. It should all be treated identically.

--Anthony

Assured by friends that the signal-to-noise ratio has improved on this forum, I have disabled web filtering.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 26, 2010 8:21 AM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hello,

Kiki, it is generous of you to point out what is missing here. It would be more generous of you to provide that missing element.

--Anthony

Assured by friends that the signal-to-noise ratio has improved on this forum, I have disabled web filtering.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 26, 2010 8:23 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
You pay nothing if you earn 25k.
You pay nothing on 25k and 10% on 25k if you earn 50k.
You pay nothing on 25k and 10% on 25k and 11% on 50k if you earn 100k.

Like that? This would be acceptable to me.

Well, this is how it works. You pay higher taxes on the next level of income, not on the whole thing.

So you're good with the USA tax system then?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 26, 2010 8:32 AM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

"Mondragon owes its success to the fact that it operates it own bank. I know someone who started several cooperatives, and he told me that credit is impossible to come by..."

Hello,

Perhaps he could borrow money from Mondragon's bank?

"You speak as if everyone really were equal, as if hands were shaken over contracts and backs slapped. As if employees were never killed for trying to stand up for their rights, small businesses were never driven out of existence, the wealthy never slipped a few hundred million to their favorite politicians nor were able to make their opinions heard above and beyond the average person (Think Hearst, who managed to start a war all by himself.)"

Signy, I realize that bad men do bad things every day, and powerful men lord themselves over the weak, while wrestling the tiller of navigation away from the state and its citizenry to serve their own ends.

And I am very interested in discussing ways to create a better system. I just want to be sure that in the new system, things are equal.

--Anthony

Assured by friends that the signal-to-noise ratio has improved on this forum, I have disabled web filtering.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 26, 2010 8:34 AM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hello,

When I fill out my tax forms, I find my entire income on a chart and enter the tax percentage indicated. When I earned more money, I moved to a whole different percentage on the chart for all my money.

--Anthony

Assured by friends that the signal-to-noise ratio has improved on this forum, I have disabled web filtering.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 26, 2010 8:38 AM

RIGHTEOUS9

Hi Mal,

I would add that since Anthony thinks that the very lowest earners should be forgiven from any tax burden that he must already appreciate that that difference in impact exists.

I would also suggest that whatever ideal it is that Anthony and Canttakesky have in order to repair our system, is either not spelled out, or has no practical means of implementation. I advocate more taxes for the rich as a partial solution because it is almost a possibility. Indeed if just slightly more people were behind eradicating the recent tax breaks for the rich, this could have already succeeded. This would take some lobbying power away from the few that have it all, take capital that helps these companies to maintain their choke-holds on certain industries and expand into new localities to kill local competitors, and it would help to revitalize american infrastructure, from the roads to the quality of the work-force, and voter education.

If we want to use different ideological means to this end, which seem guaranteed to fail, then we are saying we are willing to let things get so bad that eventually revolution becomes the only "answer," to the condition. Sure, that's anywhere from 50 to 100 years down the road, and by then maybe technology will have advanced to the point where such a thing is not even possible...

but I don't understand how this sickness is supposed to change if money is the life-blood of more than our economy, but also our news, our political influence, and our education, and we don't want any of it.

While Rich people may not technically be villains, the fact that they have been able to hoarde so much of the pie is a reflection on a failed system, not an equitable one.

Monopoly works as a board game because at some point there's a winner, and then you start over from scratch...kind of like what a revolution does. It would be a pretty lousy game if everything were already owned by one person, and everybody else was still supposed to play, just landing on property and paying for it.

Since resetting America seems like a pretty distateful idea, it only makes sense that there should be some rejuvinating mechanism in our laws to keep the whole thing playable.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 26, 2010 8:40 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Quote:
To Leftists, anyone who gained anything more than they have, or think anyone ' should' be able to , did so by cheating. Because it's how they'd do it, if they were motivated by such things as success and money.
Because they were REALLY motivated by the milk of human kindness??? Eh, that must explain child labor, company towns, brutal killing of labor leaders, rapacious monopolies, and grinding poverty for the many and opulence for the vanishingly few.

Really, Rappy. Do you really expect us to believe such tripe?

I only derailed this conversation from Anthony's legitimate (albeit misdirected IMHO) ethical conundrum to poke at your post. Back to our regularly scheduled program.

It's not tripe, Sig. Not even in the least. You hyper exaggerate the worst, and things from decades ago which no longer apply, in order to continue your perpetual class warfare.

" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 26, 2010 8:47 AM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hello,

I just consulted some tax charts, and it appears the charts I've been consulting for tax bracket are used in a way that already factors in reduced taxes in lower income brackets. So, it seems the system of isolated brackets must exist, but has been invisible to me since these categories can be combined or averaged into a single number.

--Anthony

Assured by friends that the signal-to-noise ratio has improved on this forum, I have disabled web filtering.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 26, 2010 8:47 AM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

"Kiki, it is generous of you to point out what is missing here. It would be more generous of you to provide that missing element."

I started to in the other thread about ethical living, but the holidays, family and all ...

I appreciate your reply but can be only a some-time participant.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 26, 2010 8:57 AM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hello,

Upon further examination of the breakdown, it seems income from 0-8000 dollars is taxed at ten percent. This is the example provided in the instruction packet to my Tax materials:

Suppose your taxable income (after deductions and exemptions) was exactly $100,000 in 2008 and your status was Married filing separately; then your tax would be calculated like this:

( $ 8,025 minus 0 ) x .10 : $ 802.50
( 32,550 minus 8,025 ) x .15 : 3,678.75
( 65,725 minus 32,550 ) x .25 : 8,293.75
( 100,000 minus 65,725 ) x .28 : 9,597.00
Total: $ 22,372.00

If this is true, an adjustment needs to be made. Or there is some rebate already in place to address this? The first tax bracket should be zero percent, and have a ceiling higher than $1.00

--Anthony

Assured by friends that the signal-to-noise ratio has improved on this forum, I have disabled web filtering.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 26, 2010 8:58 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Kiki, it is generous of you to point out what is missing here. It would be more generous of you to provide that missing element.

Perhaps bringing no substance to a thread but criticism of the thread's lack of substance is a really really new thing....

OK. Maybe not.

-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 26, 2010 9:00 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Quote:
You pay nothing if you earn 25k.
You pay nothing on 25k and 10% on 25k if you earn 50k.
You pay nothing on 25k and 10% on 25k and 11% on 50k if you earn 100k.

Like that? This would be acceptable to me.
Well, this is how it works. You pay higher taxes on the next level of income, not on the whole thing.

So you're good with the USA tax system then?

Thank you SignyM. I'm relieved that that is how it works.

ETA: And thank you for showing some actual numbers Tony. I really should make an effort to understand my own taxes.

-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 26, 2010 9:09 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Righteous9:
I would add that since Anthony thinks that the very lowest earners should be forgiven from any tax burden that he must already appreciate that that difference in impact exists.

Yes, this is the point I was trying to make.

Quote:
This would take some lobbying power away from the few that have it all, take capital that helps these companies to maintain their choke-holds on certain industries and expand into new localities to kill local competitors, and it would help to revitalize american infrastructure, from the roads to the quality of the work-force, and voter education.

Bravo. Exactly my point - I pay school taxes, though I have no children in school. Fair? Maybe not. Or maybe it is. I benefit greatly, if indirectly, from living in an educated society. Many comforts in my life wouldn't be possible without the education that has been paid into by taxpayers for decades. It is only fair--and only healthy to America's future--that I make my own contribution to this process.

Quote:
Monopoly works as a board game because at some point there's a winner, and then you start over from scratch...kind of like what a revolution does. It would be a pretty lousy game if everything were already owned by one person, and everybody else was still supposed to play, just landing on property and paying for it.

Which is exactly where we're headed.

I reiterate - it is not about punishing anyone. It's about fixing a broken system.

And it's not only about money. There are other issues of import here - the principle of what the American way of life should be. I'd prefer it not be serfs and lords.

-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 26, 2010 9:10 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Okay, I came back for two reasons; just to contribute something which may answer a question askedp reviously, and because a request was made of me in another thread to which I wanted to respond. So:

Anthony, I just noticed in re-reading that you said, about SSI, “If the benefits cap, then the donation rate should cap”. I don’t know the specifics, but I found this:

Quote:
...calculation of Social Security benefits are based on a formula that does not take earnings over the cap into account. Since higher income during one's working life translates into higher Social Security benefits...

http://www.epi.org/economic_snapshots/entry/webfeatures_snapshots_2005
0217/

and

Quote:
There are also limits to the amount of Social Security retirement benefits that you can actually have on a yearly basis. You cannot be drawing more in Social Security than you possibly earned in the past unless you happen to become disabled. Then in the case that you become disabled or in this sense capped when it comes to the Social Security benefits that you can receive. The idea of having a cap on the amount of Social Security benefits that you receive is not something that appeals to all that many people.

http://www.todaysseniors.com/wp/social-security/is-there-a-cap-on-soci
al-security/

This talks about a “yearly basis”, but not about a cap on lifetime Social Security benefits. Also,

Quote:
As of 2009 the maximum amount of Social Security that you can receive is $2323.00 a month. This figure is based on maximum contributions to the system for every year from your 21st birthday until you retire.

http://www.todaysseniors.com/wp/social-security/what-is-the-maximum-so
cial-security-retirement-benefit/

So it would appear that, while there is a maximum amount of Social Security PER YEAR, there doesn’t appear to be a point at where Social Security stops being received, a “lifetime benefit cap” as it were. Just to clarify that point.

Mal4, hey, piss in the wind all you want; certainly intellectual debate beats the HELL out of passive TV! And I agree 100% (and more) that

Quote:
Besides, a debate with the opinionated yet intelligent, well-spoken, and rational Anthony is a savory delight seldom experienced here in RWED.

It’s often why I get “trapped” here rather than doing other things!

Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 26, 2010 9:10 AM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hello,

Me too. All these years I'd been misinterpreting the chart I've been using to select income deductions from my paycheck. It never occurred to me that the number on the chart contained all these lesser calculations in the same manner as the numbers on a slide rule.

--Anthony

Assured by friends that the signal-to-noise ratio has improved on this forum, I have disabled web filtering.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 26, 2010 9:12 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Okay, to address the other reason I returned to this thread:

I’ve re-read all your remarks, Anthony, in an attempt to do what you wanted me to in the other thread. In that thread, the only thing I found was that one remark. Since this is the first thread where my feeling that you were being more—judgmental I think is what I was feeling; that much has connected since I’ve been thinking about it. So I’ll use this thread to find examples of what made me feel that way:

Quote:
This is true, but only because we allow it. The main power of 'the rich' is not the money itself, but the ability to organize non-monetary resources. If 'the poor' organize on any topic, the thunder shakes the earth. The complacency of 'the poor' can only be blamed on money to the extent that 'the poor' don't have as much free time, and spend their little bit of free time on pursuits other than shaping the nation according to their vision and benefit.

Quote:
If you want me to seize the contents of Scrooge McDuck's vault and re-distribute it according to your ideals, you will lose me.

Quote:
That anyone might do such a thing with a grin and a litany of moral justifications is a picture of horror to me.

Quote:
Instead of telling me that...

Your remark to me that

Quote:
What difference does it make if I will ever be rich? The sums of my hopes and dreams are immaterial to this debate.

particularly struck me. I was not accusing YOU of that, I was saying it was a mentality I saw. Maybe I wasn’t clear enough, perhaps I should have added “in some people”; I don’t know what would have made you take it differently, but what I meant was that it was a theory which had occurred to me, especially hearing people at Tea Party events; it had nothing to do with you, but taking it as pointed at you, you decided it was immaterial and dismissed my expressing my theory.

Quote:
I am asking, consistently, for a system that treats people equally, and you here posit that equality is irrelevant to me?

I had said that was your opinion, but it was just my opinion...I probably should have said that I THOUGHT that was your opinion.

But my original statement was

Quote:
The fact that some have the opportunity to earn more than others, that perhaps a society should strive for more equality or even care about it's weaker members are all irrelevant. That is your opinion, it sounds like you're saying that's it, that's the only viable alternative, period, and nothing else is worth considering or even bringing up. JMHO.

I stand by that. The “equality” you are putting forth doesn’t take into consideration that achieving wealth which you believe should be equally taxed ISN’T irrelevant, nor is the fact that I believe a society should take into account its weaker members, for the same reason. The society itself doesn’t contain “equality” of opportunity to achieve wealth, which is the point I was trying to make, and I believe a society has a responsibility to those who don’t have the same opportunities. I wasn’t saying equality was irrelevant; I was trying to say that equality doesn’t exist in ACHIEVING wealth, so I don’t think it should exist in TAXING wealth. Maybe I should have clarified that, but it seemed like you jumped to the conclusion I was saying you didn’t want equality. I didn’t say I believed you felt “caring about the weaker members of society is irrelevant to me, I am staggered”. You were responding, in my opinion, not to what I wrote, but—I don’t know, it felt defensive, it felt like you were accusing me of things I hadn’t said. I was trying to say the same thing Mal did, that

Quote:
What you are missing is that the poor, middle class, and rich are not at all in any kind of fair situation. An equal rate is equal, all else being equal. But all else is most certainly not equal.

Lastly,

Quote:
I am sorry to be boring

That felt like a snark at Kiki...I don’t think she (he?) said you were boring, I think she/he said the DEBATE was predictable.

Okay, I went through the entire thread. I honestly don’t think you wrote like this before; I can CERTAINLY be wrong, it was just something that struck me and I brought it up. This is not an accusation, it is not meant as a negative judgment of you; it was something I believed I “felt” and I meant to ask about it. I didn’t phrase my question concisely, in fact I didn’t make it a question, which is on me. None of this is important, except possibly to you and somewhat to me, I just thought I saw something in HOW you wrote that was unlike you. NOTHING more.

It may well be that I'm accustomed to more, shall we say "foreceful" remarks by most of the people here, and had the impression you were extremely civil in how you wrote, in contast. At any rate, it is no more than something which I felt I perceived.

Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 26, 2010 9:18 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

One last note; someone somewhere mentioned that the rich pay something like 69% of taxes while they only earn 44% of income (the figures are what I recall).

What isn't considered in that is that if there are, to simplify, 10 people earning 44% of the income, and say 1,000 people earning the remaining 54% of the income, the figures don't show that the rich pay "most" of the taxes, they show that they pay the HIGHEST PERCENTAGE of taxes per person, it isn't taken into account how MANY people earn income or pay taxes. The question I had posed was how much taxes individual rich people pay of what they are SUPPOSED to pay, given loopholes, etc.

I guess it's kind of like a bell curve or something, where wealth residing in a few people paying the majority of ALL taxes doesn't equate to wealth being divided by many people who, in the aggregate, pay a lower percentage of tax.

Am I putting that clearly? Having difficulty with words today, but that struck me when I read it.

Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 26, 2010 9:24 AM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

"I'm accustomed to more, shall we say "foreceful" remarks by most of the people here, and had the impression you were extremely civil in how you wrote, in contast."

Hello,

I regret that you feel I have become less civil.

On the topic of your theories regarding the mentality of groups of people: When I am included in any sweeping statement, I will usually be sure to counter that statement with my actual feelings if they differ.

Hence, if someone says, "I think people who don't like bananas must not like the peel"

if I am someone who dislikes bananas for the flavor, I will say so. And I did.

I should also point out that I have always been willing to fence with words, but I try to do so civilly.

Based on your opinion of a change in my demeanor, I have failed. I am not sure how.

--Anthony

Assured by friends that the signal-to-noise ratio has improved on this forum, I have disabled web filtering.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 26, 2010 9:28 AM

CANTTAKESKY

Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:
Lastly,
Quote:
Anthony: I am sorry to be boring
That felt like a snark at Kiki...I don’t think she (he?) said you were boring, I think she/he said the DEBATE was predictable.

The way I read it, Kiki said everyone was boring in this debate except SignyM. That would include Anthony, you, me, and well, everyone except SignyM.

--Can't Take (my gorram) Sky

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 26, 2010 10:12 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

I read Kiki's initial remark differently from what you and Anthony both said, insofar as "boring". She said

Quote:
the rest are coming here with old ideas they are so wedded to that new thoughts will not happen

I don't see that as boring; I see it as, if anything, "predictable", saying that people are stuck on their individual stances, and nobody has come up with a new concept. That's different from "boring".

I never said, or intended to say, that you were less civil. I was trying to say that your WORDING seemed unlike you, The “how” was my interpretation, and I was actually seeking to know, if my impression was accurate, the “why”. Do you take my meaning?

As to my remark on groups of people; you didn’t counter it with your feelings, you judged it as irrelevant. There’s a difference, which is one of the things that gave me the impression I got.

CERTAINLY none of what you have written has been directly offensive, nor come up to the standards of negativity of almost ALL of us here...I just thought I detected some difference. Like maybe you had come back deciding to "hold your own" more, or came back expecting to be put on the defensive, or I don't know what. It merely struck me, it's no biggie, and I never find you uncivil, just to be clear.

Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 26, 2010 10:14 AM

CANTTAKESKY

Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:
I don't see that as boring; I see it as, if anything, "predictable", saying that people are stuck on their individual stances, and nobody has come up with a new concept. That's different from "boring".

I'd agree, except for the fact that she ended her post with the word, "Boring."

--Can't Take (my gorram) Sky

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 26, 2010 10:15 AM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

I think I can sum up the arguments like this:

unequal distribution of wealth is necessary and should be supported by tax policy

unequal distribution of wealth is detrimental and should be eliminated by tax policy.

Perhaps there is more to it than this but I think I am reading the exact same arguments I've been reading over the years ... and life is too short.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 26, 2010 10:27 AM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

"I think I can sum up the arguments like this:
unequal distribution of wealth is necessary and should be supported by tax policy
unequal distribution of wealth is detrimental and should be eliminated by tax policy."

Hello,

I feel that distribution of wealth will never be equal. There will always be people who achieve more and accomplish more. I am more interested in assuring that the rules regarding wealth acquisition and distribution are equal. This will leave everyone to accomplish what they are able. Different people will inevitably be able to acquire different amounts of wealth. As long as the rules can be made equitable, I am satisfied with this.

"life is too short"

Kiki, I don't mind a critique of this discussion as unproductive, unoriginal, and mundane. Those may be valid observations. But until you have time to add your own substance as an improvement on the conversation, I feel the critique itself becomes equally unproductive.

--Anthony

Assured by friends that the signal-to-noise ratio has improved on this forum, I have disabled web filtering.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 26, 2010 10:31 AM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

"But until you have time to add your own substance as an improvement on the conversation, I feel the critique itself becomes equally unproductive."

See 'living ethically' where I TRIED to expand the discussion of economic theory beyond taxes and wealth distribution. For the record, this is the second pointer I've posted to that thread as my contribution to the topic.

ETA: if I have unfairly summarized the conversation perhaps someone will point out to me what I have missed.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 26, 2010 10:39 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
I think I am reading the exact same arguments I've been reading over the years ... and life is too short.

And this post adds to your previous argument... how? You do see the irony, right? If you are so aware of old thoughts, you must have some of those new ones. So... kick down, huh?

Or - you always have the option not to read. There's always college football games, which could go either way. That might meet your definition of new and interesting.

Myself, I find the old arguments can be interesting when I keep in mind there's a person on the other end. I'm learning about them as much as I'm learning about the topic at hand.

ETA: It's not the "unfairly summarizing" that makes me want to mock you. It's the utterly boring way that you're doing exactly what you're getting down on others for doing.

As if you've said anything new.

-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 26, 2010 10:45 AM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

Last post to you for the moment Mal4 - you may not be reading my posts to the end. I will, for the THIRD time point out to you the Living Ethically thread where I post some things about economy that have nothing to do with taxes. Been there? Why not?

Also, you forget that while I've only been posting recently I've been reading for years - near on as long as this site has been up. I am pretty familiar with the posters and their positions. And I DID read these posts. It's just my commentary that I saw nothing new here, today. I saw pretty much what I've been seeing for all these years. It makes me wonder about people, is all. Consider it a third-party comment from a relatively uninvested observer.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 26, 2010 10:52 AM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hello Kiki,

I have followed your pointers there, and am looking forward to the development of that thread. You clearly have innovative ideas and limited time to share them. I encourage you not to waste one whit of your efforts here if the arguments and ideas here hold no value to you.

--Anthony

Assured by friends that the signal-to-noise ratio has improved on this forum, I have disabled web filtering.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 26, 2010 11:03 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
Last post to you for the moment Mal4 - you may not be reading my posts to the end. I will, for the THIRD time point out to you the Living Ethically thread where I post some things about economy that have nothing to do with taxes. Been there? Why not?

Because that thread is that thread and this is this. I am not interested in Living Ethically, but I am interested in this topic.

Does that offend you? Why? If you have been lurking here that long, you must know that there is no requirement that I read another thread in order to be posting in this one.

Quote:
Also, you forget that while I've only been posting recently I've been reading for years - near on as long as this site has been up. I am pretty familiar with the posters and their positions.

That's nice. But I didn't forget: I didn't know, and really it's beside the point. You may feel you know me or the other posters well, but I don't know you. All I have to go by is how you showed up here and passed judgment on almost everyone's contributions while adding nothing to the conversation - to THIS conversation - yourself.

BTW, if you saw nothing new today than you've seen for years, why are you suddenly posting? You can't be so very uninvested, since you're not only posting your judgment, but you're also continuing to follow every post in a fairly long thread.

Admit it - you're not really that bored now are ya?

In return I will admit that I guess I must not have read your posts to every detail. I don't recall reference to the other thread, but it wouldn't have mattered. I have no interest in chasing you around to other threads in order to get to know you. I'm interested in the conversation here. If you're not going to take part other than to point at others and mock, well, it's a safe bet that the mocking will come right back at you.

Welcome to RWED.

-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 26, 2010 11:24 AM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

AnthonyT

I thought my discussion was more relevant to that thread than this one, which seems to be pretty much about taxes.

As you pointed out there will always be unequal distribution of wealth. I think the issue is that it is 1) systematic and 2) uncompensated (ie one-way over time).

I have no problem with accumulating excess. There are benefits to accumulating more than you need. One is security - accumulating for a rainy day. The other is that excess can be investment in large-scale projects or in future improvements. But then, there is the idea of how much excess is 'too much' excess (aside from the absolute limits of the environment).

I think while capitalism isn't a system we can use long-term and expect to survive, the discussion is polarized into capitalism v socialism, or no taxes v taxes.

B/c I'm trying to open the discussion a little more than that, I feel this thread, which seems to be about taxes, is probably not the proper venue.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 26, 2010 11:32 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Boy, jump on someone why don'tcha?

Quote:
If you are so aware of old thoughts, you must have some of those new ones.

She did, she started a thread about them. I think it's good that she started a new thread on the topic, rather than threadjacked this one to take it in another direction. This one is already so big and so ongoing that maybe people are "bored" with it by now and don't check back in. Haven't we had several suggestions along the way of starting a new topic rather than carrying on in the old thread when you have something new to say on the issue?

Several made the remark that if she had new ideas to add, better that than remarking on the thread itself. So she DID, now we get "I'm not interested"...does that strike anyone as strange?

To another point: Doesn't everyone have the right to comment however they see fit on any thread? Seems to me there have been, oh, maybe a few times people have remarked on the thread, or put up posts otherwise not specific to the thread topic, haven't there?

Quote:
I encourage you not to waste one whit of your efforts here if the arguments and ideas here hold no value to you.

Okay, now THAT’s a snark, pure and simple. Surely you’re not going to pretend otherwise, are you Anthony?

Me, I have no desire whatsoever in dissing someone who’s been lurking and found something she wanted t participate in. Don’t we have enough voices driven off this forum without going after a new one? Shees...

Everyone's got the right to post anything they wish, and if you want to go after someone posting that a thread which has gone on and on (and I see the same thing she does), how about taking a minute to chastize the people who post TOTALLY idiotic one-liners, personal attacks and the kind of idiocy Whozit posts...somehow it seems to me those are far more deserving of chastizement...but then, what do I know?

Okay, “lecture” over...

Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 26, 2010 11:52 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:
Several made the remark that if she had new ideas to add, better that than remarking on the thread itself. So she DID, now we get "I'm not interested"...does that strike anyone as strange?

Easy Niki. The post immediately previous to yours was the first I've seen Kiki put on-topic information in this thread, and I most certainly did not reply that I wasn't interested in it. What I didn't do is chase her down another thread. Which - by the way - kiki did not start. I had no reason to go there, and after the first few posts she put up here I had no desire to. Nor did I feel that my "old ideas" would be particularly welcome. Hmm. I wonder why.

Quote:
To another point: Doesn't everyone have the right to comment however they see fit on any thread?

So you're saying that Kiki should feel welcome to call me boring and pointless, and I shouldn't have the right to reply?

Are you serious Niki?

Quote:
Me, I have no desire whatsoever in dissing someone who’s been lurking and found something she wanted t participate in.

Neither do I, if she'd have *contributed* rather than showing up with her first several post in the thread saying: you're all lame and boring and have no new ideas and I'm going to keep saying that about you even after several invitations for me to contribute or leave you alone to talk.

Suppose you went out to dinner and the person on the table next to you leaned over to say: "I have nothing to add except to say that you're both boring and stale and have no new ideas." You'd apologize and not speak again? Is that what you want me to do here?

Quote:
Everyone's got the right to post anything they wish, and if you want to go after someone posting that a thread which has gone on and on

You know, I never thought I'd say this to you, but

. I was having a conversation with Anthony that I enjoyed, and if it bored Kiki it was her choice to invite herself into it to tell us so. And I'm damned well going to cry foul at her. And if it has gone on too long for your sensibilities, when did you get so judgmental?

Sure, you're within your rights to lecture me over it, and I'm within my rights to tell you to fuck off for lecturing me over reacting to someone butting in to what was a better conversation than I've seen in some time here, a stranger forcing her judgmental condescension on me without any content (not until many many posts later.)

Are we clear on that?

And are we all really properly bored yet?

ETA: OK, Kiki had one pseudo-on topic post earlier on, but I didn't reply to it because I felt it contained no new thoughts as much as generalities and more condescension, as to how we all ought to THINK NEW THOUGHTS. Myself, I know I've never posted the things I've said here, so it seemed best to leave that one to someone who it actually applied to. I was in fact interested in seeing what people had to say about it, but no one took her up on it. Guess SignyM wasn't around and the rest didn't want to bore her.

-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 26, 2010 12:06 PM

And you wonder why people leave RWED, when a polite and topical conversation gets interrupted first by: "You all are lame and boring!" then with another poster lecturing us for not wilting away and disappearing at the criticism.

I'm going to see Harry Potter now, which is a good thing, because it'll stop me from posting lots of words I'd regret.

-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 26, 2010 12:34 PM