The Tea Party LOVES America...

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

lawl

The irony of it all

About 5 people so far, have gone to the Amazon.com page for my book and added bad reviews of it, yet only one copy has been sold in October, in fact I think only half a dozen copies have been sold all year, because as I said, it's buried under 2.5 million other books there. So it's pretty well established that anyone can write a review, especially if they're diametrically opposed to your philosophy and hate what you're saying. It would help if the people looking at those bad reviews at Amazon knew this, however. ( Maybe several thousand of you who are philosophically in tune and haven't read the book, could go there and write great 5 star reviews. LOL Just kidding!

They weren't all bad.  Nigel and I both gave her 5 stars.  

Also, this:

And that photo they grabbed off a Libertarian Meetup site, and have been plastering around, trying to promote terrorism against me? Guess where that photo came from. My concealed carry license.

DUN dun dun  


She also brags about her Mensa membership a little bit. 

I guessed she was a Mensa member as soon as I saw her LinkedIn page. For some reason, members of Mensa seem to have the worst cases of Dunning/Kruger effect.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

lawl

The irony of it all

About 5 people so far, have gone to the Amazon.com page for my book and added bad reviews of it, yet only one copy has been sold in October, in fact I think only half a dozen copies have been sold all year, because as I said, it's buried under 2.5 million other books there. So it's pretty well established that anyone can write a review, especially if they're diametrically opposed to your philosophy and hate what you're saying. It would help if the people looking at those bad reviews at Amazon knew this, however. ( Maybe several thousand of you who are philosophically in tune and haven't read the book, could go there and write great 5 star reviews. LOL Just kidding!

They weren't all bad.  Nigel and I both gave her 5 stars.  

Also, this:

And that photo they grabbed off a Libertarian Meetup site, and have been plastering around, trying to promote terrorism against me? Guess where that photo came from. My concealed carry license.

DUN dun dun  


She also brags about her Mensa membership a little bit. 

Now she'll have people trying to guess which of the reviews is a real review. I mean, she would if anyone was looking at her poorly-written glorified pamphlet. 

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

I also love how she admits that her "little home-based business" has been dwindling, which is tantamount to admitting that she couldn't hire anyone if she wanted to.

[Precious Moments Zalgo]

All she needs is a tax cut, and then she'll able to start hiring again.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

What terrorism? 

Saying mean things = terrorism

Clearly, criticism = terrorism! Duh!

[Disco Pickle]

That's below what's considered the poverty line in the US for a family of four. So definitely, no taxes up to that point, but I'd put that mark up higher.

Not getting to the bottom of this thread yet but who the fuck has a "family of four" when they're below the poverty line in income and don't run a farm?

Why is that a good idea, and why should the people who don't do that sort of thing subsidize it?

Doesn't subsidizing it encourage population growth in low income families?

- Pickle,

Back in form that will get him shit from the board and ok with that.

[Luna]

Well, gee, Pickle, you're right.  When you lose your job, you can just walk in, and tell your boss, "But I have two kids, you CAN'T fire me!" and he has to let you stay, right?

Jesus fucking Christ, if you're going to be an asshole, at least attempt to not be a STUPID asshole, would ya?

[Lord Cataplanga]

That's below what's considered the poverty line in the US for a family of four. So definitely, no taxes up to that point, but I'd put that mark up higher.

Not getting to the bottom of this thread yet but who the fuck has a "family of four" when they're below the poverty line in income and don't run a farm?

Why is that a good idea, and why should the people who don't do that sort of thing subsidize it?

Doesn't subsidizing it encourage population growth in low income families?

- Pickle,

Back in form that will get him shit from the board and ok with that.

Maybe the idea is that if you subsidize low income families, they can afford a better education, which will result in fewer grandchildren.

[Golden Applesauce]

I seem to recall hearing (so correct me with a nailbat if necessary) that lower-income households spend a greater portion of their income on food and basic consumer goods, which are also taxed under H. Cain's plan. So the poor get screwed on their income, and then screwed again when they try to live off that income.

Yeah.  The lower your income is, the more likely you are to be living paycheck-to-paycheck (i.e., expending all of your income on things that get hit by sales tax.)

A little math:
For every $10,000 you make, under the 9-9-9 plan, you pay $900 in income tax, which leaves you with $9,100.  BUT, if all of that is spend on things subject to sales tax (I could be wrong, but I was under the impression that in the 9-9-9 plan sales tax would apply even to stuff like rent and healthcare), you can only buy $8,350 of actual goods (on which you pay $750 of sale tax, totaling to $9,100.)  So the effective tax on people who spend all of their money would actually be 16.5%.

Compare that to a person who makes 50% of their income from financial investments and 50% from salary.  Since the income tax Cain wants would only apply to wages and not money from financial stuff, for every $10,000 that person makes, he only pays his 9% on $5,000 of it, or $450.  That leaves him with $9,550.  If he invests half of that ($4775) and spends the other half on taxed goods and services, he gets $4380 of goods on which he pays $395 sales tax.  Overall, for every $10,000 he earns, he pays 8.45%.

Cain's proposal isn't even a "flat tax" - it's a regressive tax.  People who live paycheck-to-paycheck get screwed with 16.5% tax rate, while the people wealthy enough to make sizeable investments pay much, much less, about half in our example.  If you calculate the % as "What percent of income over the poverty line is paid in taxes?" the numbers get even more skewed.

[Disco Pickle]

Well, gee, Pickle, you're right.  When you lose your job, you can just walk in, and tell your boss, "But I have two kids, you CAN'T fire me!" and he has to let you stay, right?

Jesus fucking Christ, if you're going to be an asshole, at least attempt to not be a STUPID asshole, would ya?

I was talking about the origins of people who would do that, outside of having any skill set that would help them support a family of four.

I was a child of a family of four that couldn't support themselves, BTW.  There were "Other Circumstances" that prevented them from doing that successfully, but we can pass them over for the sake of conversation even though they are completely relevant.

The root of my question is why a person not entirely secure (or at the least, reasonably secure) in their profession would CHOOSE to have children?  Especially two?  

Yes, layoffs happen.  Yes economic conditions in a particular region can mean you can't readily find a job in your field.

What exactly is the issue you have with my post?  That DITK family providers can get fired and not be able to find new work in their field?

[Disco Pickle]

That's below what's considered the poverty line in the US for a family of four. So definitely, no taxes up to that point, but I'd put that mark up higher.

Not getting to the bottom of this thread yet but who the fuck has a "family of four" when they're below the poverty line in income and don't run a farm?

Why is that a good idea, and why should the people who don't do that sort of thing subsidize it?

Doesn't subsidizing it encourage population growth in low income families?

- Pickle,

Back in form that will get him shit from the board and ok with that.

Maybe the idea is that if you subsidize low income families, they can afford a better education, which will result in fewer grandchildren.

People like to fuck, and dumb ass guys with no family pressure and no plans for their future that would bring them out of a low income family don't give a shit if they knock up the girl next door and saddle them both with poverty. 

The key word I focused on in your post was "maybe."

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

That's below what's considered the poverty line in the US for a family of four. So definitely, no taxes up to that point, but I'd put that mark up higher.

Not getting to the bottom of this thread yet but who the fuck has a "family of four" when they're below the poverty line in income and don't run a farm?

Why is that a good idea, and why should the people who don't do that sort of thing subsidize it?

Doesn't subsidizing it encourage population growth in low income families?

- Pickle,

Back in form that will get him shit from the board and ok with that.

As the head of household of a family of four, I am kind of hoping you can answer that question yourself through a process called "deductive reasoning", which might show you, stupidity and poor decision-making aside, how a family of four might find themselves below the poverty level though no particular fault of their own.

I would also be interested in any rationale you might have for taxing such a family, and I want to hear your take on the positive impact such taxation might have on the children. Also, if there are reasons you believe that it is beneficial to society for children to be hungry or homeless because their parents make poor decisions, please share.

[Don Coyote]

That's below what's considered the poverty line in the US for a family of four. So definitely, no taxes up to that point, but I'd put that mark up higher.

Not getting to the bottom of this thread yet but who the fuck has a "family of four" when they're below the poverty line in income and don't run a farm?

Why is that a good idea, and why should the people who don't do that sort of thing subsidize it?

Doesn't subsidizing it encourage population growth in low income families?

- Pickle,

Back in form that will get him shit from the board and ok with that.

Aside from the correlation between education and family size? Lower income families tend to have lower levels of education, and there seems to be some kind of relationship between low education and larger family size. I don't know but maybe, just maybe, if families below poverty line don't need to have everyone working children might get more help with homework, instead of having mom and dad too tired to help from working overtime, have more time to do it, instead of working a part time job, and might maybe be encouraged to go to college?

No you are totally right, welfare is subsidizing lazy, poor people and encourages them to have more children than a first-worlder should have.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Well, gee, Pickle, you're right.  When you lose your job, you can just walk in, and tell your boss, "But I have two kids, you CAN'T fire me!" and he has to let you stay, right?

Jesus fucking Christ, if you're going to be an asshole, at least attempt to not be a STUPID asshole, would ya?

I was talking about the origins of people who would do that, outside of having any skill set that would help them support a family of four.

I was a child of a family of four that couldn't support themselves, BTW.  There were "Other Circumstances" that prevented them from doing that successfully, but we can pass them over for the sake of conversation even though they are completely relevant.

The root of my question is why a person not entirely secure (or at the least, reasonably secure) in their profession would CHOOSE to have children?  Especially two?  

Yes, layoffs happen.  Yes economic conditions in a particular region can mean you can't readily find a job in your field.

What exactly is the issue you have with my post?  That DITK family providers can get fired and not be able to find new work in their field?

There are a LOT of people in my area who cannot find work, period. My friend sent out 300 resumes last year and didn't get a call back. Fast food joints wouldn't hire her. She is intelligent, experienced, educated, motivated, and highly qualified, but she's freaking out right now because her seasonal job is about to end and she hasn't got a nibble on a new one.

What I don't understand is what world you live in, where there are enough jobs for everyone if they just look hard enough. Do I really need to explain to you that is an imaginary world? That when unemployment is up, a certain percentage of people are unable to find work, in their fields or otherwise, in their area or otherwise?

There are also factors such as, for instance, if you have children, and you get divorced, and you wish to leave the region to find work, in most situations that is an automatic forfeit of custody to the other parent.

[Disco Pickle]

That's below what's considered the poverty line in the US for a family of four. So definitely, no taxes up to that point, but I'd put that mark up higher.

Not getting to the bottom of this thread yet but who the fuck has a "family of four" when they're below the poverty line in income and don't run a farm?

Why is that a good idea, and why should the people who don't do that sort of thing subsidize it?

Doesn't subsidizing it encourage population growth in low income families?

- Pickle,

Back in form that will get him shit from the board and ok with that.

As the head of household of a family of four, I am kind of hoping you can answer that question yourself through a process called "deductive reasoning", which might show you, stupidity and poor decision-making aside, how a family of four might find themselves below the poverty level though no particular fault of their own.

I would also be interested in any rationale you might have for taxing such a family, and I want to hear your take on the positive impact such taxation might have on the children. Also, if there are reasons you believe that it is beneficial to society for children to be hungry or homeless because their parents make poor decisions, please share.

I have not, that I know of, recommended ANY taxation of anyone making money "below the poverty line"

I'm actually against sales tax on basic food.

I'm against any tax on labor income.

I'm very strongly against the some 400% increase in higher education costs, driven by banking interests that know that the people who take out those loans cannot default on them through bankruptcy.

I cannot write with you, Nigel, about your situation, without possibly offending you and your chosen field of work which is the sort of work I really wish I could do myself and not have to worry about paying the bills.   More than anything, I love working with my hands and creating tangible things that anyone would consider art.  

I'm going to drop this line of talk with you, because I envy what you've accomplished and are doing, and admire the strength it has to take every single day to keep doing it.

If, for some reason, that sounds like a dick thing to say, it was not my intention.  Really.