America's Tax Burden To Rise

Oooo, I love this game.

Are you Jassik?

To be frank, on this thread you played semantics and started something asinine in response to something that was meant as salary and you semantically referenced literal wage income and acted flabbergasted when called out on it. On a technicality you were right, but you knew we were discussing salary at the time with a made up figure to drive the point home, then only gave half the reason of how your figure could possibly be true. You really have no place acting as if you are one of these so called experts when you resort to those tactics, which is why your figures were questioned when it was clear salaries were being discussed. Also, I kinda doubt most people in this thread haven't taken even one economics course. Not that it's the deciding factor or not, but since you brought it up...

But semantics is serious business. If you know what I mean.

We are sadly missing a thread from Huff post I'll see if I can find something amusing to talk about besides taxes.

On second thought unless you are interested in talking about how men are evil nothing of value comes from that site.

I did not play semantics. I stated the truth of the matter, and used Jet's own words in my example. My only mistake was not breaking out how much federal vs total taxes were paid at the start.

The problem is, people automatically assume what they want to assume. But that is human nature. If I said that a bird is flying in the air above me, some people will assume that "me" means my physical presence as of right now, where in reality I'm referring to the fact that there are always at least 1 bird in the air at any one time.

But if you question my expertise in federal taxation, then I suggest that you challenge me. Ask me anything.

I'm not questioning your knowledge. You probably are more knowledgeable in the field than I am. What was pointed out was your semantics earlier in the thread where you were discussing you literal income from multiple sources when it was clear salary was being discussed. Yes, we were all technically using incorrect terminology by citing wages instead of salary, but that is the nature of casual conversation. It was obvious salaries were being discussed and not taxes due to investments or other supplemental income (aside from waiters not claiming tips, hence my earlier post referencing that - also related to salary). We are probably all aware of those things, but usually they are clarified in conversations when someone cites something like, "I paid 73% of my wages in taxes... because I have money invested in endeavors that are considered wages." It's a ridiculous figure that requires some clarification, especially when salary was clearly the intention of the conversation.

Like I said, you were right, but the way you went about stating a figure that is unreasonable given the nature of the discussion is why people questioned you. It seemed very dishonest the way you presented it at the time. That doesn't give you free reign to act as if you're some authority on the matter by playing semantics when it was quite clear what was actually meant by Jet and the rest of the posters, even if it was the wrong terminology used.

according to economists it's wrong, and we have one of those on the forum as well.

Men are evil or minorities deserve something extra. Ffs, even I'm tired of the constant minority feel-good pieces on that site, and I am one. Huffpo is funny at times though, so please do try to find something to post. Lolz

Then I assumed that people would understand that there are more than one source of income. I was proven wrong at that time, as I have later pointed out. I think that matter was resolved, and if people still don't believe me, then there will be nothing I can do besides releasing personal and private information to prove it, which I will not do so.

pretend economists you mean. And we have multiple pretend economists on this forum.

My knowledge in economics is intermediate at best, and I don't profess to be an expert. But I can reason through it, and I have shown my reasoning, which an "expert" has yet to prove otherwise. But you yourself have said "your wrong" but did not say why I'm wrong. I have pointed out multiple times why I think you are wrong, and you have yet to counter. So, who is anyone going to believe? The one that says "your wrong and here's why" or the one who says "your wrong."

Best I could find shipp is Will I am discussing politics. Sorta amusing.

I really hope you aren't using "i read it in a textbook" argument again. Because no, you are not correct which is what economists found out when they tested the economic theories that are presented in basic macro classes.

So yes, cite it.

People do understand it. You came into a conversation using wages to describe the literal tax definition when it was clear "wages" was being used to mean "what you make monetarily at work," then acted surprised when people questioned the validity of your claims since you were posting a figure that wasn't even related to the conversation, but used semantics to work it in.

Yes, you were right after you clarified, but nobody is asking for exact figures from you or any personal info. The discussion was about salary since, for most people, that is what taxed wages implies. People just wanted to know what the hell you were talking about since the conversation was about salary, and there is no way someone can claim "73% of my income was paid in taxes," without at least being questioned to how this is so given what was actually being discussed. Once you clarified, I didn't see anyone ask you about property or personal info. You can have 20 five million dollar ranches for all I care. I don't need to know, I just wanted to know what you were actually talking about since that figure was BS in the context of the conversation at that point.

Citation needed!!!

If it's so common you should be able to cite it

Would you like for me to hold your hand while you read it?

Books don't count they are full of lies.

Especially when you don't agree with them.

Citation is more than pictures of the title and cover.

The very fact that essential products don't have this unbalanced rise in price in non-metro areas is evidence against your claims. The price of living doesn't rapidly fluctuate across the country when minimum wage is increased. This is mainly a big city phenomenon. It raises slightly in more rural areas, but not to the point of complete negation of the increase in wages.

Damn son I didn't know this forum counted as a college research paper with citations and everything. Do I get credit if I turn in my post late ?

I need a citation for where you got "citation needed" I don't trust the source.

A) The whole argument for minimum wage increases is to get poverty out of the metro areas, since that is where most of the poverty is located. You just admitted that increasing minimum wages will not accomplish this goal, which is the whole point of increasing minimum wages in the first place...

B) The non-metro areas are just as affected as metro areas also. Farmers who are paid pennies per acre in profits (if any) are going to see more increases in costs due to this, not just on the labor side either. Food production will increase, transportation costs will increase, manufacturing costs will increase, and so on. Any forced labor cost increases will effect the nation, not just a small area or group of areas...

Poverty exists outside of large metropolitan areas. Areas outside of large metropolitan areas don't see this ridiculous increase in prices of common items like bread, milk, or water. Yes, there is always some increase when minimum wage is increased, but my point is it doesn't completely negate the raise in more rural and suburban areas as it does in a big city. So no, the non-metro areas are not "just as affected" as you want to claim. The cost of living does not raise in the same proportion that it does in a city like NY.

I know that there is poverty in non-metro areas. I grew up in a small town in Texas, and while poverty was not as bad there as it is in San Antonio, it is still pretty bad, worse off that I would like.

But if something is known to increase poverty levels, why are we doing it in the first place? That is my argument.

Some people on this forum (who shall remained unnamed because they will throw a temper tantrum if called out) don't go outside their parent's basement to see how the world really works and how one policy effects the nation. That's why they are saying "no, you are wrong" so much.

The issue is that it isn't a known factor for the entire country. In large metro areas, yes, it definitely causes problems to worsen in many cases, but outside of large metro areas, more people benefit from the raising of minimum wage (say once every five to ten years or so), because prices do not fluctuate as drastically as they do in large metro areas. ***, prices fluctuate here in AL more freely when there is a hurricane or drought than when minimum wage is raised. It allows people in more rural areas or suburban areas to collect more disposable income per year, usually. If they're idiots who don't save it to better themselves, (something I saw mentioned somewhere in this thread) that is an unrelated issue.

Um... do you have a citation for that? I'm not being funny, either. I really do question if we urban individuals tend to forget how hideously impoverished the other half of America is that doesn't live in cities.

And "metropolitan area" is a cheap tactic to include nearby farmland under the umbrella of "city." Driving 10 miles into the city isn't a big deal and suburbanites do it all the time, but if you live in a town that has two convenience stores, a gas station, and a mid-sized chicken farm, it's a bit ridiculous to claim that you live in whatever city happens to be in the next county over. Not criticizing you, by the way, just ranting about a related phenomenon.

I can't believe this has to be shown again, for those to know he's lying:



There's no real evidence that increasing the minimum wage increases inflation, it's just scare tactics in the war against the poor.

so you can't prove your claims.

Right, don't think anyone is surprised.

The only poverty that is thought about is in the metro areas. Most people don't think about the people who live in and struggle in the rest of the country, like all through the Appalachian Mountains. These people live in conditions that are often times worse than in big cities, but it's accepted as a way of life, because of it being a remote area and the rest of the nation generally not giving a damn.

Pretty much the truth as evidenced by some comments in this thread acting as if the only poverty that should be cured or that matters is the poverty affecting people in urban environments.

I would imagine most of us (90%+) are urban dwellers with only nominal connection to rural living. Even those living in rural areas are probably in those that are adequately populated and have enough industry to make them worth noting on a map.

I read an article a couple years back (call it 2007, give or take) about a town up in Alaska finally getting its first telephone line. It's been how many decades since Alexander Graham Bell? There are parts of the country that, in our lifetimes, have only just gotten electricity. I can't even fathom how one survives in the late 20th century in the United States without electricity. Computers and cell phones and television, sure, but to be without electric lights and safety-enabled gas stoves and all the myriad other things we use electricity for is remarkable. I live near Amish country and they have had electricity for a long, long time exactly because it's dangerous to be that disconnected when the option is present.

But some people cope. I'm originally from very rural Maine. My first hometown has a stable population of less than 500. The nearest hospital is about 3 hours' drive away and the nearest doctor is in the next town over. My parents kept a wood pile to heat their house that was nearly as large as the house itself. My relatives hunt deer and moose to lay down meat to survive the winter. Everyone has indoor plumbing, at least, but it wasn't so long ago that even that was a hit-or-miss.

And the scary thing about seeing just how little people have to live on and seeing that they still do survive in places far away from cities is that all of us urban dwellers are only a very short fall away from joining them. The advances made in the past 200 years could crumble very easily if something catastrophic happens. Mercifully, there probably aren't many Huns willing to conquer Washington these days.

Eh, depends on what you mean by urban and rural, but I largely agree with the rest of what you say. I live in a rural area populated by farms. We have electricity and running water, but that doesn't really make us urban. Inside the city definitely is, but not the area I live in in the county.


It definitely is amazing to see people still living as if it's the 19th century with outhouses and no electricity or running water, though.

What makes me urban I listen to Kayne West.