Upload
Login or register

sunwalker

Last status update:
-
Date Signed Up:7/04/2011
Stats
Comment Ranking:#19517
Highest Content Rank:#1655
Highest Comment Rank:#5643
Content Thumbs: 660 total,  760 ,  100
Comment Thumbs: 755 total,  894 ,  139
Content Level Progress: 20% (2/10)
Level 53 Content: Sammich eater → Level 54 Content: Sammich eater
Comment Level Progress: 0% (0/10)
Level 160 Comments: Soldier Of Funnyjunk → Level 161 Comments: Soldier Of Funnyjunk
Subscribers:0
Content Views:28911
Times Content Favorited:112 times
Total Comments Made:216
FJ Points:1240

  • Views: 7359
    Thumbs Up 169 Thumbs Down 21 Total: +148
    Comments: 20
    Favorites: 46
    Uploaded: 11/20/11
    Screw English Screw English
  • Views: 1387
    Thumbs Up 13 Thumbs Down 6 Total: +7
    Comments: 10
    Favorites: 0
    Uploaded: 03/19/15
    Mudkipfucker Mudkipfucker
  • Views: 23720
    Thumbs Up 535 Thumbs Down 17 Total: +518
    Comments: 93
    Favorites: 66
    Uploaded: 02/03/16
    (untitled) (untitled)
  • Views: 2
    Thumbs Up 0 Thumbs Down 0 Total: 0
    Comments: 0
    Favorites: 0
    Uploaded: 06/29/16
    The Actual Fucking Video The Actual Fucking Video

latest user's comments

#3 - comicexplain any source on the comic?  [+] (1 reply) 09/18/2016 on instincts +3
User avatar
#7 - comicexplain (09/18/2016) [-]
The Many Loves of Spider-Man!
#24 - But what I'm saying is if my dad works harder (running a retai…  [+] (22 replies) 08/07/2016 on tax -5
#128 - skebaba (08/07/2016) [-]
Company taxes are different to income taxes. They are there to ensure you aren't one of those hoarder scums. The purpose of money is to circulate 24/7, not to be hoarded.
#154 - anon (08/07/2016) [-]
You are wrong there. Hoarding the money (provided you do it in any way that isn't keeping cash in a safe) grows the economy just the same as spending. You need a healthy amount of both for a growing economy.
#157 - skebaba (08/07/2016) [-]
You aren't hoarding it if you are improving something. You can't hoard something you are spending.
User avatar
#26 - ningyoaijin (08/07/2016) [-]
He'd still make more than the salesman on an incremental tax. Say he earns $16 an hour, while the salesman makes $8 an hour. If he's taxed 30% and the salesman is taxed 15%, that results in $11.20 for the owner and $6.80 for the employee. On a flat tax of 22%, that's $12.48 for the owner and $6.24 for the employee.

The point of incremental tax is to smooth out the discrepancy so that low earners don't get shafted to the point of losing their homes. I can understand why a middle class worker would be against it, but I just feel like they don't stand to lose as much.
#155 - anon (08/07/2016) [-]
This idea works perfectly fine. No taxes at a certain income tax bracket. A flat rate after that. If you make less than say 15-20k a year on your own (I can guarantee this is livable. I have done it) then no taxes. If you make more than you pay a flat taxes on every dollar more than that you own. Similar to incremental but only two tax brackets. Change the value that you have to make for households with children. (Note: I know that, in the current US it is entirely possible to live with 3 kids making 16k as my mother is currently doing it alone. I still advocate something more like 30k+ a year as the bracket for households with a family). That way everyone who is in poverty can't bitch about how taxes is fucking them and anyone who isn't in these set poverty levels really only has themselves to blame if they can't live off of it. Because it is plenty of god damn money.
#156 - anon (08/07/2016) [-]
Now I should clarify two things. A) yes this is anecdotal evidence. B) that doesn't matter, because the fact that it has been done proves that it is indeed possible. Anecdotal evidence works just fine to simply prove it is possible.

The note about my mother is unrelated to the note about me. The three children my mother is raising for the moment doesn't actually include me in the number (though I do live with her in the summer when not at college). I pay for my apartment and shit. She also raised 3 kids (this time including me) in the past but I don't know how much she made then as I never had reason to look at her tax return then. So if you think you found a discrepancy there, you would be wrong.
#30 - alphachief (08/07/2016) [-]
I think you might both be a tad confused. In Canada, and I assume it works the same in the US, we use a tiered tax system.

15% on the first $43,953 of taxable income.
22% on the next $43,954 of taxable income (over $43,953 up to $87,907), +
26% on the next $48,363 of taxable income (over $87,907 up to $136,270), +
29% of taxable income over $136,270.

Meaning that ONLY the money in a given tax bracket is taxed at that rate.
User avatar
#48 - zwaxor (08/07/2016) [-]
Denmark has the same thing, except with another 30-ish percentage points on each of those. You can earn about $9,500 USD per year at only the bare minimum of 8% though.
User avatar
#32 - ningyoaijin (08/07/2016) [-]
I was just using a broad example. The numbers give a general idea of what's going on without the specifics.
#33 - alphachief (08/07/2016) [-]
The problem I saw from your example was it implied that the given tax rate applied to the entirety of the income. Which isn't true. Let's say you make 100K a year.
The first 43,953 is taxed at 15%
the next 43,953 is taxed at 22% and so on.

rather than all 100K being taxed at 26%, which is what I got out of your example.
User avatar
#35 - ningyoaijin (08/07/2016) [-]
I didn't know that. In the UK it's non-inclusive.
£5000-£32000 = 20%
£32000-£150000 = 40%
>£150000 = 45%

If your income is in one of those ranges, you will pay the relevant tax percentage.
#41 - alphachief (08/07/2016) [-]
I'm fairly certain you're incorrect, and let me give you a quick thought experiment before hitting you with sources to tell you why. Let's say you earn £150,000, by what you're saying you would bay 40% which is £60,000. If you earn 150,001 you're saying you'd pay £75000.5 which would mean you receive almost £15,000 less because you make one extra dollar... Seems silly right?

easyninumber.com/uk-tax-system-work/
blog.taxact.com/how-tax-brackets-work/

I'd like to highlight a line from the second link there: "Your tax bracket, roughly speaking, is the tax rate you pay on your highest dollar of taxable income."
#64 - anon (08/07/2016) [-]
in america it's illegal to force your employees into a higher tax bracket by giving them a raise because they would have a net loss. You need their consent xD fuck me right?
#91 - alphachief (08/07/2016) [-]
www.irs.com/articles/2015-federal-tax-rates-personal-exemptions-and-standard-deductions

"It’s important to realize that moving into a higher tax bracket does not mean that all of your income will be taxed at a higher rate. Instead, only the money that you earn within a particular tax bracket is subject to that particular tax rate."

Guys, please...
#109 - xxsikoticxx (08/07/2016) [-]
sounds like anon was fed some bs about why hes not getting a raise
User avatar
#28 - rheago (08/07/2016) [-]
I think it's pretty dumb to get punished just because you earn more than other people
While I can understand your idea, I don't think it's very fair
User avatar
#29 - ningyoaijin (08/07/2016) [-]
I don't think of it as higher tax being a punishment. I think of low tax as compensation for having shitty luck in life.
User avatar
#31 - rheago (08/07/2016) [-]
I wouldn't call it shitty luck mate

What if a guy with ADHD works his ass off to become a doctor
what about someone who was poor as a child but had a job while studying and managed to land a great job?
what about people who worked their asses off to get where they are now?

They have to pay more because they put in more effort?
User avatar
#104 - OsamaBinLadenz (08/07/2016) [-]
We gotta acknowledge that people exist who work their asses off and still get the shitty end of the stick. It's easy to compare people's work to others. But there becomes a problem when the system allows people to get rich with no work, and allows people to stay poor when they work more than a fair amount of those rich.

I'd love it if we all just made as much money as the amount of work we put in justified, but the truth is greedy people want more, even when they're already making what they've earned from their work. And the solution they've found to getting that extra money that they haven't earned is to find holes in the system, and to exploit, whether it be the system, or other people. And we have a lot of these greedy people, and they actively exploit us, and buy off people of weak character to help keep the system flawed so they can continue to funnel in more money.

It's disgusting, but it happens. For us to have a system like that, we'd all have to just accept what we earned out of our work. Because let's face it. There will always be greedy people, and when we close every loophole and hole for them (Which is damned hard to do because of that whole "buying off" thing I mentioned earlier), they just leave to a place that lets them continue to exploit in exchange for their share of the money and power. And realistically, I don't think it's possible to make it to a point where no country allows them to exploit others or exploit loopholes.

If you put in a certain amount of work, you've done your share and deserve to survive. It's because of the current system's flaws that there end up being people who are forced to do more than others they should have to do to survive.

Ideally, those people who are born with disabilities would be given some pushes to keep them from falling behind us
And that kid who was poor as a child, why was he poor when his single parent worked hours that gave them enough time to take care of necessities at home & then go to bed?

Sometimes those who work don't get what they deserve. And sometimes those who don't, get what others worked for.
User avatar
#34 - ningyoaijin (08/07/2016) [-]
Incremental tax scenario: Poor Timmy doesn't have to suffer through near homelessness, but little Monty next door can't get his XBox until next Tuesday.

Flat tax scenario: Monty gets his Xbox now, and Timmy's family loses their home.

It just feels unfair to me that people think that because they were given more opportunities they deserve more from life than the poor kid next door who will never be able to afford college.
#67 - anon (08/07/2016) [-]
if he moves to america he'll be able to afford college through allllllll kinds of grants and timmy wont b.c his family makes 60k instead of 40k so he's ineligable for those grants
feels bad man. but at least he has an xbone
#130 - skebaba (08/07/2016) [-]
Only if he's a black and/or woman. CIS-males are fucked, unless you get lucky in your state by chance. Blacks and/or women can just pick out of tons of options, even if they do poorly compared to a CIS-male.
#21 - But then why is it fair that someone who makes more to pay a h…  [+] (25 replies) 08/07/2016 on tax +3
User avatar
#23 - ningyoaijin (08/07/2016) [-]
For the reasons I stated earlier - so that the poor can have kids, feed and clothe themselves and go to college. Essentially, so that they can be given the same rights as other citizens from richer families. I don't really know how it is being middle class in America, but as a working class Brit we've been in pretty shitty situations due to unmanageable finances. Both parents worked full time in a local factory for most of their adult lives, and they've still barely managed to survive while bringing up 3 kids. If we had a flat tax rate, we likely would've been homeless despite having 2 parents working full-time to try and keep us afloat.
User avatar
#25 - notblindguy (08/07/2016) [-]
There is merit to both of your positions, however a flat tax should either be low (15% or even 10%) or no flat tax at all. However, putting a 75% tax above a certain income, people that are rich enough to be taxed that much, are smart enough to dodge that income tax. putting a higher, but fair rate on the rich will not make them pissed off enough to divert their funds.
User avatar
#24 - sunwalker (08/07/2016) [-]
But what I'm saying is if my dad works harder (running a retail business) than one of his salesmen, why shouldn't he make more money than the salesman? Why should he be taxed more so that he and the salesman make the same when he works to add more value to the company than the salesman does?
#128 - skebaba (08/07/2016) [-]
Company taxes are different to income taxes. They are there to ensure you aren't one of those hoarder scums. The purpose of money is to circulate 24/7, not to be hoarded.
#154 - anon (08/07/2016) [-]
You are wrong there. Hoarding the money (provided you do it in any way that isn't keeping cash in a safe) grows the economy just the same as spending. You need a healthy amount of both for a growing economy.
#157 - skebaba (08/07/2016) [-]
You aren't hoarding it if you are improving something. You can't hoard something you are spending.
User avatar
#26 - ningyoaijin (08/07/2016) [-]
He'd still make more than the salesman on an incremental tax. Say he earns $16 an hour, while the salesman makes $8 an hour. If he's taxed 30% and the salesman is taxed 15%, that results in $11.20 for the owner and $6.80 for the employee. On a flat tax of 22%, that's $12.48 for the owner and $6.24 for the employee.

The point of incremental tax is to smooth out the discrepancy so that low earners don't get shafted to the point of losing their homes. I can understand why a middle class worker would be against it, but I just feel like they don't stand to lose as much.
#155 - anon (08/07/2016) [-]
This idea works perfectly fine. No taxes at a certain income tax bracket. A flat rate after that. If you make less than say 15-20k a year on your own (I can guarantee this is livable. I have done it) then no taxes. If you make more than you pay a flat taxes on every dollar more than that you own. Similar to incremental but only two tax brackets. Change the value that you have to make for households with children. (Note: I know that, in the current US it is entirely possible to live with 3 kids making 16k as my mother is currently doing it alone. I still advocate something more like 30k+ a year as the bracket for households with a family). That way everyone who is in poverty can't bitch about how taxes is fucking them and anyone who isn't in these set poverty levels really only has themselves to blame if they can't live off of it. Because it is plenty of god damn money.
#156 - anon (08/07/2016) [-]
Now I should clarify two things. A) yes this is anecdotal evidence. B) that doesn't matter, because the fact that it has been done proves that it is indeed possible. Anecdotal evidence works just fine to simply prove it is possible.

The note about my mother is unrelated to the note about me. The three children my mother is raising for the moment doesn't actually include me in the number (though I do live with her in the summer when not at college). I pay for my apartment and shit. She also raised 3 kids (this time including me) in the past but I don't know how much she made then as I never had reason to look at her tax return then. So if you think you found a discrepancy there, you would be wrong.
#30 - alphachief (08/07/2016) [-]
I think you might both be a tad confused. In Canada, and I assume it works the same in the US, we use a tiered tax system.

15% on the first $43,953 of taxable income.
22% on the next $43,954 of taxable income (over $43,953 up to $87,907), +
26% on the next $48,363 of taxable income (over $87,907 up to $136,270), +
29% of taxable income over $136,270.

Meaning that ONLY the money in a given tax bracket is taxed at that rate.
User avatar
#48 - zwaxor (08/07/2016) [-]
Denmark has the same thing, except with another 30-ish percentage points on each of those. You can earn about $9,500 USD per year at only the bare minimum of 8% though.
User avatar
#32 - ningyoaijin (08/07/2016) [-]
I was just using a broad example. The numbers give a general idea of what's going on without the specifics.
#33 - alphachief (08/07/2016) [-]
The problem I saw from your example was it implied that the given tax rate applied to the entirety of the income. Which isn't true. Let's say you make 100K a year.
The first 43,953 is taxed at 15%
the next 43,953 is taxed at 22% and so on.

rather than all 100K being taxed at 26%, which is what I got out of your example.
User avatar
#35 - ningyoaijin (08/07/2016) [-]
I didn't know that. In the UK it's non-inclusive.
£5000-£32000 = 20%
£32000-£150000 = 40%
>£150000 = 45%

If your income is in one of those ranges, you will pay the relevant tax percentage.
#41 - alphachief (08/07/2016) [-]
I'm fairly certain you're incorrect, and let me give you a quick thought experiment before hitting you with sources to tell you why. Let's say you earn £150,000, by what you're saying you would bay 40% which is £60,000. If you earn 150,001 you're saying you'd pay £75000.5 which would mean you receive almost £15,000 less because you make one extra dollar... Seems silly right?

easyninumber.com/uk-tax-system-work/
blog.taxact.com/how-tax-brackets-work/

I'd like to highlight a line from the second link there: "Your tax bracket, roughly speaking, is the tax rate you pay on your highest dollar of taxable income."
#64 - anon (08/07/2016) [-]
in america it's illegal to force your employees into a higher tax bracket by giving them a raise because they would have a net loss. You need their consent xD fuck me right?
#91 - alphachief (08/07/2016) [-]
www.irs.com/articles/2015-federal-tax-rates-personal-exemptions-and-standard-deductions

"It’s important to realize that moving into a higher tax bracket does not mean that all of your income will be taxed at a higher rate. Instead, only the money that you earn within a particular tax bracket is subject to that particular tax rate."

Guys, please...
#109 - xxsikoticxx (08/07/2016) [-]
sounds like anon was fed some bs about why hes not getting a raise
User avatar
#28 - rheago (08/07/2016) [-]
I think it's pretty dumb to get punished just because you earn more than other people
While I can understand your idea, I don't think it's very fair
User avatar
#29 - ningyoaijin (08/07/2016) [-]
I don't think of it as higher tax being a punishment. I think of low tax as compensation for having shitty luck in life.
User avatar
#31 - rheago (08/07/2016) [-]
I wouldn't call it shitty luck mate

What if a guy with ADHD works his ass off to become a doctor
what about someone who was poor as a child but had a job while studying and managed to land a great job?
what about people who worked their asses off to get where they are now?

They have to pay more because they put in more effort?
User avatar
#104 - OsamaBinLadenz (08/07/2016) [-]
We gotta acknowledge that people exist who work their asses off and still get the shitty end of the stick. It's easy to compare people's work to others. But there becomes a problem when the system allows people to get rich with no work, and allows people to stay poor when they work more than a fair amount of those rich.

I'd love it if we all just made as much money as the amount of work we put in justified, but the truth is greedy people want more, even when they're already making what they've earned from their work. And the solution they've found to getting that extra money that they haven't earned is to find holes in the system, and to exploit, whether it be the system, or other people. And we have a lot of these greedy people, and they actively exploit us, and buy off people of weak character to help keep the system flawed so they can continue to funnel in more money.

It's disgusting, but it happens. For us to have a system like that, we'd all have to just accept what we earned out of our work. Because let's face it. There will always be greedy people, and when we close every loophole and hole for them (Which is damned hard to do because of that whole "buying off" thing I mentioned earlier), they just leave to a place that lets them continue to exploit in exchange for their share of the money and power. And realistically, I don't think it's possible to make it to a point where no country allows them to exploit others or exploit loopholes.

If you put in a certain amount of work, you've done your share and deserve to survive. It's because of the current system's flaws that there end up being people who are forced to do more than others they should have to do to survive.

Ideally, those people who are born with disabilities would be given some pushes to keep them from falling behind us
And that kid who was poor as a child, why was he poor when his single parent worked hours that gave them enough time to take care of necessities at home & then go to bed?

Sometimes those who work don't get what they deserve. And sometimes those who don't, get what others worked for.
User avatar
#34 - ningyoaijin (08/07/2016) [-]
Incremental tax scenario: Poor Timmy doesn't have to suffer through near homelessness, but little Monty next door can't get his XBox until next Tuesday.

Flat tax scenario: Monty gets his Xbox now, and Timmy's family loses their home.

It just feels unfair to me that people think that because they were given more opportunities they deserve more from life than the poor kid next door who will never be able to afford college.
#67 - anon (08/07/2016) [-]
if he moves to america he'll be able to afford college through allllllll kinds of grants and timmy wont b.c his family makes 60k instead of 40k so he's ineligable for those grants
feels bad man. but at least he has an xbone
#130 - skebaba (08/07/2016) [-]
Only if he's a black and/or woman. CIS-males are fucked, unless you get lucky in your state by chance. Blacks and/or women can just pick out of tons of options, even if they do poorly compared to a CIS-male.
[ 215 Total ]