What's new
By:
Filters

Larry David loves the Bush tax cuts

Marty McFly

Marty McFly

Well-Known Member
This is a little old but I haven't seen it posted here. Larry is great.

THERE is a God! It passed! The Bush tax cuts have been extended two years for the upper bracketeers, of which I am a proud member, thank you very much. I’m the last person in the world I’d want to be beside, but I am beside myself! This is a life changer, I tell you. A life changer!

To begin with, I was planning a trip to Cabo with my kids for Christmas vacation. We were going to fly coach, but now with the money I’m saving in taxes, I’m going to splurge and bump myself up to first class. First class! Somebody told me they serve warm nuts up there, and call you “mister.” I might not get off the plane!

I’m also going to call the hotel and get another room so I don’t have to sleep on a cot in the kids’ room. Don’t get me wrong — I love a good cot. The problem is they tend to take up a lot of room, and it’s getting a little tougher in my advancing years to fold it up and drag it to the closet. I mean, I’d do it if I had to, but guess what? I don’t! Not with this windfall coming my way. Now I get to have my own room with a king-sized bed. And who knows, maybe I’ll even get some fancy bottled water from the minibar. This is shaping up to be the best vacation I’ve had in years.

When I get home, thanks to the great compromise, the first thing I’m going to do is get a flat-screen TV. Finally I can throw out the 20-inch Zenith with the rabbit ears, the one I inherited from my parents when they died. The reception is terrible and I’m getting tired of going out to bars every time I want to watch a game. Last month, the antenna broke and I tried to improvise one with a metal hanger and wound up cutting myself. Every time I see that scab, I say to myself, “If, God willing, those Bush tax cuts are restored, I’m going to buy a new TV.” Well, guess what? They have been!

It’s also going to be a boon for my health. After years of coveting them, I’ll finally be able to afford blueberries. Did you know they have a lot of antioxidants, which prevent cancer? Cancer! This tax cut just might save my life. Who said Republicans don’t support health care? I’m going to have the blueberries with my cereal, and I’m not talking Special K. Those days are over. It’s nothing but real granola from now on. The kind you get in the plastic bins in health food stores. Did someone say “organic”?

The only problem is if, God forbid, the tax cuts are repealed in two years, how will I ever go back to Special K and bananas? Well, I did quit smoking, so I’m sure if push came to shove I could summon up the willpower to get off granola and blueberries. Of course, I suppose with the money I managed to save from the “Seinfeld” syndication, I probably could continue to eat granola with blueberries, but let’s hope it doesn’t come to that.

Life was good, and now it’s even better. Thank you, Republicans. And a special thank you to President Obama and the Democrats. I didn’t know you cared.
Click to expand...

https://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/21/opinion/21david.html
 
He isn't keeping any more of his money, his taxes will simply stay the same. Guess he'll be stuck flying coach.

The idea that you can only keep what's yours if you can justify your need to keep it always rubs me the wrong way.

This wasn't funny. I got it, Larry David already flies first class and gets the kids a seperate suite at the hotel. His life will not change at all. Still not funny.
 
Gameface said:
This wasn't funny. I got it, Larry David already flies first class and gets the kids a seperate suite at the hotel. His life will not change at all. Still not funny.
Click to expand...
The intent was not humor, so I'm glad you didn't find it funny.

The intent was to sardonically denigrate dimwit, trickle-down, failed, republican taxation philosophy. Hopefully, anyone who subscribes to said philosophy and read this column felt denigrated and dim-witted and condescended to, rather than tickled.
 
balli said:
The intent was not humor, so I'm glad you didn't find it funny.

The intent was to sardonically denigrate dimwit, trickle-down, failed, republican taxation philosophy. Hopefully, anyone who subscribes to said philosophy and read this column felt denigrated and dim-witted and condescended to, rather than tickled.
Click to expand...

So the money Larry David gets paid, who do you think it belongs to? Just wondering.
 
That was dumb. If he really wants to pay more taxes I'm sure Uncle Sam would gladly accept a donation. God forbid people should get to keep more of what they work to build. Seriously, what an *******.

I suppose he thinks he is cleverly attacking the extension but his words are hollow. They mean nothing. If he's really so against it, he should send in some extra money. This is nothing but pathetic "Look how caring I am, let me tell you about it" attention whoring.
 
Gameface said:
So the money Larry David gets paid, who do you think it belongs to? Just wondering.
Click to expand...

As much as he needs to live a fabulously luxurious life, and then some, belongs to him. Some of it belongs to the society that enabled his monetary success.
 
This is why I come to a Utahn sports message board: intelligence and logic.

A few of you made the point that the money Larry David makes "belongs" to Mr. David and that people deserve to be paid the amount they get simply because they get it. This is absolutely true! 1% of Americans may get 25% of the wealth of America, more than the lower 50% combined, but who cares about that! If it were 1% getting 99%, we would still make the same argument: they deserve that money because they get it. And we don't want no commie socialist policy that will easily fix it! Wre so smrt!

Oh, and I don't expect any of you to understand the satire in Mr. David's post or anywhere else.

- Craig
 
I can't wait until 1% of Americans "earn" 99% of the wealth of America, can you guys? And we certainly can't take away their wealth, after all, we would be taking away their incentive to have great businesses! Because a million dollar salary is hardly an incentive, it has to be 5 billion. Only then will great American businesses thrive. Agreed?

- Craig
 
balli said:
As much as he needs to live a fabulously luxurious life, and then some, belongs to him. Some of it belongs to the society that enabled his monetary success.
Click to expand...

You would rather redistribute without a work requirement than to have the "fabulously luxurious life, and then some" redistribute it with a work requirement? You're bitching that the money he is spending into society belongs to society (and the earners will be taxed pretty much all the same)? Please revamp your argument and post it again when it doesn't sound as pathetic and self-contradictory as the OP's. I'm sure you can do at least a little better.
 
balli said:
As much as he needs to live a fabulously luxurious life, and then some, belongs to him. Some of it belongs to the society that enabled his monetary success.
Click to expand...

The real debate here is what proportion. It is a clearly defined fact that the group of the highest wage earners pay the lion's share of the taxes, and many people in the lowest brackets literally pay none. In 2008 the top 1% of wage earners (defined as >$380k per year) payed over 38% of the total personal income tax collected. The top 50% of wage earners payed over 95% of the taxes collected. The top 10% payed over 69% of the taxes collected. The bottom 50% payed under 7% of the total taxes collected. And this year and 2007 were high points in the past decade or more for percentage paid by the top wage earners. Here is the source with only number, no commentary.

https://www.ntu.org/tax-basics/who-pays-income-taxes.html

So what percentage of the higher wage earner's money is it morally right to take? If they already pay such a large percentage of the taxes, who is to say they need to pay more? Also where is the dividing point? Do you say anyone making up to $100k (with 2 wage earners) pays nothing, everyone above pays 30% of their earnings? These are some tough questions. If the top wage earners decided to scale back so they didn't pay any more taxes and reduced their holding one likely consequence would be causing corporations to contract, which would cost jobs. Where do we draw the line?

For the record, I fall into the top 10% based on the 2008 numbers, not by much though, and I do not see appreciable differences whether taxes are cut or raised, other than property taxes. I most definitely feel my tax burden far more than I did when I was making $75 or even $90k mark, so making more money has made me far more cognizant of the taxes I pay, maybe because I got far more of it back when I was in the lower income bracket, and now it is all just gone. And I do not yet make enough to push me into a high enough income level that I can just absorb it without noticing it in my family's lifestyle, which btw includes driving the minivan on vacations and staying in motels. I have not flown first class except on a booking mixup on a business trip.

I imagine that people in the bottom 50% don't see much change either when taxes are changed, especially considering how many do not pay any taxes at all and even get money back instead. Here is another good source, with a quote:

"Much of the progressivity of the federal tax system derives from the individual income tax. In 2007, the bottom quintile’s average rate for the individual income tax was -6.8 percent, which means that refundable earned income and child tax credits exceeded the income tax owed by that group. On average, households in the second quintile also received more in credits than they paid in individual income taxes. The average income tax rate was 3.3 percent for the middle quintile and 6.2 percent for the fourth quintile. For the highest quintile, the rate was 14.4 percent. The top 1 percent, on average, paid 19.0 percent of their income in individual income taxes."

https://www.cbo.gov/publications/collections/tax/2010/AverageFedTaxRates2007.pdf

So the lowest quintile paid -6% in taxes. That means they got money back, and paid none. It tends to change the debate when actual numbers are brought into it. Again the debate centers around really what are the RIGHT numbers.

I am not taking a stance on either side of this particular divide other than to state that it is an unwise time to raise poeple's taxes when we are in a recession. That would have the effect of constricting the economy and that would keep us in the recession far longer. But as far as individual taxes go, as I stated, I fall right at the edge of that 10% mark and since in reality the tax hikes are aimed usually above me and the credits/cuts aimed below I don't feel it like others might. And I don't pretend to have the answers, but these are just some of the questions raised that need to be answered in this debate. It is not as simple as so many people play it up to be, and if they think it really is that simple then they haven't taken the time to educate themselves on the details surrounding this issue.

(and yes I know it is still more complicated than the percentages show as well, but at least lets bring the reality of the numbers into it before passing immediate judgement that taking everything from any one segment of the population is always RIGHT and GOOD)

[on another note, the quote was changes between when I started writing this and when I submitted it. Originally it said this:


Originally Posted by Gameface
So the money Larry David gets paid, who do you think it belongs to? Just wondering.

Some of it belongs to him. Some of it belongs to the society that enabled his making it.
 
Craig K. Manscill said:
I can't wait until 1% of Americans "earn" 99% of the wealth of America, can you guys? And we certainly can't take away their wealth, after all, we would be taking away their incentive to have great businesses! Because a million dollar salary is hardly an incentive, it has to be 5 billion. Only then will great American businesses thrive. Agreed?

- Craig
Click to expand...

Does it matter what percentage earns what amount if people earn what they argree to work for, which I assume they would insist is enough to live off of?

50 years ago in China everyone made pretty much the same amount and there were massive food shortages and a lack of basic necessities. Today there is a growing income disparity, and the people in China are better off than ever.

I'm just simple, I guess.
 
Larry can always just give me the difference and I surely will spend it a lot better than the government. Or would you guys rather the money go towards the study of monkeys on cocaine and how they interact with each other?
 
Gameface said:
50 years ago in China everyone made pretty much the same amount and there were massive food shortages and a lack of basic necessities. Today there is a growing income disparity, and the people in China are better off than ever.

I'm just simple, I guess.
Click to expand...
Anecdotal ******** FTL.

Also, the rich benefit far more from taxes than do the poor (does anyone really think the system is rigged in favor of the poor? Really?). It's extremely ignorant to consider costs while ignoring entirely benefits.

Anyway, I try not to get involved in these stupid General Discussion topics. I'm done with this one.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top