Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Tax brackets don't change your overall tax rate, just the rate at the money earned in that bracket. So when you earn money that moves you inot a new bracket, only that income is taxed at that rate, not everything you've earned before.

Sebster: I'd argue we actually go out of our way to not tax wealth, in the form of reduced rates for capital gains and even dividends.

You are correct in that every study has shown that regardless of the tax rate, the wealthy will still persue more wealth.

sebster wrote:

Ah, right - the secret plan to import a workforce and help them sneak across the border so we can have cheap labor...riiiight. Forgot. Nice job completely ingoring and excusing the main problem - illegal and consuming services.

What are you talking about? What secret plan? Go back and write a response that makes sense.

I was making fun of the idea that there's some conspiracy to import Mexicans in order to obtain a cheap workforce.

Possible. Alot of people on here have puppy avatars for some reason. I'll let history demonstrate to you who is stupid and what is doomed to failure.

History already has. No country was inspired by Iraq to begin it's own revolution. This is obvious and well known. Please accept this and move on.

Do you realize that this is your standard answer, in every thread, when you have had a deeply held belief challenged? Saying "move on" doesn't make you right, it makes you tired of not being agreed with. It does nothing to convince the other party of anything. We disagree on this issue. The issue is not settled. It will be at some time in the future - and we'll know who was right.

Really? How about all the Scandanavian countries? All of 'em. If the bottle is big enough to include Sweden, Finland, Norway, Denmark...then I guess you are right.

No, they're not. You assume they must be because they have high taxes, but maybe instead if you did some reading on the subject you might have learned that isn't the case. You can't just make gak up because it fits your ideology. All you end up with is self-reinforcing ignorance.

Another common tactic of yours. Tiresome. Tell me that Scandinavians don't pay on the order of 50% taxes when all is said and done. Oh, and Germany and France are even higher, I believe.

Read the whole thread - I was demonstrating to Andrew(?) what was wrong with the idea and asking what he thought the definition of fair was. Is it giving your share? Is your "share" a dollar amount? Is it a percentage? Is it every damn penny that can be wrung out of you and still let you go to work? What is it? I wasn't advocating anything.

I know what you were arguing. I was just taken aback by your example, where the rich man was paying a lower percentage of his income in taxes, and you were suggesting this could be seen as unfair. I mean, even the furthest right among the Republicans aren't arguing for that.

You clearly have such a strong expectation, that you can't read what is actually written. I'm asking what the man's definition of fair is.

(snip) It's a matter for macroeconomists, and the answer is heavily studied and the conclusions very well understood. When the wealthiest have an increase in income, they spend less of it on consumer goods than the poorest.

So if a wealthier person buys a top of the line BMW instead of an entry level one - because he's had an increase in income...that's "less"? Assuming his or her retirement funding is secure (or on target) - most people will spend more if they are making more. Hell, most people will just spend more, period. Rich, poor, in the middle...if they suddenly acquire more income.

VoidAngel wrote:Nobody is saying "trickle down is the complete answer". But several were saying that it's complete bull$h!t - which is not true.

Well, the general concept that wealth generated at the top will create jobs and consumer demand, therefore growing the entire economy isn't bs. That's well known and accepted.

What's bs is the Reagan idea that you can spur economic growth by reducing tax rates at the top of the economy. When there is an economic opportunity the rich will pursue this opportunity whether the top rate of tax is 35% or 45%.

That there is the plain reality of the situation. Playing with that tax rate doesn't create more economic growth.

But I wasn't attempting to make the second point - you assumed that was where I was going (or the only place I was going). I think we're back to you assuming 2-3%, and me assuming European-style VATs and income taxes. We're clearer on each other's position on this point now - I hope.

But you know what? I wasn't satisfied with my lot in life, so I changed it. And I did it without sticking my hand out. Punishing me now because I managed to succeed is unfair. Why should I bear more than my share? You know who's entitled to what I have? Me.

You're making a big mistake in assuming that opposition to trickle down economics is coming from a desire to punish the rich. Punishing the rich is also a bs, but has nothing to do with why trickle down economics fail.

Have you been reading this thread? Melissa sounded like she wanted to line the street poles with the bodies of anyone making more than her! That was why I jumped in initially - because I've heard that kind of sentiment entirely too often lately, and its entirely misdirected.

Andrew1975 wrote:
Here is the chart that shows who actually pays taxes



As you can see, the rich own most of the wealth, but it's the middle that pays most of the taxes.

The richest decile earns 33% of the income and pays 45% of the taxes according to this source.

This is a little high, but not terribly out of bounds with other countries.

sebster wrote:

Andrew1975 wrote:It seams logical to me that tax should be a wealth based system. That top 20% that has 93% of the wealth should be covering 93% of the costs to run the system that feeds it. Almost like shares in a company.

Taxing wealth over income is a terrible idea.

From a purely pragmatic point of view, the actual value of wealth is highly subjective. We have a good idea what 10,000 shares in BP are worth on the last day of the tax year, but what's the value of my 10,000 acres of land outside of the city, currently awaiting development approval?

More than that, though, people can be asset rich and income poor. Consider a farmer having a poor year, he'd be paying wealth tax on his farm, while his farm is failing to generate revenue. Or consider a retired person, who has a number of assets they accumulated over their lives, but little in new income. They'd have to sell assets to pay the tax on their wealth.

Or think about two guys. Both earn $200,000 a year. One blows through his cash, living out of a pricey rented apartment, leasing fancy cars, splashing money around on chicks and blow. The other lives well, but saves many thousands each year, invests well and after a decade or so has built a nest egg of around $600,000 or 700,000. The second guy would get taxed more, because he is living responsibly.

And worst of all, you'd be adding a surcharge onto any productive asset. If the market demanded a 12% expected return to make investment in a new factory worthwhile, it would now have to consider the (say...) 3% wealth tax on the money involved. All of a sudden that factory would have to generate 15% in expected returns to be worthwhile. It'd kill investment.

That's why we focus on taxing income instead.

Right, I see your point. It makes sense. Like I said it's not perfect by any means. But currently the ratio is so screwed up, it should be brought more into line.

The richest decile earns 33% of the income and pays 45% of the taxes according to this source.

This is a little high, but not terribly out of bounds with other countries.

They earn 33% of the income, but they also have 85% of the wealth. The problem with tacking the income of the wealthy is that there are ways around income. Hell steve jobs was only making $1 a year from apple. I'm sure that's not what he was living on.

Obviously there needs to be a responsible figure, you can't crush the rich, their wealth is vital to US stability. Their investments are required as much as the sweat is required from the poor. They are better off because they are not ditch diggers, but we all are better off because they are not ditch diggers. I get it. I know this. But the wealth ratios are just getting out of control.

Or think about two guys. Both earn $200,000 a year. One blows through his cash, living out of a pricey rented apartment, leasing fancy cars, splashing money around on chicks and blow. The other lives well, but saves many thousands each year, invests well and after a decade or so has built a nest egg of around $600,000 or 700,000. The second guy would get taxed more, because he is living responsibly.

Hasn't the extravagant guy paid his taxes in a. sales (lease) tax b. rent(landlord uses this to pay property tax) c. Income tax? He is actually redistributing wealth. The wise investor however has saved his money, redistributed wealth, but not to the extent of spendy spenderson. The economy needs both kinds of people. At the end of the day the investor has greater wealth and as paid less taxes (probably), so maybe he should be taxed more. Obviously not to the point where you put him at the same wealth level as spendy, but his wealth should be taxed. No?

It's crazy when you look at the distribution of wealth. The bottom of the top 10% is making $200k a year. I mean I wouldn't even call that rich, much less wealthy. That top .1% is astronomically richer than anyone needs to be. 8 out of the 15 wealthiest people in America.......Inherited money! Not shocking, but they majority did not get there through their own hard work and drive like some people expound. In some ways its amazing to me that someone who didn't inherit, Bill Gaits is even able to compete much less top the list. I understand that he was able to, I'm just amazed he was able to.

This is what I found astounding


The people that I think of as rich, really have nothing on THE RICH. This graph isn't even wealth, it's just income!

VoidAngel wrote:Nobody is saying "trickle down is the complete answer". But several were saying that it's complete bull$h!t - which is not true.

If the 1979 incomes of each quintile of the population were "just right", it would be reasonable to expect them all to rise roughly at the same rate as GDP. Yet income accelerated massively for the super rich and much less for everyone else. Essentially, the top 1% of the population got a lot of the money which should have gone to the bottom 99%.

It looks more like a "fire hose up" than a "trickle down".

To be fair, let's suppose that the top 1% are the people who do all the important work in terms of research, leadership, entrepreneurship and so on, which drives economic growth. Deprived of their rightful gains, they slack off, with the result that average GDP growth is halved. What effect what that have on everyone's income?

Lowest Fifth====25,213
Second Fifth====51,086
Middle Fifth====72,674
Fourth Fifth====95,085
Top Fifth======167,594
Top 1%======571,171

The bottom 80% still are better off than under the trickle down regime. The top 20% still have 84% of the gains they got under "trickle down". This injustice could be easily rectified by some redistribution.

That's just a thought experiment, though. Let's take an example from history.

If we examine the 28 years of 1951 to 1979, before "trickle down" became policy, we find that US GDP growth was nearly 23% higher than during the supposedly successful "trickle down" 28 years.

VoidAngel wrote:Nobody is saying "trickle down is the complete answer". But several were saying that it's complete bull$h!t - which is not true.

In particular, he attacked Republicans' proposal to cut taxes for the wealthy while making elderly Americans pay more for their healthcare, as analysts have said the Republican plan would work out. "They want to give people like me a $200,000 tax cut that's paid for by asking 33 seniors to each pay $6,000 more in health costs?" Mr Obama asked. "That's not right, and it's not going to happen as long as I'm president. "The fact is, their vision is less about reducing the deficit than it is about changing the basic social compact in America. "There's nothing serious about a plan that claims to reduce the deficit by spending a trillion dollars on tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires." But top Republicans, whom Mr Obama briefed on his proposal on Tuesday morning, have staunchly rejected his call to increase tax revenue raised from wealthy Americans. The House is due to vote on Mr Ryan's proposal on Friday.

The rich have earned not only their comfort, but opulence, the old have earned nothing. So we will give the rich a tax break that is worth more than what 90% of people earn in a year.Really? Nice budget proposal! The rich aren't trying to screw anybody!

VoidAngel wrote:I was making fun of the idea that there's some conspiracy to import Mexicans in order to obtain a cheap workforce.

What conspiracy? Who suggested such a thing? You're not making sense.

Do you realize that this is your standard answer, in every thread, when you have had a deeply held belief challenged? Saying "move on" doesn't make you right, it makes you tired of not being agreed with. It does nothing to convince the other party of anything. We disagree on this issue. The issue is not settled. It will be at some time in the future - and we'll know who was right.

I say it a lot because there are a lot of posters here who lack the honesty to see when something it true, accept it and move on.

The issue is settled. Iraq was invaded more than eight years ago. It caused no drive for democracy in the surrounding countries. We know this. It's done. Move on.

Another common tactic of yours. Tiresome. Tell me that Scandinavians don't pay on the order of 50% taxes when all is said and done. Oh, and Germany and France are even higher, I believe.

No, the claim wasn't that they pay more in taxes, we all know this, that is obvious. Your claim was that countries in Europe charge so much in taxes on the rich that it is counter-productive, as more rich people leave than pay the higher rate.

You have not in any way substantiated that claim. I put it to you that you can't substantiate it, because it isn't true. You should either attempt to make good on your claim, or concede it.

You clearly have such a strong expectation, that you can't read what is actually written. I'm asking what the man's definition of fair is.

As I just explained, which despite being in plain English has obviously completely escaped you, I wasn't commenting on your question to Andrew. I don't care about that.

I was just surprised that in your example the average rate paid by the rich man was lower than the average rate paid by the middle class guy. Even among the far right you won't see that kind of thing supported (at worst they go for a flat rate of tax).

So if a wealthier person buys a top of the line BMW instead of an entry level one - because he's had an increase in income...that's "less"? Assuming his or her retirement funding is secure (or on target) - most people will spend more if they are making more. Hell, most people will just spend more, period. Rich, poor, in the middle...if they suddenly acquire more income.

It is a basic point of economics that when the rich earn more money they will spend a smaller percentage of it on consumer goods than middle class and poor people.

That's really, really basic economics there. As in introductory macro, taught in year 10. You're making yourself look really bad by not getting it.

But I wasn't attempting to make the second point - you assumed that was where I was going (or the only place I was going). I think we're back to you assuming 2-3%, and me assuming European-style VATs and income taxes. We're clearer on each other's position on this point now - I hope.

But weren't you claiming trickle down worked in the US? As Killkrazy's excellent post showed, the experiment with trickle down in the US hasn't worked, growth hasn't increased, and what growth there's been has been centred among the most wealthy.

Have you been reading this thread? Melissa sounded like she wanted to line the street poles with the bodies of anyone making more than her! That was why I jumped in initially - because I've heard that kind of sentiment entirely too often lately, and its entirely misdirected.

I tend not to read Melissia's post, to be honest. When I do I end up arguing with her in much the same way as I'm arguing with you


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Andrew1975 wrote:Right, I see your point. It makes sense. Like I said it's not perfect by any means. But currently the ratio is so screwed up, it should be brought more into line.

Oh definitely, the rich need to be paying more in tax for the US to move back to a sustainable budget. Your idea of approximating the tax rates on wealth distribution is a pretty good idea as well.

I was commenting purely on the idea of directly taxing wealth, that is to say you have assets worth $800,000, you pay 5% (or whatever) as tax for simply owning them. Which doesn't work.

Actually just having a higher tax rate of higher income earners does work, though.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Polonius wrote:Tax brackets don't change your overall tax rate, just the rate at the money earned in that bracket. So when you earn money that moves you inot a new bracket, only that income is taxed at that rate, not everything you've earned before.

Yeah, it's what they call the marginal tax rate, it's the tax rate paid on the next dollar you earn. The point being that when you go up into a new bracket and start paying a higher marginal rate, you aren't paying more taxes on other income, that still gets charged at the old rate.. That is, in the US right now on the first $8,375 dollars you earn you pay 10% in tax. If you earn more than that, you start paying 15% on every dollar over and above that, but you still only pay $837.50 on that first $8,375 in income, no matter how much more you earn.

Sebster: I'd argue we actually go out of our way to not tax wealth, in the form of reduced rates for capital gains and even dividends.

Yeah, there's been a sustained effort to kickstart investment and economic activity by dropping capital gains rates. It hasn't worked, which for some reason has only caused people to want to drop the rates further.

Mind you, I think capital gains and dividends should be seen as what they really are, income, and treated no differently from any other income. You don't pay taxes when they're generated, but instead you add them on to your taxable income at year end and pay taxes on it like any other income.

You are correct in that every study has shown that regardless of the tax rate, the wealthy will still persue more wealth.

It seems a very funny creation that people have placed in their heads, the idea of this rich person who sees an opportunity to invest and make $100,000, but upon realising he'd have to pay $40,000 in taxes instead of $35,000, he just says "feth it all I can't be bothered writing out the cheque".

But people keep on believing it...

sebster wrote:

VoidAngel wrote:I was making fun of the idea that there's some conspiracy to import Mexicans in order to obtain a cheap workforce.

What conspiracy? Who suggested such a thing? You're not making sense.

The one you implied. Do you even read your own spew?

Do you realize that this is your standard answer, in every thread, when you have had a deeply held belief challenged? Saying "move on" doesn't make you right, it makes you tired of not being agreed with. It does nothing to convince the other party of anything. We disagree on this issue. The issue is not settled. It will be at some time in the future - and we'll know who was right.

I say it a lot because there are a lot of posters here who lack the honesty to see when something it true, accept it and move on.

The issue is settled. Iraq was invaded more than eight years ago. It caused no drive for democracy in the surrounding countries. We know this. It's done. Move on.

One commonly acknowledged marker of stupidity is to make the same mistake over and over again. As for the war...may I direct your attention away from your navel - and to the news?

Another common tactic of yours. Tiresome. Tell me that Scandinavians don't pay on the order of 50% taxes when all is said and done. Oh, and Germany and France are even higher, I believe.

No, the claim wasn't that they pay more in taxes, we all know this, that is obvious. Your claim was that countries in Europe charge so much in taxes on the rich that it is counter-productive, as more rich people leave than pay the higher rate.

You have not in any way substantiated that claim. I put it to you that you can't substantiate it, because it isn't true. You should either attempt to make good on your claim, or concede it.

No - this is the first time you are claiming to have known that all along on this subject (and the third time in as many days....I see a pattern). Actually, I never said that the rich themselves were leaving Europe - but their investments sure are. They're moving their money out of reach - out of bonds, out of equities, etc. The reasons for this are complex (currency exchange rates, inflation, asset volatility, TAXES). But it harms the poor by raising interest rates, doesn't it?

You clearly have such a strong expectation, that you can't read what is actually written. I'm asking what the man's definition of fair is.

As I just explained, which despite being in plain English has obviously completely escaped you, I wasn't commenting on your question to Andrew. I don't care about that.

I was just surprised that in your example the average rate paid by the rich man was lower than the average rate paid by the middle class guy. Even among the far right you won't see that kind of thing supported (at worst they go for a flat rate of tax).

GO BACK AND READ. 1) I said "just for the sake of argument". 2) I was using the percentages bandied about by him and Melissa (I think) just a couple of posts above mine.

So if a wealthier person buys a top of the line BMW instead of an entry level one - because he's had an increase in income...that's "less"? Assuming his or her retirement funding is secure (or on target) - most people will spend more if they are making more. Hell, most people will just spend more, period. Rich, poor, in the middle...if they suddenly acquire more income.

It is a basic point of economics that when the rich earn more money they will spend a smaller percentage of it on consumer goods than middle class and poor people.

That's really, really basic economics there. As in introductory macro, taught in year 10. You're making yourself look really bad by not getting it.

That's part of why they are rich. I thought that was pretty basic knowledge, too. My point was, "less isn't zero." That's all. You have this propensity for trying to make my points into something they are not. Stop it. It's dishonest argumentation.

But I wasn't attempting to make the second point - you assumed that was where I was going (or the only place I was going). I think we're back to you assuming 2-3%, and me assuming European-style VATs and income taxes. We're clearer on each other's position on this point now - I hope.

But weren't you claiming trickle down worked in the US? As Killkrazy's excellent post showed, the experiment with trickle down in the US hasn't worked, growth hasn't increased, and what growth there's been has been centred among the most wealthy.

I was claiming that it did not make the poor poorer. On principle I reject any notion that one person is entitled to another person's wealth because they have more of it. "You have two pairs of shoes and I have none - gimme!" No, I made both of mine while you played in the dirt - @#$% you. Killcrazy said that the super rich "got" 99% of what the poor "should have" gotten in that time period. By what logic? They didn't "get" it - they earned it. If some of them stole it, those people owe the poor. If they "stole" it "legally" due to some social injustice perpetrated by a Vast Right Wing Conspiracy (incidentally, most of the seriously rich people I know, are Democrats and liberal ones at that...hmmmm)...I will not argue against a closing of those loopholes.

Have you been reading this thread? Melissa sounded like she wanted to line the street poles with the bodies of anyone making more than her! That was why I jumped in initially - because I've heard that kind of sentiment entirely too often lately, and its entirely misdirected.

I tend not to read Melissia's post, to be honest. When I do I end up arguing with her in much the same way as I'm arguing with you

What do I have to do to get into that club?

Yeah, there's been a sustained effort to kickstart investment and economic activity by dropping capital gains rates. It hasn't worked, which for some reason has only caused people to want to drop the rates further.

This is pretty much the story of the Republican party's attempts to kickstart the economy over the past decade.

Have you been reading this thread? Melissa sounded like she wanted to line the street poles with the bodies of anyone making more than her!

Histrionic hyperbole is stupid, and does not reflect well upon those who use it.

Oooh...that hurt my widdle feewings. I want my Moddy.

No, seriously, you sounded like you wanted to start a rich people pogrom. I can't help how you sounded.

VoidAngel wrote:
No, seriously, you sounded like you wanted to start a rich people pogrom. I can't help how you sounded.

Seeing as the way something "sounds" when its read is as much a matter of the reader as the writer, yes you can.

dogma wrote:

VoidAngel wrote:
No, seriously, you sounded like you wanted to start a rich people pogrom. I can't help how you sounded.

Seeing as the way something "sounds" when its read is as much a matter of the reader as the writer, yes you can.

Are you telling me that all the barista's aren't really flirting with me?

Well Dogma, considering that you constantly misread my posts - I guess you'd know. I gave up trying to explain to you.

VoidAngel wrote:No, seriously, you sounded like you wanted to start a rich people pogrom. I can't help how you sounded.

No, I didn't.

You just refused to (and seemingly still refuse to) accept any other interpretation of my posts than that despite all logic and reason.

Polonius wrote:

dogma wrote:

VoidAngel wrote:
No, seriously, you sounded like you wanted to start a rich people pogrom. I can't help how you sounded.

Seeing as the way something "sounds" when its read is as much a matter of the reader as the writer, yes you can.

Are you telling me that all the barista's aren't really flirting with me?

Even more importantly, is he suggesting that strippers really don't find me handsome?

Polonius wrote:

dogma wrote:

VoidAngel wrote:
No, seriously, you sounded like you wanted to start a rich people pogrom. I can't help how you sounded.

Seeing as the way something "sounds" when its read is as much a matter of the reader as the writer, yes you can.

Are you telling me that all the barista's aren't really flirting with me?

We would never (openly) tell you that. We say it when you aren't here out of respect and becuase we love America so much.

I was claiming that it did not make the poor poorer. On principle I reject any notion that one person is entitled to another person's wealth because they have more of it. "You have two pairs of shoes and I have none - gimme!" No, I made both of mine while you played in the dirt - @#$% you. Killcrazy said that the super rich "got" 99% of what the poor "should have" gotten in that time period. By what logic? They didn't "get" it - they earned it. If some of them stole it, those people owe the poor. If they "stole" it "legally" due to some social injustice perpetrated by a Vast Right Wing Conspiracy (incidentally, most of the seriously rich people I know, are Democrats and liberal ones at that...hmmmm)...I will not argue against a closing of those loopholes.

I think that most of us were saying that the Republican road map, by granting $250k in additional tax incentives to the rich and then cutting entitlement programs is tantamount to saying. "I have 2 pairs of gold plated shoes, you better give me those buddy's* you've got, live with the socks, you don't really work anyway. I'll eventually come for your socks though, so you can join the shoeless wonders over there, they really don't work. Why do I have to give shoeless people my crumbs! Why won't you work harder!"

*Buddy's may be regional, but they are slang for essentially generic cheap knock off shoes

The truth is, the rich people that you probably know are in reality a minor blip on the wealth scale. NO REALLY.

Again the portion of the population that owns 85% of the machine does not pay for 85% of the machine! Statistics show they may pay for 50%, that is a 35% discrepancy. The people that are really burdened only own 15% of the machine, but have to pay for 50% of it.

* Last year, total compensation for CEOs averaged $11.4 million, up 23 percent from the previous year, according to data for 299 major companies.
* CEOs at those 299 companies raked in a total of $3.4 billion. That's enough to support over 100,000 jobs that paying the median wage of just over $33,000.
* Average CEO compensation is 343 times that median wage.
* Ray Irani, the outgoing CEO of Occidental Petroleum Corp., took in $76.1 million in compensation last year. Over the last decade, he received $857 million. "We're not in the business to employ people. We're in the business to make a profit," Irani has said, according to the AP.
* Evan at large financial services companies -- where the furor over bonuses was focused -- total compensation rose 5.7 percent in 2010, to a record $149 billion.

The numbers above include base salary, bonuses, stock awards, and any other form of compensation.

The site, Executive Paywatch, allows users to search for specific companies and find out how much their CEO was paid. For instance, it says that G.E. CEO Jeff Immelt, who also serves as President Obama's "jobs czar," took in $21,428,765 in total compensation last year.

The Dodd-Frank legislation passed by Congress last year included several provisions aimed at making it easier for shareholders to rein in excessive executive pay. For instance, it required companies to publicly disclose the ratio between CEO pay and the pay of their median worker.

The AFL-CIO's campaign comes at a time of increased concern over growing inequality. As we've noted, the income of the richest 1 percent of Americans has exploded over the last 30 years, while income growth for the bottom 90 percent has remained barely budged.

Yahoo.com

VoidAngel wrote:Well Dogma, considering that you constantly misread my posts - I guess you'd know. I gave up trying to explain to you.

It isn't my fault that nearly everything you have said in this thread has been wrong.

Hardly. What you're reading as wrong looks that way to you because you are reading it wrong. I'll see you in some on-topic thread where we can have a pleasant conversation. Here, you are not worth talking to.

Are they really going to shut down? That would suck.

IT LIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIVES!

Occurs to me; I should have reported the other guys post >.>

Arise from the dark depths from which you lay, ye thread of old!

Yes, back to the depths please!